"What are you going to do about it?" Trevor Noah quipped after his joke as host of the Grammy Awards last night. He's about to find out.
The allegedly defamatory remark developed from a better hit on Greenland. Noah joked that recording artists want a Grammy like Donald Trump wants Greenland, which would have been perhaps one of the most benign remarks made at an awards ceremony about Trump. Unfortunately for Noah, and perhaps for the Grammys, he decided to push it past humor and into a false claim:
🚨 NEW: Trevor Noah makes a defamatory joke about Trump going to Epstein’s Island: “What are you to do about it?”
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) February 2, 2026
President Trump responds almost immediately saying he’s going to sue to sh!t out of him: “Get ready Noah, I’m going to have some fun with you!”
🔥🍿🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/djE6uyzAf9
NOAH: That is a Grammy that every artist wants, almost as much as Trump wants Greenland. Which makes sense, I mean, because Epstein's island is gone. He needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton, so. Oh, I told you it's my last year. What are you going to do about it?
Ahem. Trump had never been to Epstein's Island, although Clinton has been rumored to have been there. In fact, it's not clear whether Epstein had the facilities for that kind of entertainment before his big construction push in 2007, well after Trump had stopped engaging with him in 2004. No evidence has emerged – either in records or in testimony – that Trump ever set foot on Little St. James Island while Epstein owned it. Not only has no evidence emerged for that speculation, but Trump has also repeatedly and publicly denied it whenever it came up.
So for the answer to Noah's question, Trump supplied the obvious answer on Truth Social:
The Grammy Awards are the WORST, virtually unwatchable! CBS is lucky not to have this garbage litter their airwaves any longer. The host, Trevor Noah, whoever he may be, is almost as bad as Jimmy Kimmel at the Low Ratings Academy Awards. Noah said, INCORRECTLY about me, that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton spent time on Epstein Island. WRONG!!! I can’t speak for Bill, but I have never been to Epstein Island, nor anywhere close, and until tonight’s false and defamatory statement, have never been accused of being there, not even by the Fake News Media. Noah, a total loser, better get his facts straight, and get them straight fast. It looks like I’ll be sending my lawyers to sue this poor, pathetic, talentless, dope of an M.C., and suing him for plenty$. Ask Little George Slopadopolus, and others, how that all worked out. Also ask CBS! Get ready Noah, I’m going to have some fun with you! President DJT
One has to wonder whether Noah will be the only respondent in a potential Trump lawsuit. The Recording Academy of America hired Noah to host the awards, and CBS broadcast them. They could share some liability for Noah's allegedly defamatory remarks if Trump wants to push it, and he's been wanting to "push it" ever since Democrats launched their warfare strategy to derail a return to the White House. CBS and Paramount have already paid Trump an estimated $16 million to settle an election-interference lawsuit over their cooked 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, and ABC/Disney paid Trump another eight-figure settlement of about the same range for George Stephanopoulos' false claim that Trump had been convicted of rape.
These situations are not entirely analogous, however. Both CBS and ABC had to defend news reports, while Noah's remark was intended as comedy and entertainment. That doesn't create a full immunity from defamation, but it does change the legal framework for it. Jerry Falwell learned that the hard way in attempting to sue Hustler and Larry Flynt over a satirical Campari ad that depicted him as a drunkard who had sex with his mother in an outhouse.
However, this too has an important caveat. In its unanimous ruling in Hustler Magazine v Falwell in 1988, the Supreme Court noted that the satire was broad enough to ensure that it did not lend itself to a serious factual claim. The final paragraph makes that distinction clear as to the adjudication of both defamation and of intentional emotional distress, bold emphases mine:
Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. [Footnote 5] The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d at 1278, and, in accordance with our custom, we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But, for reasons heretofore stated, this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Justice Byron White also hit this point in his concurrence:
As I see it, the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), has little to do with this case, for here the jury found that the ad contained no assertion of fact.
This differentiates Noah's 'joke' from the Hustler Campari ad. No one really could believe that Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse, and so this crude joke didn't rise to the level of a factual claim that could be found false and defamatory. Noah, on the other hand, clearly made a joke based on a factual assertion that also intended to defame Trump (and Clinton, for that matter, assuming it's false with him as well). That negates the satire shield of Hustler Magazine v Falwell, because Noah's joke was not only not wrapped in recognizable and exaggerated satire, the claim was made for an audience who would find it "reasonably believable." The point of Noah's remark would be to make that claim even more reasonably believable.
Will that allow Trump to win a defamation suit against Noah et al? He'd still have to deal with the Sullivan doctrine, which also came up in the Falwell case. The Supreme Court's decision that no defamation took place negated any application of Sullivan, but since that doesn't apply here, it will become relevant in any action Trump takes. That was also true of Trump's lawsuit against ABC, though, and ABC/Disney tossed in the towel, perhaps in part to keep the case from potentially limiting or overturning Sullivan. However, given all of the debate over the Epstein files and Trump's connections to it, it would be tough for Noah to argue that he didn't deliberately lie or act with reckless disregard for the truth when claiming that Trump went to Epstein's island. And he would have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to fight on that basis.
Get ready for a climbdown, in other words. I'd be surprised if it takes more than today before Noah starts backpedaling.
