What we know about Trump's relationship with Epstein
The big picture: Amid the headline-grabbing fallout from the Trump administration's conclusion that there was no evidence of an "incriminating 'client list'" of Epstein's, the president's past ties to the disgraced financier have come under renewed scrutiny this month.
Trump told reporters in 2019 he and Epstein had a "falling out" and hadn't spoken in 15 years.
Now, the president says in a Truth Social post he will be suing the WSJ over what he calls "a false, malicious, and defamatory story" about a note that allegedly included the words, "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Context: Trump spoke fondly of Epstein for a 2002 article, saying he'd known him for over a decade. But several years later, he said the two had a falling out.
The president repeatedly dismissed the recent outrage over the notorious sex offender's case, slamming what he has described as the "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax." But the controversy has rattled members of the MAGA world and spilled over onto Capitol Hill.
"It's all been a big hoax," he said Thursday. "It's perpetrated by the Democrats, and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net, and so they try and do the Democrats' work."
The latest: On Thursday, he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to ask a court to release all relevant grand jury testimony in Epstein's case, writing, "[t]his SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!"
As noted in a Washington Post analysis of public records pertaining to Epstein, there is "no public evidence of inappropriate behavior by Trump related to Epstein."
Here is a timeline of what we know about the relationship between the two men:
'80s, '90s and early 2000s: A "terrific guy"
Trump, speaking to New York Magazine for a story published October 28, 2002, described Epstein as a "Terrific guy" he'd known for 15 years.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. 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," he told the publication.
Flashback: In 1992, Trump threw a party at Mar-a-Lago, with a guest list that included NFL cheerleaders and Epstein, per the Washington Post.
NBC in 2019 aired footage from its archives of the two men socializing at the event, noting it was taken more than a decade before Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in Florida.
The two appeared in photos together multiple times. In 2000, The Washington Post reported, Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein and the future first lady were photographed together at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump's name reportedly appeared seven times in Epstein's flight logs throughout the 1990s, according to evidence released during Maxwell's trial (though his was not the only prominent name in the logs).
2004: A property fight
In 2004, according to a detailed 2019 report from The Washington Post, Trump and Epstein went head-to-head over an oceanfront Palm Beach mansion.
Trump ultimately outbid him.
As noted by the Post, it was unclear whether the two were in contact after the property face-off.
In March 2005, police were alerted that a teen girl had allegedly been paid to massage Epstein.
He was indicted in 2006 and pleaded guilty to two felony charges.
2019: Trump says he hasn't spoken to Epstein in 15 years
After Epstein was arrested and charged in 2019, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office during his first term that he wasn't a "fan" of Epstein.
"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."
After Epstein died in 2019, Trump elevated a conspiracy theory on social media falsely linking the Clintons to his death.
Following his controversial retweets, Trump told reporters he wanted a "full investigation."
July 2020: Trump wishes Maxwell "well"
Trump said in a 2020 press briefing that he hadn't been following Maxwell's case "too much."
"I just wish her well, frankly," he said. "I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach."
Feb. 2025: DOJ releases more Epstein documents with few new details
After Trump returned to the White House in 2025, his Department of Justice released more than 100 pages of documents related to Epstein.
The DOJ said Attorney General Pam Bondi had tasked FBI Director Kash Patel with investigating why the "request for all documents was not followed."
July 2025: Trump admin faces MAGA rift
The Justice Department and FBI concluded in a memo reported on by Axios in early July that they had no evidence Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a "client list," or was murdered.
As scrutiny built, the president urged his base not to "waste [t]ime" over Epstein, "somebody that nobody cares about."
On July 16, he disavowed"PAST supporters" who bought into the "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax." Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Thursday, he said people talking about the "Epstein hoax" are "really doing the Democrats' work" and are "stupid."
