New York – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on May 22, 2026, that sought to compel President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump to testify under oath regarding their marriage and connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein. The ruling effectively halted a significant legal battle aimed at uncovering details about one of Washington’s most enigmatic partnerships.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, appointed by Trump, presided over the case in Manhattan federal court. She rejected author Michael Wolff’s initiative to invoke New York’s anti-SLAPP law in response to a $1 billion defamation threat posed by the first lady. Vyskocil’s 45-page ruling characterized Wolff’s lawsuit as an example of “textbook bad-faith forum shopping” and adopted a stance that both parties should adhere to traditional litigation procedures.
“The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that he deserves to win if the first lady pursues legal action against him,” Vyskocil remarked, highlighting the inadequacy of this approach within federal courts.
This ruling effectively curtails what could have quickly escalated into an extensive public investigation into the nature of the Trumps’ marriage, which has often been described as more contractual than romantic by some critics and biographers. Moreover, it denies Wolff the ability to leverage subpoena power to question the Trumps about their social links to Epstein, who was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on serious charges.
The legal dispute began in late 2025 when Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, dispatched a letter to Wolff, indicating that unless he retracted his statements regarding the first lady, litigation would be unavoidable. Wolff’s assertions claimed that the couple first engaged in a romantic relationship aboard Epstein’s private jet. Although this did not accuse Melania of wrongdoing, it nevertheless placed her within Epstein’s notorious social network.
Opting for a preemptive legal strike, Wolff filed in New York state court, seeking clarity on the non-defamatory nature of his comments before any lawsuit was launched. Brito successfully shifted the case to federal court, arguing for its dismissal or transfer to Florida, where Melania Trump has also initiated a defamation lawsuit.
Vyskocil acknowledged a valid dispute between the parties but determined that federal jurisdiction remained appropriate for the case, opting not to short-circuit the defamation threat against Wolff. “This court will not facilitate an abusively presented spat,” she stated, emphasizing the need for regular court procedures.
The dismissal comes at a sensitive time for Melania Trump’s carefully crafted public persona. In April 2026, she publicly denied any connection to Epstein in a rare White House appearance, labeling allegations linking her to the disgraced financier as “unfounded and baseless.” Her statement aimed to quell any speculation stirred by what surfaced in Justice Department files about her communications linked to Epstein’s accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Alongside these developments, Wolff’s filings included assertions that the lawsuit might have uncovered the first lady’s actual residence, insinuating that she does not live at the White House or Mar-a-Lago with Trump. This claim fed into longstanding media discussions about the authenticity of the Trump marriage, described in court documents as a “sham” or “trophy marriage” primarily for political advantage.
Wolff framed his legal battle as a matter of First Amendment rights, alleging that the Trump family cultivates a culture of fear that stifles open discourse. He accused them of utilizing costly litigation to extract “North Korean-style confessions and apologies” from critics.
Melania Trump’s spokesperson, Nick Clemens, responded by stating that she stands firm against those disseminating “malicious and defamatory falsehoods” as a means of securing attention and financial gain.
The dismissal of Wolff’s lawsuit allows Melania Trump’s distinct defamation case in Florida to advance without preemptive barriers. However, it leaves unresolved key questions regarding Epstein, the first lady’s personal circumstances, and the dynamics of a marriage under intense public scrutiny.