😱 Judge Tosses Wolff Suit — Melania’s $1B Claim Moves Forward

A federal judge has dismissed author and journalist Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against first lady Melania Trump, rejecting his attempt to use the case to head off a potential $1 billion defamation lawsuit over his public comments about her and Jeffrey Epstein.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed Wolff’s case on May 22, 2026, saying the dispute should be handled through ordinary legal procedures rather than through a preemptive federal action. The ruling did not determine whether Wolff’s statements were defamatory or whether Melania Trump would ultimately prevail in a separate lawsuit.

Vyskocil wrote that the two sides have a “real dispute,” but said they must litigate it “according to the same procedures as everyone else.” She characterized Wolff’s lawsuit as an attempt to obtain a ruling before the threatened defamation case had been filed.

The dispute began after attorneys for Melania Trump sent Wolff a demand letter concerning statements he had made publicly about the first lady and Epstein. According to the federal court’s opinion, the letter demanded that Wolff retract the statements and apologize. It warned that Melania Trump would pursue a $1 billion lawsuit if he did not comply.

Rather than wait for the threatened lawsuit, Wolff filed his own action in New York state court in October 2025. His lawsuit sought, among other things, to prevent the first lady from pursuing the threatened defamation case.

Melania Trump’s legal team moved the case to federal court. Wolff later sought to have it returned to state court, while Melania Trump asked the federal court to dismiss the action.

Judge Vyskocil concluded that the federal court had jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states and the threatened dispute involved a potential $1 billion claim. But she declined to exercise that jurisdiction, invoking the doctrine of prudential abstention. The court therefore dismissed Wolff’s lawsuit rather than deciding the underlying defamation questions.

The judge was sharply critical of what she viewed as the procedural strategy behind Wolff’s filing. In her 45-page opinion, she said Wolff was effectively asking the court to decide that he would win if Melania Trump later sued him.

The ruling also rejected the idea that the federal court should become the forum for deciding the dispute before the threatened defamation action followed the normal litigation process.

Melania Trump has previously denied any improper association with Epstein, who died in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.

Wolff, a longtime Trump biographer, has argued that some of his comments were protected opinion and that other remarks had been taken out of context. His lawsuit also maintained that he had not accused Melania Trump of participating in criminal activity connected to Epstein.

The controversy has drawn renewed attention to the broader debate over public statements concerning Epstein and the Trump family. It has also become a legal battle over when a person threatened with litigation can go to court first to challenge the threatened action.

For now, however, the federal ruling leaves the underlying defamation dispute unresolved.

Wolff has appealed Vyskocil’s dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appellate case is active, with a briefing schedule extending into October 2026.

The May ruling therefore represents a procedural victory for Melania Trump, but it does not establish that she has won a $1 billion judgment against Wolff. Nor does it determine whether the statements at issue were defamatory.

Instead, the decision sends the dispute back toward the ordinary litigation process, where the parties can argue the merits of their respective positions under the applicable laws and court procedures.