A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit filed by journalist Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump on Thursday, rejecting what the court characterized as an improper attempt to block her defamation claims and clearing the way for her separate legal action seeking roughly $1 billion in damages.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, said Wolff’s filing represented “an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” and amounted to “not how federal courts work.” The decision allows Trump’s defamation case against Wolff to proceed in New York state court, where it was originally filed in October.
What Happened
Wolff sought to have the federal court oversee his dispute with the first lady after Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, moved the case from state court to the federal system. Vyskocil acknowledged that federal jurisdiction existed but declined to exercise it, saying she would not be “drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat” between the two parties. “This case dismisses to be litigated like any other,” she said, returning the matter to state court.
The legal battle centers on Wolff’s public statements regarding Melania Trump and the Epstein scandal. In an interview, Wolff suggested the first lady had involvement in matters related to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who died in jail in 2019 while facing trial on child sex trafficking charges. The Daily Beast published an article based on that interview last summer titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” but later retracted it after receiving a legal notice from Brito.
The Reaction
In her statement responding to the allegations, Melania Trump categorically denied any association with Epstein or his criminal enterprises. “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect,” she said. “I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”
Trump’s legal team argued that Wolff and others had made baseless claims designed to damage her reputation and financial standing. Brito contended that such statements caused the first lady “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.” Wolff, for his part, countered that the Trump family has established a pattern of using costly litigation to silence critics and extract settlements, characterizing such actions as efforts to suppress free speech and intimidate opposition voices.
Some Republican lawmakers weighed in during the controversy. Rep. Nancy Mace praised Melania Trump’s stance on the issue, noting that the first lady had been an advocate for legislation addressing the distribution of fake intimate images. “Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” Mace said. “The truth will prevail.”
What This Means
The dismissal of Wolff’s federal lawsuit removes a procedural obstacle to the first lady’s defamation case moving forward in state court. Legal experts anticipate the matter will now proceed through the New York state system, where damages claims of the magnitude Melania Trump seeks would face distinct evidentiary and procedural requirements. The outcome underscores ongoing tension between free speech protections afforded to journalists and public figures’ ability to pursue civil remedies for alleged false statements.
The ruling also reflects continued scrutiny of how courts evaluate counterclaims and defensive filings in high-profile disputes. Vyskocil’s characterization of Wolff’s approach as improper gamesmanship suggests the judiciary is monitoring the tactical use of federal jurisdiction to delay or derail parallel litigation in state courts. As the case moves forward, questions remain about what damages, if any, may ultimately be recoverable and whether the dispute will influence public discourse around media accountability and the boundaries of commentary on public figures.
