Author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump — filed in Manhattan’s New York Supreme Court in October 2025 — has turned into a complicated fight over service, jurisdiction, and where Melania Trump actually lives, while the central allegations remain unaddressed. Sparked by Epstein‑related remarks and a threatened $1 billion countersuit, the dispute has morphed into a heavily procedural standoff.
Wolff, best known for “Fire and Fury,” brought the case under New York’s anti-SLAPP law after Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, sent an Oct. 15, 2025, letter demanding he withdraw statements suggesting the first lady had ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The comments originated from The Daily Beast’s Inside Trump’s Head podcast and a later retracted article. “Mrs. Trump’s claims are made solely to harass, intimidate, punish, or otherwise maliciously impede Mr. Wolff’s free speech rights,” the complaint asserts.
In early January 2026, Melania Trump’s lawyers sought dismissal, arguing improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a valid claim, labeling the case “meritless.” They also moved to shift the matter from the New York State court to the federal court, which temporarily stopped the state judge from addressing the disputed service issue.
The question of service has become the central issue. Wolff says he made several unsuccessful attempts to deliver the lawsuit to the first lady. Her attorney declined to accept service, despite being the primary point of contact. A process server tried serving papers at Trump Tower, but staff refused them, even though a concierge allegedly told Wolff’s team that Melania lives there.
Melania’s attorneys insist she resides in Florida, pointing to her Florida driver’s license and voter registration. Wolff vehemently disagrees. “The only evidence they’ve offered to claim she is a Florida resident is this driver’s license, and all you need in Florida to obtain one is an address,” Wolff said during a February 2026 episode of the Inside Trump’s Head podcast. “A residence is where you actually live, spend time, and maintain connections — and she has repeatedly said New York is where her heart is.”
The dispute over residency has major legal implications. Wolff filed in New York for its strong anti-SLAPP protections, while Melania’s counsel is pushing to move the case to the Southern District of Florida, which Wolff argues would be more favorable to the Trumps. Wolff has raised more than $800,000 through GoFundMe to fund the litigation — something Melania’s side says suggests he is seeking publicity rather than legitimate legal relief.
As of March 6, 2026, the court has not ruled on either the motion to dismiss or the request to transfer the case. The next significant step will be the court’s determination on service and jurisdiction, which will decide whether Wolff can proceed with his anti-SLAPP claims and issue subpoenas in New York, or whether the dispute will be moved to federal court in Florida.
Wolff’s primary objective has remained unchanged: he wants Donald and Melania Trump questioned under oath about their past interactions with Epstein. “To be perfectly honest, I’d like nothing more than to get Donald Trump and Melania Trump under oath in front of a court reporter and actually learn all the details of their relationship with Epstein,” he has said. Wolff interviewed Epstein extensively before the financier’s 2019 jailhouse suicide and maintains the public deserves clarity.
Melania Trump’s office has adopted a firm stance. “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 stated. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung has been more blunt, calling Wolff a “lying sack of s***” and claiming he “has been proven to be a fraud.”
Legal experts note that the still-unresolved procedural questions — including whether a sitting first lady can effectively avoid civil service due to Secret Service protection — could influence future cases involving prominent public figures and their ability to evade service. The case remains active, with no trial date scheduled.