5 big questions about Trump's ties to Epstein
The Journal reported that Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell asked Trump and many others to submit letters for an album for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.
A letter bearing Trump's name included a lewd outline of a naked woman and an imagined conversation between Trump and Epstein, according to the Journal. In the conversation, the two men reflect on how they share some kind of secret knowledge about how there's 'more to life than having everything.'
'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,' Trump concludes in this imagined conversation, according to the Journal.
The president has denied he wrote the letter, and on Friday, he filed a libel lawsuit against the publisher of the Wall Street Journal and the reporters who wrote the story.
'This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story,' Trump told the Journal in an interview earlier this week. 'I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women.'
Trump added in a social media post after the story published: 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures.'
It's been no secret that Trump and Epstein were friendly in the period before Epstein was charged with solicitation of prostitution in the mid 2000s. There are plenty of photos of them together.
But the new report – along with Trump's demands that his supporters stop pursuing questions about Epstein in the wake of his administration's botched handling of promised disclosures – has rekindled interest in the matter.
Trump has now relented a bit on disclosure, instructing the Justice Department to seek to unseal 'any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.' (The DOJ moved to do that on Friday, but it's possible that won't reveal much or happen anytime soon, given grand jury testimony is typically kept secret. And that testimony is only a small piece of the relevant information.)
So, what do we know so far about Trump and Epstein's relationship? Here are some key questions.
1. How close were they?
There are conflicting signals on this. And Trump's strained efforts to downplay their ties have raised plenty of questions.
After Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking of minors in 2019, Trump distanced himself.
'Well, I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,' Trump told reporters during his first term. 'I mean, people in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don't think I've spoken to him for 15 years. I wasn't a fan.'
Trump then repeated twice more that he had not been 'a fan' of Epstein's.
His account of not speaking to Epstein since the 2000s is backed up by reporting. The Washington Post has reported that the two men had a falling-out while competing over the same Palm Beach oceanfront property in 2004.
That would place the falling-out before Epstein began getting in serious legal trouble; in 2006, Epstein was charged with soliciting a prostitute, and that same year reports surfaced that he had been under investigation for allegedly having sex with minors.
But Trump's suggestion that his relationship with Epstein was more incidental and his claim that he 'was not a fan' of Epstein's has been called into question, including by Trump's own commentary.
Their relationship appeared to stretch back to the 1980s. Trump flew on Epstein's jets between Palm Beach and New York, according to flight logs. They socialized at each other's properties.
The New York Times reported that, in 1992, Mar-a-Lago played host to a 'calendar girl' competition in which about two dozen women were flown in. But the only guests present were Trump and Epstein, according to a Florida businessman who organized the event, George Houraney. (Trump's White House didn't comment to the Times for the 2019 story.)
Most infamously, Trump in 2002 told New York magazine that Epstein was a 'terrific guy.'
'He's a lot of fun to be with,' Trump said. 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.'
Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg told the Washington Post in 2019 that he had pressed Trump about his ties to Epstein in 2014 when Trump was considering a presidential run.
'Bottom line, Donald would hang out with Epstein because he was rich,' Nunberg said, assuring Trump had severed ties long ago.
Precisely how close Trump and Epstein were isn't totally clear. Was this just a situation of powerful men occasionally partying together and sharing Epstein's private plane because that's what rich guys do? These are social situations tough for most Americans to understand.
But even if Trump really was somehow 'not a fan,' he's made other dodgy claims.
In January 2024, he said on social media: 'I was never on Epstein's Plane …' In fact, flight logs had already shown Trump flew on it seven times in the 1990s.
Trump also claimed in 2019 that he didn't 'know Prince Andrew' of Britain, who has been the subject of Epstein-related allegations, despite a number of photos showing Trump with the Duke of York.
Trump often lies and misleads in his public statements. And he certainly has reason to downplay his ties to Epstein. But going too far in that direction undercuts your credibility and feeds suspicion about what you might be hiding.
2. What about Trump's most recent denial – of the Wall Street Journal story?
Precisely what the Journal's story will mean going forward isn't clear – although it's already rallied MAGA influencers who were critical of the administration's handling of the Epstein files to Trump's side.
