Does Melania Trump's $1B Lawsuit Threat Against Hunter Biden Have Merit?
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Legal analysts weighed in on whether first lady Melania Trump's billion-dollar defamation lawsuit threat against Hunter Biden has merit.
Why It Matters
Trump threatened to file a lawsuit against Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, accusing him of making "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements" during an interview in which he claimed Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to her husband, President Donald Trump.
If she follows through with that threat, the case could test the limits of defamation law involving high-profile individuals such as the first family.
The Trump administration has been under scrutiny over its handling of a trove of documents and files related to Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in a New York federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking.
There have long been rumors of an Epstein "client list," and Trump campaigned on greater transparency on the case. However, Trump's Justice Department has not released those files, fueling political backlash against him.
What To Know
Hunter Biden made those claims about Melania Trump during an interview with journalist Andrew Callaghan earlier this month, citing an article from The Daily Beast based on claims by Trump biographer Michael Wolff. The Daily Beast retracted that story after receiving a letter from the first lady's lawyer challenging its headline and framing.
Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent the letter to Hunter Biden and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, on August 6, 2025, reported Fox News Digital. He said Biden's comments are "extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums."
First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, 2024.
First lady Melania Trump attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 18, 2024.In an interview with Callaghan on Thursday, Biden declined to apologize, saying, "F*** that. That's not going to happen."
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that in theory, Melania Trump has a "strong case against Hunter Biden" if his statement was indeed false.
"As a public figure, the first lady would have to prove malice, that the younger Biden knew the statement was false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. But if Epstein did not introduce the president and first lady, that would not be difficult to prove," Rahmani said.
If the first lady files the lawsuit, Biden would likely raise First Amendment arguments, including that political speech receives strong free speech protections.
Practically speaking, however, Rahmani said he does not believe Melania Trump will file. If she does, she and her lawyers may look for a quick settlement.
"The president has been very litigious when it comes to these types of cases, but truth is an absolute defense to defamation. A civil complaint puts how Donald and Melania met and their relationship with Epstein, if any, at issue," Rahmani said. "That means the president and first lady would have to sit for a deposition and answer questions about Epstein. Hunter may dig in his heels and push the case to trial or the brink, like he did with his criminal cases."
A trial about the Trumps and Epstein would be a "circus," and no one wants to be associated with Epstein, Rahmani said.
However, former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu said he believes Melania Trump does not have a strong case against Hunter Biden.
"It's pretty tough for a public figure like a first lady to be able to claim defamation," Wu said.
The case could also be difficult to prove because the statements originate from Wolff's book, he said. She would not only have to prove that the claim is false, but that Hunter Biden knew or should have known it was false.
"It would be different if he was the only person starting this rumor or something, but given that there's been other people—it may be factually inaccurate, but there are other sources publicly available—it becomes more of a defamation suit based on the idea you're not allowed to reference other publicly reported stories," Wu said.
He added that a defamation trial would not "be very helpful at all" to the scrutiny the Trump administration has faced over Epstein.
What People Are Saying
Melania Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, wrote in his notice to Hunter Biden: "Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer."
Hunter Biden said on Channel Five: "What I said was what I have heard and seen reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back all the way to 2019 when The New York Times, I think, Annie Carney and Maggie Haberman reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time.
"And then I think excerpted in a book that was published in Vanity Fair, and I think it's been repeated by journalists and authors since then. But the primary source was the interviews that Michael Wolff has been conducting, in which he has, actually, tapes of I think hours and hours of interviews with Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know, fact of the matter is that, you know, I don't think that these threats of a lawsuit add up to anything other than a design destruction because it's not about who introduced whom to who. I don't know how that in any way rises to the level of defamation to begin with."
Nick Clemmens, an aide to Melania Trump, previously told Newsweek: "First lady Melania Trump's attorneys are actively ensuring immediate retractions and apologies by those who spread malicious, defamatory falsehoods. The true account of how the first lady met President Trump is in her best-selling book, Melania."
