Author Michael Wolff is learning that suing the first lady of the United States comes with its own unique challenges, as he detailed his struggles to serve legal papers to Melania Trump in an unusual court battle stemming from allegations about her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Wolff shared his difficulties with serving papers to the first lady on an episode of Inside Trump’s Head podcast hosted by Joanna Coles. The author filed a preemptive lawsuit against Melania Trump in October 2025 after she threatened to sue him for $1 billion over what she called “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements” about her relationship with late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The case, filed in New York Supreme Court, represents Wolff’s use of a New York anti-SLAPP law—legislation designed to counter Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which are lawsuits intended to intimidate or silence criticism. Through his 15-page civil defamation suit, Wolff seeks to shut down Melania’s legal threats and question both her and President Donald Trump under oath about their ties to Epstein.
Wolff told Coles on the podcast about the challenges of serving legal documents on someone with extensive security protection.
The author, who has written four books about Trump, described a series of frustrating attempts to serve the first lady with legal documents. His first effort involved trying to serve papers through Melania’s attorney, who initially instructed all communications be directed to his office. When Wolff attempted to comply, the attorney refused to accept service.
Wolff then enlisted the services of a legal process server to hand-deliver the papers to Trump Tower, but encountered additional obstacles. The process servers refused to serve the first lady of the United States.
Staff members at Trump Tower told the process servers they would simply throw the papers in the garbage and refused to accept them. However, when asked whether Melania Trump resided at the location, Trump Tower staff confirmed that she does live there, not at the White House.
The legal dispute originated in July 2025 when Wolff made statements about Melania Trump on his podcast. The first lady accused Wolff of making “extremely salacious” allegations and demanded that he retract his statements. After receiving a complaint from the first lady, The Daily Beast retracted an article based on the podcast and removed a portion of the episode.
In a statement explaining the retraction, The Daily Beast acknowledged that the article did not meet its standards and pointed to Melania’s book as the definitive account of her life story. The publication removed the content from its platforms.
Wolff discussed his legal strategy on December 19, 2025, explaining that he expects to inform the court that he has exhausted all reasonable options for serving the papers. The author emphasized his desire to depose both Donald and Melania Trump about their relationship with Epstein, whose connections to powerful figures have remained a source of public scrutiny.
The first lady’s limited presence at the White House has been a subject of discussion since January 2025. Reports in May 2025 indicated that Melania had spent fewer than 14 days at the White House since her husband returned to power in January.
The case highlights the intersection of free speech protections and defamation law, particularly as it pertains to public figures. Wolff’s use of New York’s anti-SLAPP statute represents a proactive legal strategy designed to prevent what he characterizes as an attempt to silence legitimate reporting and commentary about matters of public interest.
The author has argued that his statements qualify as protected opinions based on available facts and that Melania’s attorneys would not be able to prove actual malice—a legal standard requiring evidence that Wolff did not believe his own statements to be true at the time he made them.
As the holidays approached, Melania Trump maintained a public schedule at the White House. The contrast between her public appearances and her apparent unavailability for legal service adds complexity to the ongoing court battle.
The case continues to develop as Wolff pursues his goal of questioning the Trumps under oath about their social connections to Epstein. The legal maneuvering around service of process has become its own subplot in a case that touches on issues of defamation, free speech, and the boundaries of protected commentary about public figures.
Wolff’s determination to move forward with the lawsuit, despite the challenges of serving a sitting first lady with Secret Service protection, underscores the unusual nature of the case. The outcome may have implications for how public figures can use defamation threats to respond to critical reporting and commentary, particularly when anti-SLAPP statutes are invoked.