She now seeks, after a decade, to remove it to federal court in Manhattan.
She won’t fare any better in the federal courts, because in both venues, you cannot libel garbage by saying it… stinks. See here, for a bit:
…Statement 3: “Melania was ‘very involved’ in Epstein’s social circle, and noted that this is how she met Trump.””
Dispositive Defects in the [Libel] Claim:
(i) It fails to present this statement in the full context of The Daily Beast Article.
(ii) The statement is true. Among many other ties, Mrs. Trump was a model with ID Models run by a friend of many years of both Mr. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein; Mrs. Trump met Mr. Trump at the New York Kit Kat Club party; the party was hosted by ID Models and its owner.
(iii) The statement in proper context is one of opinion and hypothesis based on disclosed facts and also in the broader context.
(iv) Mrs. Trump cannot prove it to be untrue as she must.
(v) Mrs. Trump cannot prove actual malice as to that statement — i.e., she cannot prove with clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Wolff did not believe that statement to be true….
“Epstein told [you], that Trump and Melania got together the first time [ ] on Epstein’s airplane,” and that “Melania met Trump through the same modeling circles through which Epstein and Trump procured dates.” (July 28, 2025 Instagram, Threat Ltr., link at 2)….
“You stated that Mrs. Trump is sending letters threatening to sue anyone who makes the connection between her and Epstein because they are hiding something they don’t want us to know.” (Aug. 14, 2025 Instagram, Threat Ltr., link at 2).”
Dispositive Defects in the Claim:
(i) It is true that Mrs. Trump is sending letters threatening to sue anyone who makes the connection between her and Epstein. The Threat Letter is one of them, and the Threat Letter and this Complaint, pages 2-3, identify several more.
(ii) The statement above is taken out of its full and fair context.
(iii) The question that Mr. Wolff is raising is an entirely fair question and point of inquiry that deserves to be made.
(iv) Standing alone the second part of the statement is a matter of straight opinion on its face and opinion in fair context.
(v) The statement misquotes and mischaracterizes the statement made by Mr. Wolff as well as the manner that he made it. Again, as with most of the challenges, it is out of context, misleading and distorted.
(vi) As to this statement, the anti-SLAPP action and its heightened and punitive damages provision will provide a deeper opportunity to examine the improper speech suppression objectives of these claims by Mrs. Trump….
This will all be very droll — now that we may easily keep the readership updated on Melania’s vexatious and baseless SLAPP lawsuits.
Onward.