The idea that Trump would submit a letter for Epstein's birthday album isn't that surprising, given this was when the two of them were seemingly on better terms (2003) and that dozens of other letters were reportedly solicited. The idea that Trump would be lewd in that letter also tracks, given his past. (See: The 'Access Hollywood' tape.)
But Trump — and many of those vocal supporters — have said this doesn't sound like him or something he would create.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer — who'd called for the administration to appoint a special counsel to look into the handling of the Epstein files — quickly came to Trump's defense Thursday night. 'Everyone who actually KNOWS President Trump knows he doesn't type letters. He writes notes in big black Sharpie,' she posted on X.
But while Trump maintains he doesn't draw pictures, his drawings have surfaced before. A signed Trump sketch of the Manhattan skyline sold at auction in 2017 for more than $29,000. (The sketch was reportedly from 2005, two years after the letter in question.) Another 1990s Trump sketch of the Empire State Building auctioned off the same year.
And Trump in a 2008 book recalled donating an autographed doodle every year to a charity.
Of course, none of that proves he wrote this letter and drew the accompanying picture. But again, Trump is undercutting his own credibility. Why lie about doodling — especially since it's easily disprovable?
And it's possible we could learn more about this. There has been some talk about having Maxwell — who the Journal reported solicited the letter — testify before Congress.
3. Is Trump in the Epstein files?
Trump's efforts to quiet chatter about Epstein have only furthered suspicion in some corners that his name could be in the files his administration has failed to produce.
We already know that Trump's name was in Epstein's flight logs. An Epstein personal address book that leaked in 2009 contained 14 phone numbers for Trump, Melania Trump and Trump's staff, according to media reports. A 2005 search of Epstein's Palm Beach mansion produced two written messages about phone calls from Trump.
So, it's not inconceivable he's in the files his supporters have been clamoring for. Merely being named, of course, wouldn't mean Trump had done anything wrong. But it could create political headaches — as the fallout from the Journal story shows — and as demonstrated by Trump's very public reluctance to release more documents.
Former top Trump adviser Elon Musk alleged last month while lashing out at Trump that the president was indeed in the Epstein files, adding, 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.'
But he provided no evidence for his claims and later deleted the post.
Trump was asked Tuesday if Attorney General Pam Bondi had told him his name was in the files, and he didn't directly answer.
'She's given us just a very quick briefing in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen,' Trump said.
4. What did Trump know of Epstein's proclivities?
Trump's 2002 comment about Epstein's taste for women 'on the younger side' has also loomed over him, furthering theories that he might have known something about what Epstein had been up to.
That remains speculative and unproven. Trump also said nothing about underage girls; he cited young 'women.'
But questions about who knew what and when with Epstein's conduct have long lingered. Trump's Mar-a-Lago property was a backdrop to some of Epstein's misdeeds. And Epstein and Trump's social connections often revolved around women.
According to Nunberg's 2019 account to the Washington Post, Trump said he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago because of misconduct. Nunberg said Trump said he did so because Epstein had recruited a young woman who worked there to give him massages. This was years before the Epstein investigation became public knowledge, according to the Post.
'He's a real creep, I banned him,' Nunberg said Trump had told him.
Multiple reports, including a 2020 book by reporters for the Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal, have linked Epstein's ban from Mar-a-Lago to alleged overtures to the teenage daughter of a Mar-a-Lago member.
Late Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre said she was recruited into the sex-trafficking ring while working at Mar-a-Lago in 2000.
Houraney also told the Times in 2019 that he raised concerns to Trump about Epstein's conduct ahead of that 1992 'calendar girl' event.
'I said, 'Look, Donald, I know Jeff really well, I can't have him going after younger girls,'' Houraney said. 'He said, 'Look I'm putting my name on this. I wouldn't put my name on it and have a scandal.''
Trump appears to have been helpful to those probing Epstein's conduct, but we know little about what he said because he was never deposed. One attorney for Epstein's alleged victims has said Trump in 2009 was a very willing interview subject.
The attorney, Brad Edwards, said Trump 'gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever.'
