A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit filed by journalist Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump on Wednesday, calling the legal filing “contorted” and improper, while simultaneously clearing a path for Trump’s own $1 billion defamation claim against the author.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled that while federal courts have jurisdiction over the case, she was declining to exercise that authority and instead sending the matter back to state court. The dismissal effectively removes a legal obstacle that had complicated Trump’s efforts to pursue her separate defamation lawsuit against Wolff.
What Happened
Wolff had filed the federal lawsuit in response to Trump’s defamation action in state court, which she initiated in October. The journalist’s complaint sought to block or challenge Trump’s claims, but Vyskocil found the tactical approach problematic. “It’s an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” Vyskocil said during the proceeding.
The judge declined to characterize the dispute as frivolous, acknowledging that both parties had underlying legitimate grievances. “I will not be drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat,” Vyskocil said, yet she noted that a “real dispute” exists between the two sides.
The Reaction
Trump’s legal team, led by attorney Alejandro Brito, had previously moved to shift the case from state to federal court. The First Lady’s lawyers have contended that Wolff’s statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.” In her initial response to the controversy, Trump stated, “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”
The central dispute centers on statements Wolff made regarding Trump and an alleged connection to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased financier who died in jail in 2019 while facing child sex trafficking charges. Trump has denied any association with Epstein. Wolff countered in his lawsuit that Trump and the President “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions “to silence their speech, to intimidate their critics generally, and to extract unjustified payments and North Korean-style confessions and apologies.”
The Daily Beast retracted an article last summer titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” which was based on Wolff’s statements, after receiving a legal letter from Brito. Wolff’s lawsuit clarified that he never accused the First Lady of involvement in criminal activity associated with Epstein.
What This Means
The judge’s dismissal removes a procedural hurdle that could have further delayed Trump’s $1 billion defamation claim against Wolff. By sending the case back to state court where Trump originally filed her suit, the ruling allows the First Lady’s legal team to proceed with their substantive claims without further federal court complications.
Congressional attention to the matter has also surfaced, with Republican Representative Nancy Mace praising Trump’s response at the time, stating, “Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” citing the First Lady’s advocacy for legislation addressing nonconsensual intimate images. Democratic Representative Robert Garcia separately called for a public congressional hearing, suggesting that the allegations warranted formal legislative scrutiny and testimony from relevant parties.
Legal experts anticipate that the case will now move through state court proceedings, where both sides will have opportunity to present evidence and arguments on the merits of the defamation claims. The outcome could set precedent for how courts handle disputes between public figures and journalists regarding statements made in media interviews and published accounts.
