Author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump — filed in Manhattan’s New York Supreme Court in October 2025 — has developed into a tangled dispute over service of process, jurisdiction, and residency, with no progress yet on the actual claims. Stemming from Wolff’s Epstein-related comments and Melania Trump’s threat of a $1 billion counter‑lawsuit, the matter has turned into one of the more unusual legal dramas of Trump’s second term.
Wolff, known for “Fire and Fury,” initially brought the case under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute after Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, sent him an October 15, 2025 letter demanding he retract statements tying the first lady to Jeffrey Epstein. These comments were made on The Daily Beast’s Inside Trump’s Head podcast and in a now-pulled Daily Beast article. “Mrs. Trump’s claims are made for the sole purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing or otherwise maliciously inhibiting Mr. Wolff’s free exercise of speech,” the suit asserts.
In early January 2026, Melania Trump’s attorneys finally answered, submitting a motion to dismiss based on improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim, dismissing the action as “meritless.” At the same time, they sought to move the case from New York State court to federal court, which effectively halted New York’s ability to rule on the contested service issue.
The service dispute has become the focal point. Wolff says he repeatedly tried — and failed — to deliver the papers to the first lady. Her attorney would not accept service despite serving as the point of contact. A process server attempted to deliver documents at Trump Tower, but staff declined to take them, even though a concierge reportedly confirmed to Wolff’s team that Melania actually lives there.
Melania Trump’s legal team maintains she resides in Florida, citing her Florida driver’s license and voter registration. Wolff strongly disputes this. “The only evidence they have so far indicated to argue that she is a Florida resident is this driver’s license, and all you need in Florida to get a driver’s license is an address,” Wolff said on a February 2026 episode of the Inside Trump’s Head podcast. “A residence is a place where you actually live, where you spend your time, where your connections are — and she has said over and over again that New York is where her heart is.”
The residency issue has significant legal consequences. Wolff chose New York intentionally because of its stronger anti-SLAPP protections, while Melania’s team aims to shift the matter to the Southern District of Florida, a venue more favorable to the Trumps. Wolff has raised over $800,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to support the case — something Melania’s lawyers say shows he is chasing publicity rather than pursuing legitimate claims.
As of late February 2026, the court has not ruled on the motions to dismiss or transfer. The next pivotal moment will come when the court decides the disputes over service and jurisdiction — determining whether Wolff can litigate his anti-SLAPP claims and exercise subpoena power in New York, or whether the matter shifts to federal court in Florida.
Wolff’s ultimate aim has not changed: he wants Donald Trump and Melania Trump questioned under oath about their history with Epstein. “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,” he has said. Wolff extensively interviewed Epstein before his 2019 jailhouse suicide and argues the public deserves answers.
Melania Trump’s office has maintained a hard line. “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 has stated. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung has been harsher, calling Wolff a “lying sack of s***” who “has been proven to be a fraud.”
Legal analysts note that the unresolved procedural issues — especially whether a sitting first lady can effectively avoid civil service due to Secret Service protection — may influence future cases involving high-profile individuals and their ability to shield themselves from litigation. The case is still moving through the courts with no trial date established.
