
The British editor who revealed Trump's Epstein letter
Ms Tucker, the British editor of The Wall Street Journal, picked up and soon found herself talking directly to an irate US president.
The story of the birthday card was 'fake', he told her, before threatening to sue if she did not back down.
His efforts were in vain.
On Thursday night, the newspaper published details of a message said to be signed off with a drawing of a nude woman. Mr Trump had used his signature to represent pubic hair, it is alleged.
The report was certainly salacious; it sparked further questions about Mr Trump's relationship with the paedophile financier.
It helped fan the flames of arguably the biggest crisis of Mr Trump's presidency so far, the growing demand for his administration to release the full so-called Epstein files.
But it also brought Mr Trump into open conflict with one of the world's most powerful media moguls, the Wall Street Journal owner Rupert Murdoch.
The call between Ms Tucker and Mr Trump was tense, The Telegraph understands. After the story was published, Mr Trump fired off a lengthy denial on Truth Social, his own media platform.
The 79-year-old accused Ms Tucker of running a 'false, malicious, and defamatory story' and filed a $10bn lawsuit against the WSJ, naming Mr Murdoch and the reporters who wrote the story as defendants.
Holding her nerve has earned Ms Tucker the wrath of the US president and many of his loyal followers. But the Epstein story is the type of reporting Ms Tucker made a name for on Fleet Street – and now the US – those close to her say.
For months, Mr Trump has been angered by the WSJ's coverage of his policies as the newspaper has continued to refuse to shy away from criticising his policies.
While NewsCorp's media outlets, the New York Post and Fox News, often portray the president in a positive light, the WSJ has not attempted to curry favour with the White House.
Media executives such as Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have appeared to try and appease the US president, but the WSJ has stood out for critical pieces, at times skewering his policies.
In May, when a reporter from the newspaper attempted to ask Mr Trump a question on Air Force One, he denounced the paper as 'rotten' and as having 'truly gone to hell'.
However, the WSJ has maintained its influence. Last month, JD Vance, the vice-president, travelled to Mr Murdoch's Montana ranch to speak to the media mogul, his son Lachlan and other Fox News executives.
Ms Tucker, 58, was selected by Mr Murdoch as the newspaper's first female editor-in-chief, replacing Matt Murray in February 2023 in a bid to shake up the publication.
Born in London in 1966, she grew up in Lewes, Sussex, before going to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at University College, Oxford, where she edited the university magazine Isis.
After joining the graduate trainee programme at the Financial Times, where she met her close friend Rachel Johnson, Boris Johnson's sister, she went on to work in the newspaper's Berlin and Brussels bureaus.
In 2020, she became the first female editor of The Sunday Times in more than a century. Ex-colleagues describe her as tenacious.
Asked about the run-in with Mr Trump, John Witherow, the former editor of The Times, told The Telegraph of his former deputy: 'I know she's tough.'
Within weeks of arriving at the WSJ, Ms Tucker demonstrated her determination to back her reporters in the campaign to release WSJ journalist Evan Gershkovich, who had been detained in Russia.
But while she received praise for her campaign for Mr Gershkovich's release, her arrival was not welcomed by everyone. Many staff were abhorred by job cuts, restructuring and a push to digital-first to attempt to bring an edginess back to the publication.
Last year, more than 100 journalists staged a protest against the changes, covering the walls of her office in Post-it notes with comments such as 'the cuts are killing morale'.
Ms Tucker told Vanity Fair that while the cuts 'may look callous, it's so that we get it right, so I don't have to do it over again.'
She has also come under fire for coverage from both sides of the political aisle. The WSJ was the first newspaper to report on Joe Biden's mental fitness, journalism that was denounced by some left-leaning publications at the time.
She also clashed with Mr Murdoch, with reports suggesting he was 'livid' with her after the WSJ described a newsletter launched by a former CNN reporter as a 'must-read'.
Ms Tucker has also been outspoken about standing up to the Trump administration. Responding to claims by the CEO of Elon Musk's X that her newspaper had run a fake news story about the platform, she said: 'Many of the stories we publish do upset political leaders or CEOs, but we can't, you know, we have to be thinking about the validity of the story.'
Ms Tucker will now likely face Mr Trump in court in some form as her paper defends the $10bn lawsuit. Whether full details of the alleged birthday card will come to light is not yet clear.
Unlike the two reporters who brought her the story, and Mr Murdoch she is not named in Mr Trump's legal action.
Since parts of the letter were published on Thursday, the Trump administration has already promised to release more transcripts from the investigations into Epstein.
But the scandal shows little sign of going away.
The release of the grand jury documents may fall short of what many of Mr Trump's supporters have sought.
On Sunday, one of Epstein's former attorneys called on the US Justice Department to release additional investigative records from its sex-trafficking investigation, and urged the government to grant Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein's former girlfriend and former British socialite – immunity so that she can testify about his crimes.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Alan Dershowitz said the grand jury transcripts that Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday asked a federal judge to unseal would not contain the types of information being sought by Mr Trump's supporters, such as the names of Epstein's clientele.
'I think the judge should release it, but they are not in the grand jury transcripts,' Dershowitz said on the programme. 'I've seen some of these materials. For example, there is an FBI report of interviews with alleged victims in which at least one of the victims names very important people,' he said, adding that those names have been redacted.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.


Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
South Korea to prepare mutually agreeable trade package as US tariff deadline looms
SEOUL, July 26 (Reuters) - South Korea will prepare a trade package that is mutually agreeable with the United States ahead of minister-level meetings planned next week and a U.S. tariff-pause deadline of August 1, the presidential office said on Saturday. The package will include shipbuilding cooperation, a sector of high interest to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who discussed the matter with South Korea's Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan on Friday, it said in a statement. South Korea's Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol and Foreign Minister Cho Hyun will also hold meetings with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and State Secretary Marco Rubio, respectively, next week.


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Australia v British & Irish Lions on TV? Kick-off time, channel and how to watch second Test at MCG
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.