NEW YORK — Melania Trump has abruptly shifted her defamation lawsuit against author Michael Wolff from New York state court to federal court, a procedural move that is already intensifying an unusually high-stakes legal battle tied to allegations connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

Court filings show that Trump’s legal team invoked federal jurisdiction by asserting Florida residency, triggering an immediate transfer of the case. The move halts proceedings under New York state law and places the dispute under a different legal framework—one with potentially broader discovery powers and different standards for evaluating defamation claims.

The lawsuit stems from statements Wolff made in recent commentary and reporting that Trump claims are false, defamatory, and damaging to her reputation. While the complaint itself avoids explicit salacious detail, it centers on claims touching on Epstein-era social circles and insinuations Trump’s attorneys argue cross a legal line.

Wolff, known for his combative style and past books critical of the Trump family, responded swiftly and sharply. He called the venue change “pure strategy,” arguing that Trump is attempting to evade New York’s robust anti-SLAPP protections—laws designed to discourage lawsuits intended to silence speech on matters of public interest.

“She wants out of New York because New York law is hostile to cases like this,” Wolff said in a statement. “This isn’t about convenience. It’s about avoiding protections that favor defendants in speech cases.”

At the center of the dispute is Trump’s residency claim. Her legal filing asserts that Florida is now her primary residence, aligning with the Trump family’s broader relocation narrative following Donald Trump’s departure from the White House. Wolff’s legal team disputes that assertion, contending that Trump still spends significant time at Trump Tower, and that New York remains her true domicile for legal purposes.

That question is no longer academic. By entering federal court, the case opens the door to deeper scrutiny of Trump’s residency, including travel schedules, property usage, and potentially sworn depositions. Legal experts say those inquiries could quickly expand the scope of the litigation.

“This move cuts both ways,” said a former federal litigator not involved in the case. “Federal court may offer strategic advantages, but it also increases exposure. Residency becomes fair game.”

The transfer also reshapes the legal terrain around discovery. Unlike some state court proceedings, federal litigation often allows more aggressive evidence gathering. That could include communications, documents, and testimony related not only to the allegedly defamatory statements, but also to the factual context in which they arose.

Trump’s attorneys have defended the move as routine and appropriate, dismissing claims of forum shopping. In a brief statement, they said the lawsuit “will proceed where it belongs” and reiterated that the claims at issue are “demonstrably false and harmful.”

The case arrives amid renewed public sensitivity around Epstein-related allegations, an area that continues to generate legal and reputational fallout years after his death. While neither Trump nor Wolff is accused of criminal conduct in the lawsuit, the association alone raises the temperature of the dispute and heightens media scrutiny.

For Wolff, the case represents a test of journalistic protections and free speech boundaries. For Trump, it is a direct effort to defend personal reputation in a legal environment she believes is more neutral—or at least more navigable.

What is clear is that the battle is only beginning. With jurisdiction now settled—at least temporarily—the next phase will focus on discovery motions, potential challenges to residency claims, and whether the case survives early dismissal efforts.

As one legal observer put it, “This is no longer just about what was said. It’s about where it’s fought—and what that fight may reveal.”