BREAKING, Author Michael Wolff Strikes First Files Shocking Lawsuit Against Melania Trump Over $1 Billion Threat
Another legal twist, journalist Michael Wolff has turned the tables on First Lady Melania Trump, filing a lawsuit against her just hours before her deadline to force his retraction.
Author Michael Wolff sued First Lady Melania Trump on October 21, 2025, after her legal team threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit if he didn’t “immediately retract” and apologize for allegedly defamatory remarks linking her to Jeffrey Epstein. The case represents one of the first high-profile tests of New York’s expanded anti-SLAPP laws protecting journalists from intimidation lawsuits.
This isn’t your typical defamation case. Wolff is using so-called anti-SLAPP laws for the case, which ban powerful people from using legal actions to shut down journalism. The legal showdown could reshape how public figures use defamation threats to silence media coverage.
What Triggered This Legal Bombshell
The confrontation began when Michael Wolff, author of the explosive “Fire and Fury” series about Donald Trump, made public statements about Melania Trump’s connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein.
Wolff told the Daily Beast that Melania was “very involved” in the Epstein scandal and could be the missing link in President Trump’s ties to Epstein. The comments appeared in a Daily Beast article and podcast, sparking immediate pushback from the First Lady’s legal team.
The Billion-Dollar Threat Letter
On October 15, 2025, Melania Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito sent Wolff a letter demanding he retract statements including that Epstein had claimed Melania first slept with Trump on the late pedophile’s private jet—or face being sued for at least $1 billion.
The letter accused Wolff of making “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements” and gave him until October 22 to:
- Issue a complete retraction
- Provide a full public apology
- Make a monetary proposal to compensate Melania Trump
Instead of backing down, Wolff filed his own lawsuit.
Wolff’s Bold Legal Strategy: The Anti-SLAPP Counterstrike
Rather than wait to be sued, Michael Wolff took the offense. Wolff filed the 15-page civil defamation suit in New York Supreme Court under the state’s anti-SLAPP law, short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, which is designed to block lawsuits intended to chill speech.
What Makes This an Anti-SLAPP Case?
Wolff claims the First Lady’s lawsuit threat is an attempt to silence him through intimidation and the potential for large legal fees, stating that “Mrs. Trump and her ‘unitary executive’ husband along with their MAGA myrmidons have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them with costly SLAPP actions in order to silence their speech”.
SLAPP suits — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — are designed to silence speech and intimidate recipients with the threat of defending expensive lawsuits. They’re particularly effective against journalists and activists who lack the resources to fight prolonged legal battles.
New York’s Powerful Anti-SLAPP Law
In November 2020, New York significantly expanded its anti-SLAPP law to cover cases involving “any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest”.
The expanded law provides critical protections:
- Heightened burden for plaintiffs: Plaintiffs may not recover damages unless they show “by clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant made the statement knowing it was false or “with reckless disregard” as to whether it was false
- Mandatory fee-shifting: A defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to receive their attorney’s fees and costs
- Punitive damages available: Defendants can recover additional damages if they prove the plaintiff brought the case to harass or inhibit free speech
Wolff’s Legal Arguments: Why He Claims Protection
In his lawsuit filing, Wolff makes several key arguments defending his statements about Melania Trump:
1. Statements Were Protected Opinion
The statement that the Trumps were in a “sham marriage, trophy marriage,” was a “fair and justified” statement of opinion, according to the lawsuit.
Opinion is protected under the First Amendment and cannot form the basis of defamation claims. Courts distinguish between verifiable factual claims and subjective opinions based on disclosed facts.
2. Context Matters
Wolff argues that the statements Melania Trump claims to be defamatory were taken out of context, and in proper context are protected opinion and hypothesis based on disclosed facts and broader context.
The Daily Beast later retracted its article, but the full text of the retracted Daily Beast article is no longer available online, with the publication saying in an editor’s note that “Upon reflection, we have determined that the article did not meet our standards and has therefore been removed from our platforms”.
3. Public Interest Reporting
Wolff argues “It is not defamatory to say that Mrs. Trump is actively managing the present White House response to the controversy” and “Nor is it defamatory to say that Mrs. Trump was involved in Epstein’s rather expansive social circle”.
