A federal judge dismissed journalist Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump, rejecting what the court called a “contorted” legal strategy.
Manhattan Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that while federal court had jurisdiction over the case, she would decline to oversee what she characterized as an “abusively presented spat” between the parties. The dismissal clears the way for Trump’s defamation claims against Wolff to proceed in state court, where her legal team had originally filed the complaint.
The Court’s Decision
Vyskocil criticized the litigation approach, stating “It’s an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” according to court documents. She acknowledged that both sides maintained “a real dispute” worthy of resolution but determined federal court was not the appropriate venue for the matter.
Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, had moved the case to federal court in a procedural maneuver before the judge’s decision to return it to state jurisdiction. The judge’s ruling allows the defamation case to proceed through New York’s court system rather than the federal system.
The Dispute
Wolff had published statements suggesting Trump’s involvement in matters related to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who died in jail in 2019 while facing child sex trafficking charges. Trump’s legal team argued these statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm” and constituted defamation.
The Daily Beast retracted an article in 2024 titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author” after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Brito. Wolff clarified in his lawsuit that he never accused Trump of involvement in criminal activity associated with Epstein.
Response and Next Steps
A spokesperson for the first lady said Trump “is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct.”
Wolff’s legal filings argued that the Trump family “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions designed to silence critics and extract payments. The case will now proceed through New York state courts for resolution.