5. What's with Trump's weird 2020 comments about Maxwell?
While Trump in 2019 quickly distanced himself from Epstein, his commentary the following year after Maxwell was charged was different — and somewhat bizarre.
'But I wish her well, whatever it is,' Trump told reporters in late July 2020.
Despite significant criticism of that — wishing an accused (and later-convicted) child sex trafficker well — Trump a couple weeks later doubled and tripled down when pressed by then-Axios reporter Jonathan Swan on how odd that sounded.
'Yeah, I wish her well,' Trump told Swan. 'I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty.'
Trump added, when pressed again: 'I do wish her well. I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad for anybody.'
Even for a president who often says weird things, this ranks near the top.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Reddit Post Breaking Down A MAGA Dad's "Awakening" From Two-Time Trump Voter To Trump Critic Is Going Viral
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." Related: They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." Related: The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. Related: "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." Related: "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. "I think there is a large portion of classic Republicans, not the MAGA people, who probably just didn't give a shit about most of Trump's agenda harming other people." And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:
Buzz Feed
12 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Dad's Viral Journey Away From Trump
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.
Business Insider
13 minutes ago
- Business Insider
U.S. to implement Trump's executive order restricting Birthright Citizenship
The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced plans to enforce President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) restricting automatic birthright citizenship, as soon as it takes effect. The SSA intends to enforce an executive order signed by President Trump limiting automatic birthright citizenship. The order applies to children born after February 19, 2025, and restricts citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. This policy shift could significantly affect immigrant populations, particularly their access to citizenship and social benefits. The executive order, titled ' Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,' was signed on January 20, 2025. It is expected to apply to children born after February 19, 2025, with enforcement scheduled to begin on July 27, 2025. This move will alter decades of established practice that grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the U.S. and will affect a wide range of foreign nationals, including African migrants, students, and professionals residing legally or temporarily in the United States. According to Reuters, the SSA's plans signal the administration's readiness to proceed with enforcement as soon as legal challenges are cleared. Under the current constitutional framework, children born in the U.S. are automatically granted citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration status. However, the new policy would limit that right to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. ' With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth, ' the SSA stated. CNN reports that, 'Several rulings issued by federal courts this month have ensured that that policy will not take effect for now, and the guidance documents acknowledge that reality.' However, preparations for implementation are underway. 'The government is preparing to implement the EO in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,' a USCIS memo read. Key Changes to Citizenship Verification Previously, Social Security Numbers (SSNs) were issued to U.S.-born applicants based solely on a birth certificate indicating a place of birth within the country. Under the new order, that will no longer be sufficient. Applicants born after the EO's implementation date will be required to provide proof that at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth. 'To comply with the EO, SSA will require evidence that such a person's mother and/or father is a U.S. citizen or in an eligible immigration status at the time of the person's birth, ' the SSA stated. The Social Security Administration will revise its internal manuals and application procedures to reflect these changes. Updated procedures will require applicants to submit one or more of the following: 1. Certificate of Naturalization 2. Certificate of Citizenship 3. U.S. Passport issued under the EO 4. U.S. Citizen Identification Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security 5. Consular Report of Birth Abroad 6. Other verification from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, or federal/state court records 7. A U.S. birth certificate plus evidence of a parent's U.S. citizenship or eligible immigration status The Security administration added that children of green card holders may also qualify, but only with verified documentation such as a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551), a Machine Readable Immigrant Visa (MRIV) with a Temporary I-551 stamp, or relevant DHS records. ' Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect, ' the SSA said. Implications for African Families The policy shift is expected to impact thousands of African nationals living in the U.S. on temporary work or student visas, including those under H-1B and F-1 classifications. It may also affect African families who travel to the U.S. for childbirth or educational purposes, expecting their children to gain automatic citizenship. For African countries with large diaspora populations in the U.S. including Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa; the loss of automatic citizenship rights could have long-term impacts, including reduced access to public benefits, limited legal protections for children, and potential disruptions to remittance flows and transnational family stability. On the brighter side, CNN reports that immigration rights advocates have filed legal challenges against the policy and have emphasized that the newly released SSA and USCIS guidance is 'meaningless' so long as the courts continue to block enforcement.