What Happens Next
Whether Melania Trump will end up filing the lawsuit against Hunter Biden is yet to be seen. If so, it would garner significant attention while testing the First Amendment and defamation law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Melania Trump sends letter to Putin about abducted children
By Steve Holland ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, raised the plight of children in Ukraine and Russia in a personal letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, two White House officials said on Friday. President Trump hand-delivered the letter to Putin during their summit talks in Alaska, the officials told Reuters. Slovenian-born Melania Trump was not on the trip to Alaska. The officials would not divulge the contents of the letter other than to say it mentioned the abductions of children resulting from the war in Ukraine. The existence of the letter was not previously reported. Russia's seizure of Ukrainian children has been a deeply sensitive one for Ukraine. Ukraine has called the abductions of tens of thousands of its children taken to Russia or Russian-occupied territory without the consent of family or guardians a war crime that meets the U.N. treaty definition of genocide. Previously Moscow has said it has been protecting vulnerable children from a war zone. The United Nations Human Rights Office has said Russia has inflicted suffering on millions of Ukrainian children and violated their rights since its full scale invasion of Ukraine begun in 2022. Trump and Putin met for nearly three hours at a U.S. military base in Anchorage without reaching a ceasefire deal in the war in Ukraine. (Reporting By Steve Holland; Editing by Trevor Hunnicutt and Sam Holmes)
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Grades His Meeting With Vladimir Putin as a 10 of 10
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump on Friday lauded his bilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would rate the meeting as a 10 out of 10. Why It Matters Trump and Putin met Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss ending Moscow's war against Ukraine, which Putin launched in February 2022. The White House said the Russian leader reached out to request the meeting, to which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not invited. What To Know "If you had to grade it on a scale of 1 to 10?" Hannity, arguably one of Trump's staunchest supporters in the conservative media sphere, asked the president during a prime-time broadcast Friday following the Trump-Putin summit. "So I think the meeting was a 10 in the sense that we got along great," Trump replied. "And it's good when two big powers get along especially when they're nuclear powers. You know, we're number one, they're number two in the world and that's a big deal ... you never even want to mention that word. The word 'nuclear.'" The American president went on to say that the ball is now in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's court, though he declined to say whether the Russian leader had made any concessions during the three-hour summit. On the Ukrainian side, meanwhile, there was little hope for progress following the Trump-Putin talks. Putin "won the informational war," Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Ukrainian parliament, told The New York Times. He added that Putin repeated his talking points during joint remarks with Trump after the summit, saying, "I don't see any changes." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump admin backs down on DC police control after striking deal
Washington officials and the Justice Department negotiated a deal at a judge's urging Friday that prevented full federal control of the city's police department over the weekend, but left underlying legal disputes unresolved. Justice Department officials agreed to rewrite a Thursday order from Attorney General Pam Bondi that named Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole as emergency police commissioner, cutting the mayor and existing police chief out of the chain of command. The rewritten order will name Cole as Bondi's 'designee for requesting services' from the police department. 'We think that solves the problem and that's what we're planning to do immediately,' Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth said. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes indicated at a hearing Friday she would grant the D.C. attorney general's request for a temporary restraining order if the Justice Department did not follow through on rewriting the order by Friday evening. The hearing came after city officials sued the Trump administration earlier Friday over the directive to take over control of the Metropolitan Police Department. 'In the interim, Mr. Cole is not going to be able to direct police department individuals to do anything,' Reyes, a Biden appointee, said. 'He's going to have to go through the mayor.' Reyes indicated she will hold a hearing next week on other remaining legal questions. "I still do not understand on what basis the president … can say 'You, police department, can't do anything unless I say you can.' That cannot be the reading of the statute,' Reyes said. Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said she was surprised to receive Bondi's order, which came without notice Thursday night. 'What we know is that D.C. residents are worried and concerned and we have a surge of federal officers,' Bowser said. 'Chief Smith's job during this week has been to make sure that if we have and while we have federal officers, that they are being used strategically, and while we aren't controlling them, we do have the ability to influence how they're being deployed.' A 1973 federal law known as the Home Rule Act permits the president, in times of emergency, to seek services from the D.C. police for federal purposes. But city officials say Trump's power to do so is sharply limited and must be done in cooperation with city officials, rather than through a hostile takeover that includes rescinding and rewriting local laws and rules. Reyes agreed, emphasizing the difference between seeking services — which the mayor must provide — and commandeering the entire department. "The statute would have no meaning at all if the president could just say we're taking over your police department,' Reyes said. Arguing for the Trump administration, Roth said the language of the Home Rule Act allows Trump broad discretion to direct MPD — and likely can't be subject to review by the courts. While adjourning for a break in the hearing, Reyes urged the parties to reach a deal that wouldn't require her to rule on the city's request for a restraining order. Those negotiations stretched on for about 90 minutes, as the mayor and other local officials waited in the courtroom. Stanley Woodward, a Bondi advisor and nominee for the No. 3 position at the Justice Department, arrived at the courthouse during the break and was seen participating in the negotiations. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the lawsuit in federal court Friday after the Justice Department ordered Cole to assume 'all the powers and duties' of MPD police chief Pamela Smith as the 'Emergency Police Commissioner.' Schwalb directed Smith to disregard the orders, issued by Bondi, and said MPD officers 'must continue to follow your orders.' Trump on Monday issued an executive order to invoke his authority under the Home Rule Act, the first president to do so since the act was signed into law. He also deployed the National Guard to the city. City officials said they had held off on taking legal action immediately because the language in Trump's executive order largely did not stray from that of the Home Rule Act. But disrupting the MPD's chain of command by appointing Cole — and therefore undermining Smith — was an overreach not legally permitted, Schwalb argued. 'The Administration's actions are brazenly unlawful,' Schwalb wrote on X Friday. 'They infringe on the District's right to self-governance and put the safety of DC residents and visitors at risk.' In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the Trump administration has the 'lawful authority to assert control over' MPD. Jacob Wendler contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
