Michael Wolff, the controversial author famous for his insider accounts of the Trump White House, has escalated his legal battle against former First Lady Melania Trump by announcing plans to subpoena and question her under oath.
The announcement follows Wolff’s countersuit in response to a threatened $1 billion defamation lawsuit from Melania’s legal team.
In an exclusive interview on the Daily Beast’s Inside Trump’s Head podcast, Wolff detailed the scope of his legal strategy and its implications. “My lawyers went into court and sued the first lady,” Wolff said flatly. He explained that the countersuit invokes New York’s anti-SLAPP laws designed to protect speech, alleging that Melania’s threatened lawsuit is a strategic attempt to silence him. “Her suit is a SLAPP suit—suing so I will shut up,” Wolff said.
The subpoena power granted by this lawsuit opens the door to questioning not just Melania Trump but also President Donald Trump himself and any other individuals who may have knowledge of the Trumps’ relationship with the late convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Wolff explained, “I can subpoena the first lady, the president, and anyone else who might shed light on the relationship of Donald Trump and Melania Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.” He described this legal maneuver as a means “to actually get to the bottom of this story, to open the curtain, the dark curtain. And we’ll see how they feel about that.”
Wolff’s accusations stem from extensive interviews with Epstein, which informed his 2018 bestseller Fire and Fury. Wolff recalled Epstein’s assertion that he and Trump were “involved in every aspect of each other’s lives, social lives, sexual lives, business lives,” suggesting a deeply intertwined relationship spanning decades.
This legal conflict was sparked after Melania’s attorneys sent Wolff’s team a letter threatening a defamation lawsuit for statements he made on the podcast, which Melania’s camp claims included “false, defamatory, and lewd statements.” The letter demanded that Wolff retract allegations that Melania first met Trump on Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express” plane, an explosive claim widely discussed in media circles.
Wolff condemned these threats as a “trick in the book” regularly used by the Trump camp to intimidate and silence critics, noting, “They sue the media and the media goes quiet.” Despite the daunting nature of the litigation, Wolff refused to back down, emphasizing that the lawsuit was an effort by the Trumps to “cover up” the Epstein saga.
Legal experts point out that this countersuit is significant because it targets a sitting First Lady—an unprecedented move that underscores the high-stakes nature of the dispute. Wolff is pushing for the court to dismiss Melania’s defamation threats under anti-SLAPP provisions and to impose punitive damages, asserting the claims “lack substantial basis in law or in fact.”
The Daily Beast, which initially aired the contentious podcast episode titled “Trump’s Epstein Scandal Can’t Stop Won’t Stop,” subsequently removed the episode and retracted portions of the coverage following complaints from the First Lady’s attorneys. They apologized to the First Lady and readers, noting the episode “did not meet our standards.”
Wolff’s suit aims not only to defend his right to free speech but also to compel transparency about Epstein-related matters that have long eluded public scrutiny. He described the lawsuit as “an opportunity to reconstruct their lives together.”
With subpoena power, Wolff could also extend his inquiry to Epstein’s alleged accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, and other figures connected to the infamous social circle. “Everybody who was involved in that circle during that time period is someone who we’ll certainly think about calling,” Wolff said.
As this lawsuit unfolds, it promises to reopen blistering debates about the Trumps’ ties to Epstein and the lengths to which they will go to suppress inconvenient truths. Wolff’s determination to continue the investigation despite mounting legal pressure serves as a litmus test for free speech and accountability among America’s political elite.