4. No Accusation of Criminal Conduct
The lawsuit noted that Wolff never said Melania Trump was involved in any of Epstein’s crimes. This distinction is critical — suggesting someone was part of a social circle is legally different from accusing them of criminal activity.
5. Actual Malice Cannot Be Proven
Wolff asserts that Melania Trump cannot prove the required burden of actual malice with clear and convincing evidence that Wolff did not believe his statements to be true.
What Wolff Is Seeking: The Endgame
Wolff is seeking his legal fees covered as well as compensatory and punitive damages. But perhaps more importantly, he wants something else:
In a video Wednesday on Instagram, Wolff said he hopes to be able to depose the Trumps as part of his legal action, stating “To be perfectly honest, I’d like nothing better than to get Donald Trump and Melania Trump under oath in front of a court reporter and actually find out all of the details of their relationship with Epstein”.
Discovery in this case could potentially force both Donald and Melania Trump to answer questions under oath about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — something the former president has consistently avoided.
The First Amendment Implications: Why This Case Matters
“These threatened legal actions are designed to create a climate of fear in the nation so that people cannot freely or confidently exercise their First Amendment rights,” Wolff stated in the suit.
The Chilling Effect on Journalism
When powerful figures threaten massive lawsuits, it creates what lawyers call a “chilling effect” on free speech. Even if the threatened lawsuit would ultimately fail, the cost of defending it can be devastating.
Consider the economics:
- Defending a defamation lawsuit can cost $100,000 to $500,000 or more
- Most journalists and small publications cannot afford these legal fees
- The threat alone can force retractions and silence critical reporting
Wolff says the libel threat letter is part of a pattern of abusive litigation deployed by the Trumps, “designed to create a climate of fear in the nation so that people cannot freely or confidently exercise their First Amendment rights”.
Trump’s History with Media Litigation
President Trump recently targeted the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over an article detailing a ribald letter Trump supposedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday, seeking $10 billion in that defamation lawsuit.
The pattern is clear: high-dollar lawsuits against media organizations that publish unflattering stories.
Understanding Defamation Law: Public Figures vs. Private Citizens
The legal standards in this case hinge on Melania Trump’s status as a public figure.
The Actual Malice Standard
As First Lady, Melania Trump is unquestionably a public figure. This triggers a higher legal standard established in the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
Public figures suing for defamation must prove “actual malice” — that is:
- The defendant knew the statement was false, OR
- The defendant acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false
This is an intentionally high bar. It’s not enough to show the statement was false or that the defendant was negligent. The plaintiff must prove the defendant had serious doubts about the truth of the statement but published it anyway.
Why This Standard Exists
The Supreme Court created this standard to protect “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues. Without it, public officials could use defamation lawsuits to silence critics and chill investigative journalism.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment requires libel plaintiffs who are public officials or public figures to satisfy this high standard of fault, known as “actual malice.” New York’s anti-SLAPP law codifies that standard and now requires private figures to demonstrate the same level of fault before recovering damages in lawsuits involving matters of public interest.
The Epstein Factor: What’s Really at Stake
“The threats are also intended to shut down legitimate inquiry into the Epstein matter which the Trumps and their collaborators have at every turn sought to impede and suppress,” according to the lawsuit.
The Missing Epstein Files
There remains significant public interest in understanding the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to powerful figures, including Donald Trump. As the Trump administration often appears to bring the full weight of the federal government from keeping the much MAGA discussed Epstein files out of public view (Elon Musk says Trump is in them), the First Lady is also apparently upset about Wolff’s comment that she is in a “sham: marriage”.
What Wolff Claims to Know
According to the lawsuit, among the statements it said were true were that Melania Trump was “very involved” in Epstein’s social circle, where she met her future husband, and that Donald Trump liked to have sex with his friend’s wives and first slept with Melania Trump on Epstein’s private jet.
The lawsuit said it was fair to question how Melania Trump fits into the Epstein story and added it was proper to “find out what happened in Mr. Trump’s and Epstein’s 10 years of pursuing models, including supermodels, runway models, catalog models, Eastern European models, and girls who just dreamed of being models”.
Wolff conducted interviews with Epstein before his death in 2019, potentially giving him firsthand source material for his claims.
Melania Trump’s Response: Standing Firm
“First Lady Melania Trump is proud to continue standing up to those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct,” her spokesperson told Axios.