The following day, the Journal's report dropped.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein's ghost is haunting Trump, and America's enemies could summon more
It's the irony of all ironies: How could President Trump put his credibility on the line with his hard core MAGA supporters over Jeffrey Epstein? Trump has survived a felony conviction and was twice impeached and acquitted. He was found liable by a judge of sexual assault, owes potentially millions of dollars in libel suits for his actions and avoided possible prosecution and considerable jail time for gross mishandling of highly classified material. None of these mishaps prevented Trump from being reelected as America's 47th president. Yet, despite this graphic history, Trump is now threatened by the ghost of a convicted sexual predator. How can this be? As Epstein's attorney Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 16, Trump was free and clear of any and all entanglements with his client. And it was reported that Trump had once barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Extreme elements of his MAGA constituency have turned against Trump. For what seem to be irrational reasons, they have accused the president of a cover-up and lying about not providing full transparency on the Epstein saga and releasing the so-called 'client's list' that Dershowitz asserted was nonexistent. Conspiracy theories sprouted like mushrooms: for example, that Trump was obviously hiding his relationship with Epstein or protecting others in his administration and circle of friends from the Epstein stain. Shrill calls reverberated through Washington's political gasosphere for Attorney General Pam Bondi to resign over this failure to release the Epstein files. Having bragged that he could shoot someone dead on Park Avenue and be absolved, it is incredible that Trump could be attacked by his MAGA allies on such an extraordinarily trivial matter, given the magnitude of obstacles he has previously faced and overcome. Worse, so far, the explanations of why part of his base is incensed make little sense. That Trump has somehow now become part of the 'deep state' that he vowed to eliminate is nonsensical. Promising to release all 'any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony' on Epstein (and, for that matter, JFK's assassination) and not following through has been part of Trump's lifelong pattern of deception and disinformation, if not outright lying. It is quite possible — again, quoting Dershowitz — that there simply was no there there regarding the Epstein files, and that Trump simply exaggerated or distorted that possibility to play to his base. Then he got caught. And now Trump is lashing out against this base. Whether this is a minor tempest and will dissipate soon or has tsunami-like consequences remains to be seen. Why has this brouhaha over Epstein been so explosive? Is this the state of American politics today when a leader's credibility among his followers fractures over literally nothing, as occasionally happens in marriages? Has Trump violated some mythical bond or unspoken oath with this base? Or is the MAGA movement's instability or irrationality causing such a backlash? The timing is not helpful to Trump. In the midst of what could be a major global tariff war, the conflict in Gaza still blazing and Vladimir Putin given 50 days to put up or shut up on a cease-fire and peace negotiation in Ukraine, how do these outside players react? Do all or many shake their heads believing that this is simply the vulgarity of U.S. politics and ignore this display? Or do others, probably in Beijing and Moscow, see this as a fatal weakness in American culture and society to be exploited? Despite Trump's refusal to believe Russia interfered on his behalf in the 2016 election, make no mistake: Chinese and Russian, as well as other intelligence services, are exploring how these flaws and cracks in American politics can be exploited. For example, assuming that ex-KGB officer Putin wanted to alter the 2016 election, imagine how he could have exploited the so-called Steele dossier that alleged Trump's sexual misconduct in Moscow. The internet would have been filled with torrid stories and deep fake shots of Trump in compromising positions. With AI and other technical means, identifying seemingly minor issues that could have otherwise profound political consequences would not be difficult for an adversary or for anyone wishing to meddle in politics. This happened during Brexit. With social media as a force multiplier, it is easy to see how political fractures could be generated. As a thought experiment, suppose the resurrection of Epstein's ghost originated in a certain building in the Kremlin or inside Beijing's Forbidden City. That, I am sure, did not happen. But it could. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hunter Biden goes off on George Clooney: ‘F— him and everybody around him'
Hunter Biden went off on actor George Clooney and other high-profile Democrats in an expletive-filled response to their calls for his father, former President Biden, to drop out of the 2024 election. Appearing on YouTube personality Andrew Callagan's web series 'Channel 5,' Hunter Biden lashed out at Clooney and other members of the party who publicly criticized the former president after his disastrous debate against President Trump in summer 2024. 'F— him, f— him, f— him and everybody around him,' Hunter Biden said during the interview released Monday, in response to an anecdote about Clooney's political involvement. 'I don't have to be f—— nice. No.1, I agree with Quentin Tarantino…F—— George Clooney is not a f—— actor. He is a f—— , like…I don't know what he is. He is a brand.' Cooney was among the first prominent Democrats to call on former President Biden to drop out, warning in an op-ed in The New York Times last July that the party would lose the election otherwise. Within two weeks, the former president announced he was dropping his reelection bid and endorsing Vice President Harris to fill his place. Clooney thanked Biden 'for saving democracy once again' in response and endorsed Harris. The former president's son also lashed out at other high-profile figures in the party. 'What do you have to do with f—— anything? Why do I have to f—— listen to you?' Biden asked. 'What right do you have to step on a man who's given 52 years of his f—— life to service of this country and to decide you, George Clooney, are going to take out basically a full page ad in the f—— New York Times…to me, and James Carville who hasn't run a race in 40 f—— years and David Axelrod who had one success in his political life, and that was Barack Obama and that was because of Barack Obama, not because of f—— David Axelrod and David Plouffe and all of these guys…and the Pod Save America Guys, who were junior f—— speechwriters on Barack Obama's Senate staff who had been dining out on their relationship with him…' Hunter Biden, who was pardoned over multiple federal charges by his father during the last weeks of the former president's administration, has reemerged in public for the first time in months to slam the Democratic Party's handling of the election. He is slated to appear on former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison's new podcast, where he has blamed the Democratic Party's loss on its lack of loyalty to his father. 