Melania Trump has threatened a defamation lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion from Hunter Biden over his claim—made in an interview with journalist Andrew Callaghan—that Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania to Donald Trump. Her attorney’s demand letter (dated Aug. 6, 2025) calls the remark “false” and “extremely salacious,” and demands a retraction and apology. Multiple outlets confirmed the letter and the nine-figure damages demand. (Axios, AP News, Sky News)
What Hunter Biden actually said—and why it matters
Biden, in the Callaghan interview, stated that Epstein introduced the couple, attributing the claim to author Michael Wolff. Melania’s lawyers say that is flatly untrue and reputationally damaging. The remark ricocheted across social media and news sites, amplifying potential damages if the statement is found defamatory. (AP News)
Crucially, there is a long-standing counter-narrative: both Donald and Melania have consistently said they met at a 1998 New York Fashion Week party through modeling agent Paolo Zampolli (often described as being at the Kit Kat Club). That account has been reported repeatedly for years and is part of mainstream biographical timelines. (GQ, Business Insider, Wikipedia)
The paper trail around the Epstein claim
- Retractions and corrections: In the past week, The Daily Beast retracted a story linking Melania to Epstein; other outlets have also rolled back or apologized for similar insinuations. Those public walk-backs are relevant to the “reckless disregard” analysis (see legal section below). (Poynter Institute)
- Zampolli’s on-the-record role: Zampolli himself has publicly asserted that he made the introduction, not Epstein. (Page Six)
- Competing chatter: Over the years, some reporting has repeated Epstein “boasting” that he introduced the pair—an unattributed social rumor more than a verified fact. That background is likely what Biden was referencing via Wolff, but it’s precisely the sort of uncorroborated claim that becomes dangerous when stated as fact about a public figure. (Business Insider)
Melania Trump’s litigation history (and why it’s relevant)
This would not be Melania Trump’s first high-stakes defamation fight. In 2017 she extracted about $2.9 million and a prominent apology/retraction from the Daily Mail over false insinuations about her modeling career; she also secured a “substantial” settlement from a Maryland blogger. Those outcomes show she’s willing to pursue (and win) remedies for reputational harms and to insist on formal retractions. (CBS News, ABC, Voice of America, The Washington Post)
The law: What Melania must prove
Because Melania is indisputably a public figure, she would need to clear the Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan bar—proving by clear and convincing evidence that Biden spoke with “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). Failure to check a rumor isn’t enough by itself; but purposefully avoiding the truth or relying on obviously unreliable sources can meet the standard. The Supreme Court has also made clear that labeling something an “opinion” won’t shield a defamatory assertion of verifiable fact (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal). Truth (or substantial truth) is a complete defense. (Legal Information Institute)
How that plays here:
- If Biden said the Epstein story as a fact, and Melania can show he knew it was disputed / retracted elsewhere and ignored readily available contrary evidence (the years-old Zampolli account and recent retractions), that helps her malice argument.
- If Biden qualified it (e.g., “as Wolff claimed”) and reasonably relied on a published source, that cuts the other way—even if the claim turns out false. Courts are reluctant to punish speakers who cite sources unless the reliance was reckless.
Venue, damages, and anti-SLAPP
- Where would this be filed? Most likely in Florida (Melania’s home base) or a federal court sitting in Florida on diversity grounds. Florida has an anti-SLAPP statute, but it is narrower and less potent than, say, California’s—still, Biden could try to use it to seek early dismissal and fees if the claim targets protected speech. (Anti-SLAPP specifics vary by state; the exact procedural bite would depend on where Melania sues.)
- $1 billion is best understood as anchoring: demand letters often name eye-popping numbers to signal seriousness and potential “per se” reputational harm, especially when the accusation suggests criminal or sexual misconduct. Real-world defamation payouts for public figures—outside exceptional cases—tend to be far lower, and often end in retractions, corrections, and confidential settlements, not 10- or 11-figure judgments. For context, Melania’s own 2017 settlement with the Daily Mail totaled ~$2.9 million with a full apology. (CBS News)
The politics of proof
This dispute is uniquely combustible because it touches Epstein, the First Lady, and the president’s long-documented—if now downplayed—acquaintance with Epstein decades ago. That makes it newsworthy, but newsworthiness doesn’t immunize false statements of fact. The AP and Axios coverage emphasize that Melania’s letter ties the alleged damage to the claim’s virality, not just its utterance. (AP News, Axios)
Likely outcome (based on the record so far)
- Short term: Expect lawyer-to-lawyer negotiations focused on retraction language and whether Biden will issue any form of apology or clarification (e.g., attributing the claim to Wolff and acknowledging the Zampolli account as the accepted record). If Biden refuses, filing becomes more probable. (AP News)
- If it’s filed: Melania has a colorable claim because Biden’s statement was framed as a specific historical fact that contradicts years of published accounts—and because recent retractions heighten the risk that repeating the claim could be seen as reckless. But the Sullivan standard is still a steep hill. Courts often find no actual malice where a speaker references a (however controversial) published source, absent proof he knew it was false or seriously doubted it. (Reuters, Legal Information Institute)
- Damages reality check: A $1B award is extremely unlikely; the historical analogue for Melania is a low-seven-figure settlement plus a prominent correction. The most realistic resolution is a negotiated retraction/clarification and a settlement that’s orders of magnitude below the demand—if the case doesn’t get knocked out at an early stage. (CBS News)
Bottom line
The factual record about how Donald and Melania met is well-established in mainstream reporting (the Zampolli/Fashion Week story). Hunter Biden’s statement deviated from that and, if presented as fact, exposed him to defamation risk—particularly with the new wave of media retractions on the same point. Still, under Sullivan, Melania’s team must prove actual malice, which remains the defining hurdle for public figures. The smart money is on a public retraction/clarification and modest settlement, not a courtroom verdict anywhere near a billion dollars. (GQ, Business Insider, Page Six, Poynter Institute, Legal Information Institute)
Sources & key documents
- Demand-letter coverage and confirmation: Axios, AP, Sky News. (Axios, AP News, Sky News)
- Background on how the couple met: GQ, Business Insider, BI timeline, Wikipedia (summary of widely reported account). (GQ, Business Insider, Wikipedia)
- Retractions/rollbacks of Epstein-introduction claims: Poynter. (Poynter Institute)
- Melania’s prior defamation wins/settlements: CBS News, AP reports via multiple outlets. (CBS News, ABC)
- Legal standards: Cornell LII (Sullivan, defamation overview, Milkovich); Oyez. (Legal Information Institute)