Federal Judge Dismisses Michael Wolff’s Lawsuit Against Melania Trump Over $1 Billion Defamation Threat
A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed journalist and author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump, ruling that his attempt to obtain advance legal protection against a threatened defamation lawsuit was not an appropriate use of the federal court system.
In an opinion issued May 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil concluded that Wolff and Melania Trump have a genuine legal dispute but must resolve it through ordinary legal procedures. The judge described Wolff’s approach as “contorted” and criticized what she called an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship.” <Cite refs={[“turn783454search0″,”turn783454search3”]}/>
The ruling does not determine whether the disputed statements were defamatory. Instead, the court declined to hear Wolff’s case under the circumstances and dismissed it so the parties could litigate any appropriate claims through the regular legal process.
How the Dispute Began
The legal battle began after Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, sent Wolff a letter demanding that he retract statements concerning her and her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
The letter threatened a defamation lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion in damages if Wolff did not comply with the demands.
Wolff responded by filing a lawsuit in state court in October 2025. He sought legal protection against the threatened action, arguing that the threatened litigation could improperly restrict his speech and reporting. Melania Trump’s legal team subsequently moved the case to federal court. <Cite refs={[“turn783454search1″,”turn783454search4”]}/>
Although Judge Vyskocil found that the federal court had jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states and the threatened damages exceeded the relevant jurisdictional threshold, she declined to exercise that jurisdiction under a doctrine known as prudential abstention.
In practical terms, the dismissal was procedural. It did not establish that either side was correct about the underlying allegations.
Competing Positions Over the Statements
Melania Trump has denied the allegations connecting her to Epstein-related wrongdoing. Her representatives have argued that the disputed statements were false and damaged her reputation.
In an earlier public statement, the first lady called for an end to what she described as lies linking her to Epstein. She also urged Congress to allow victims to testify under oath and called for further action concerning the broader Epstein matter.
Wolff, meanwhile, argued in his filing that the threatened lawsuit formed part of a broader pattern of using expensive legal threats to discourage criticism of the president and his family. He maintained that some of his statements were taken out of context and that others constituted protected opinion.
He also argued that he had not accused Melania Trump of participating in Epstein’s criminal activities. These assertions represent Wolff’s position in the litigation, rather than findings established by the court.