The First Lady’s team maintains that Wolff’s statements are false and defamatory, and they appear ready to fight this case rather than back down from their threat.
The Procedural Path Forward: What Happens Next
Filing and Initial Motions
The case was filed in New York Supreme Court (which, confusingly, is actually New York’s trial-level court, not its highest court). We can expect:
1. Melania Trump’s Response
She has several options:
- File a motion to dismiss Wolff’s lawsuit
- Proceed with her own threatened defamation lawsuit
- Attempt to settle
2. Discovery
If the case proceeds, both parties will engage in discovery:
- Document requests
- Interrogatories (written questions)
- Depositions (sworn testimony)
This is where Wolff could potentially depose Donald and Melania Trump about their Epstein connections.
3. Anti-SLAPP Motion
Wolff will likely file motions under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute seeking:
- Dismissal of any counterclaims
- Attorney’s fees
- Punitive damages
Jurisdictional Considerations
Courts have differed over the extent to which the revised anti-SLAPP law applies in federal court, with federal district courts applying § 76-a, the provision that imposes an actual malice standard when the communications at issue are categorized as public participation.
If this case ends up in federal court (which is possible given the parties’ citizenship), questions about which provisions of New York’s anti-SLAPP law apply could complicate matters.
Similar Cases: Learning from Legal Precedent
The Kesha Case
The New York Court of Appeals recently addressed anti-SLAPP issues in Gottwald v. Sebert, the defamation case between music producer Dr. Luke and pop star Kesha.
The New York high court held that the remedies available under New York’s amended anti-SLAPP statute apply to cases that were pending on and continued after the amendments’ November 10, 2020 effective date, and that Dr. Luke is a limited public figure and must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
Trump Administration Legal Threats
In the last year of Donald Trump’s first term, his Justice Department sued Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former adviser to Melania Trump, over her tell-all book “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady,” seeking a constructive trust on any profits the author obtained from her book, but the suit was ultimately dropped by the Biden administration.
This history suggests the Trumps have used legal threats against authors before, with mixed results.
Expert Legal Analysis: Who Has the Stronger Case?
Wolff’s Advantages
Strong anti-SLAPP protections: New York’s law is among the nation’s strongest, providing robust defenses for journalists.
Public figure standard: Melania Trump must prove actual malice, an extremely difficult burden.
Public interest defense: The Epstein scandal is unquestionably a matter of public concern.
Opinion protection: Many of Wolff’s statements could be characterized as protected opinion rather than factual claims.
Melania Trump’s Arguments
Reputational harm: The statements linking her to Epstein could cause significant damage to her reputation.
Daily Beast retraction: The publication’s decision to retract suggests editorial concerns about accuracy.
Specific false claims: If Wolff made verifiable factual statements that are demonstrably false, those could be actionable.
Context limitations: The First Amendment doesn’t protect knowingly false statements of fact.
The Political Dimension: More Than Just Law
This case unfolds against a complex political backdrop:
- Donald Trump is currently president
- Melania Trump serves as First Lady
- The Epstein scandal remains politically volatile
- Press freedom concerns are heightened during politically divisive times
Wolff said bringing the case was a “difficult decision” and said, “I did not want to be in a lawsuit, but I also am a journalist and have been one for 40 years”.
The case tests whether journalists can investigate and report on powerful political figures without facing financially ruinous legal threats.
Practical Implications for Media and Journalists
The Precedent This Case Could Set
If Wolff wins:
- Strengthens anti-SLAPP protections
- Emboldens journalists to report on powerful figures
- Makes threatening litigation more costly for public figures
- Reinforces First Amendment protections
If Melania Trump wins:
- Could chill investigative journalism
- May encourage more defamation threats from public figures
- Creates uncertainty about anti-SLAPP protections
- Raises questions about reporting on public figures
Best Practices for Journalists
This case highlights critical considerations for journalists:
- Verify sources: Even with strong legal protections, accuracy matters
- Distinguish fact from opinion: Clearly label opinion and analysis
- Document everything: Maintain thorough records of reporting
- Consider context: Provide full context for statements
- Consult legal counsel: Review sensitive stories with media lawyers
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: Is Michael Wolff suing Melania Trump or is she suing him?