'You know what, we are going to fight amongst ourselves for the next three years until there's a nominee. And then with the nominee, we better as hell get behind that nominee,' Biden told Harrison on 'At Our Table.' Tommy Vietor, one of the hosts of 'Pod Save America,' responded to Biden's comments in a tweet. 'It's good to see that Hunter has taken some time to process the election, look inward, and hold himself accountable for how his family's insular, dare I say arrogant at times, approach to politics led to this catastrophic outcome we're all now living with,' he wrote.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological' deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends
A federal judge on Monday questioned the true nature of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists during closing arguments of a bench trial over the controversial arrests. U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Reagan, must determine whether the so-called 'ideological deportation policy' exists, such that the administration singled out campus activists critical of Israel's war in Gaza unlawfully. The plaintiffs, who make up several university associations, argued that the administration's policy is to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy in aim of chilling speech. 'It is stifling dissent, your honor,' said Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'That's the goal.' But the Justice Department called the suggestion 'silly,' contending that the trial evidence demonstrated no such policy exists. 'This policy is a product of the imagination and creative conjuring of the plaintiffs,' said DOJ lawyer William Kanellis. The arguments cap a roughly two-week trial over the crackdown, namely the arrests of and efforts to deport foreign-born students and faculty members linked to campus demonstrations. It was the first major trial of President Trump's second administration. Across several days, green card-holding professors at U.S. universities took the stand to testify that the high-profile arrests of outspoken students, like former Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, made them fearful and stifled their speech. On Monday, Conlon argued that was the administration's goal. She referenced statements made by Trump and other officials lauding the arrests and said they were 'designed to terrorize' those who share the views of those who were arrested. She also pointed to testimony from a senior Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), official that 'most' names his team was directed to investigate in March came from Canary Mission, a pro-Israel online blacklist that is anonymously run. The site has been accused of doxxing people protesting Israel's war with Palestinian militant group Hamas but describes its mission as documenting individuals and organizations 'that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' Conlon called the group 'extremist.' 'The fact that's the pool of people the government started with shows you what the point of this policy was,' she said. Young questioned whether the trial evidence showed Canary Mission is 'extremist' and said it seems 'perfectly appropriate' for the government to take leads from any source, noting that leads frequently come from a 'wrongdoer' or 'rival gang.' But Conlon said those leads relate to alleged lawbreaking, where here, the leads amount only to criticism of Israel or the U.S. 'That's how you end up with someone like Ms. Ozturk being described as pro-Hamas,' she added, a reference to the student's arrest being publicly linked only to an op-ed urging her university's divestment from Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio deemed several of the campus demonstrators threats to the nation's foreign policy, invoking a statute that makes deportable any noncitizen whose 'presence and activities in the United States' is thought to have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' In a memo explaining the apparent threat posed by Khalil, Rubio cited the student's beliefs as justification for his deportation. Young later expressed having 'trouble' with the apparent policy. Without making any formal findings, he said it seems to him that the new administration is implementing new foreign policy within the existing legal framework – efforts that fall squarely within executive powers. The Justice Department argued that's exactly right. Ethan Kanter, another DOJ lawyer, said that noncitizens do not have equivalent rights under the First Amendment. The nature of those rights are 'context dependent' and tied to 'competing government interests in play.' 'That is what these cases demonstrate,' Kanter said, though noting that the judge does not have to rule on that matter to decide the case in the government's favor. Young zeroed in on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)'s use of masks as a cause of concern, saying he's not aware of any other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. that allow the practice. He signaled disbelief in the government's contention that the agents were protecting their identities, instead suggesting that the 'common sense' interpretation might be that their objective is to 'spread fear.' 'Perhaps they're afraid what they're being called upon to do is of concern,' the judge said. Kanter rejected that notion, asserting that those decisions came down to the 'judgment, experience and operational needs' of individual agents. Kanellis, the other DOJ lawyer, compared the plaintiffs' case to the fictional Don Quixote's fight with windmills. In the story, Quixote sees windmills and believes they are giants. He's flung off his horse while riding to 'fight' them and does not believe his squire who notes they are windmills, not giants, insisting they were changed. 'Plaintiffs in this case imagine lawful standards amount to some grand government conspiracy,' Kanellis said, adding the challengers have been 'knocked off their horse.' But Young said another historical reference better befits the case. He described King Henry II of England asking his court to rid him of a 'troublesome priest.' Two knights went out to 'hack down' the bishop. The president, Young said, has likewise raised various concerns about campus protests. 'He doesn't have errant knights, but he's got Stephen Miller,' the judge said, referencing the top White House adviser. Young said he will issue a written ruling deciding the case but gave no indication of when it can be expected.
