"Retract - immediately": Melania Trump threatens Hunter Biden with lawsuit after Epstein claims

It is a legal bombshell from the First Lady's office: Melania Trump is demanding that Hunter Biden immediately retract statements in which he linked her, in an interview, to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein - otherwise she will sue. The trigger is a letter from her attorney Alejandro Brito dated August 6, 2025, which we have in full, addressed to Biden's counsel Abbe David Lowell. The tone is unequivocal, the signal effect significant: a First Lady publicly defending herself against "extremely salacious" and, in her view, false allegations.

The letter, on "BRITO PLLC" letterhead and sent "via Email and Federal Express," carries the subject line "Demand for Retraction of False, Defamatory, and Salacious Statements Concerning the First Lady of the United States of America." Legally, it aims for maximum binding effect: invoking Florida Statute § 770.01, Hunter Biden is called upon to retract the statements "immediately." Otherwise, it says, Mrs. Trump will have "no choice but to pursue all legal remedies" to offset the "overwhelming financial and reputational harm" caused by the dissemination of the statements. At the center are two passages from the conversation Biden gave in early August on YouTube ("Hunter Biden Returns" with Andrew Callaghan). The law firm quotes verbatim: "Epstein introduced Melania Trump. The connections are, well, so broad and deep." And further: "Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, that's how Melania, the First Lady, and the President met. Really? Epstein made the introduction? Yes, according to Michael Wolff?" For Melania Trump's lawyer, these are "false statements that are defamatory per se" - meaning statements that by their very nature damage a person's honor. Footnotes in the letter also note that the First Lady does not commit to Florida law being the only applicable law.

Substantively, two narratives collide. Hunter Biden explicitly cites author Michael Wolff as his source - a source Donald Trump dismissed in June as a "third-rate reporter" and repeatedly accused of making up stories. The First Lady counters with the Trumps' long-standing, consistent version: that Donald Trump and Melania met in 1998 at a New York Fashion Week party through modeling agent Paolo Zampolli. This account has been publicly repeated many times and serves as the defense's fixed point. Legally, the dispute is in complex territory. Public figures in the United States do not enjoy the same standard of protection as private individuals; in defamation cases, they must overcome the "actual malice" threshold - proving that a false statement of fact was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for its falsity (New York Times v. Sullivan). The attorney's letter clearly aims to mark the claims as demonstrably false and to document the extent of their spread - "widely disseminated on social media and reported by media outlets worldwide" - as reputationally damaging amplification. At the same time, § 770.01 Florida sets in motion the formal deadline-and-retraction logic that can play a role in later proceedings concerning the amount of damages.

Politically, the letter carries a second message. Melania Trump is using the same toolkit her husband has strategically deployed for years: act, do not react, and put critics - even prominent ones - early on into a clear position of liability. That Fox News leaves nothing unsaid when it comes to attacking Hunter Biden is part of this dramaturgy. The public impact is already unfolding far beyond the legal core: among sympathizers and opponents of the Trump family, the case serves as a projection screen - some see it as quick, confident counterfire to "dirty" rumors, others as an intimidation tactic against unwelcome voices. What remains are two tough tests. First: can Hunter's reference to Wolff be justified as a factual claim - or is it an unverified adoption of an already disputed author? Second: how will Biden's side respond to the formal retraction request - with withdrawal, counterstatement, or an attempt to defend the remark as permissible opinion in the context of a political interview? Both will determine whether a sharply worded legal letter becomes a precedent for the limits of political speech - or an episode that fades in the legal shadows of American defamation standards. Until then, the essentials stand in black and white: the First Lady categorically denies the alleged Epstein link, demands an immediate retraction, and announces legal action if it is not forthcoming. In an election cycle where facts, interpretations, and reputations travel around the world in seconds, this is the rare moment when a line is drawn - with date, signature, and the clear statement that this time it will not end with an outraged press release.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.