A: Michael Wolff filed the lawsuit against Melania Trump on October 21, 2025. This was a preemptive legal move after Melania Trump’s lawyers threatened to sue him for $1 billion if he didn’t retract statements about her connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Wolff filed first under New York’s anti-SLAPP law to protect himself from what he characterizes as an intimidation tactic designed to silence his journalism.
Q2: What is an anti-SLAPP lawsuit and why did Wolff use this strategy?
A: Anti-SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These laws protect people from lawsuits designed to silence free speech through expensive litigation. Wolff filed under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows him to seek attorney’s fees and damages if he proves Melania Trump’s threat was meant to chill his First Amendment rights. By filing first, he puts the burden on Melania Trump to prove her case has substantial merit, rather than waiting to defend against her threatened billion-dollar lawsuit.
Q3: What statements did Michael Wolff make about Melania Trump?
A: Wolff made several statements in interviews with The Daily Beast and on social media, including that Melania Trump was “very involved” in Jeffrey Epstein’s social circle, that she and Donald Trump met through Epstein connections, that they first had sex on Epstein’s private jet, and that their marriage is a “sham” or “trophy marriage.” Wolff argues these statements were either protected opinion, taken out of context, or factually accurate based on his reporting and interviews with Epstein before his death.
Q4: Can a First Lady sue for defamation?
A: Yes, a First Lady can sue for defamation, but as a public figure, she faces a much higher legal burden than a private citizen. Under the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan, Melania Trump would need to prove that Wolff either knew his statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth. This is an extremely difficult standard to meet and is designed to protect robust public debate about public officials and figures.
Q5: What could happen if Wolff is forced to depose Donald and Melania Trump?
A: If the case proceeds to discovery and Wolff is permitted to depose the Trumps, they would be required to answer questions under oath about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This could include questions about social interactions, business dealings, and specific allegations Wolff made. Lying under oath would be perjury, a criminal offense. However, they could invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for questions that might implicate them in crimes, though this would likely have political implications.
Q6: Why did The Daily Beast retract its article about Melania Trump and Epstein?
A: The Daily Beast issued a retraction and removed the article, stating it “did not meet our standards.” The publication didn’t provide specific reasons for the retraction. Retractions can occur for various reasons — factual errors, editorial concerns, lack of sufficient verification, or legal pressure. However, a publication’s decision to retract doesn’t necessarily mean all statements in the article were false, and it doesn’t automatically establish liability in a defamation case.
Q7: How much could this lawsuit cost and who pays?
A: Defamation litigation is expensive, potentially costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, if Wolff prevails, Melania Trump would be required to pay his attorney’s fees and costs, and potentially punitive damages. If she successfully defended or filed her own defamation claim and won, Wolff could face substantial damages. The billion-dollar threat Melania Trump made is likely hyperbolic — actual damages in defamation cases are typically much lower and based on proven reputational harm.
Conclusion: A Test Case for Press Freedom in the Modern Era
The Michael Wolff lawsuit against Melania Trump represents more than just another celebrity legal battle. It’s a crucial test of whether journalists can investigate and report on powerful political figures without facing financially devastating legal threats.
In the legal filing Wolff warns that Trump, his wife and their “MAGA myrmidons” try to use legal threats to “intimidate their critics,” “extract unjustified payments” and to get “North Korean style confessions and apologies”.
The case will likely determine:
- The effectiveness of New York’s expanded anti-SLAPP protections
- The scope of permissible reporting on public figures’ private associations
- Whether public figures can use billion-dollar threats to silence journalism
- The balance between reputational protection and First Amendment rights
As this litigation unfolds, it will be closely watched by media lawyers, journalists, First Amendment advocates, and anyone concerned about the future of investigative reporting in America.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: Michael Wolff has chosen to fight rather than fold, betting that New York’s anti-SLAPP law will protect his right to report on matters of public interest — even when those matters involve the most powerful people in the country.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is based on publicly available court documents, news reports, and legal analysis. Laws vary by jurisdiction and can change. For specific legal questions or concerns about defamation, anti-SLAPP protections, or media law, please consult with a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. While we strive for accuracy, ongoing litigation can produce new developments, and readers should independently verify current case status.
Last Updated: October 23, 2025
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah