Epstein ‘stole' young women from Mar-a-Lago spa, including Virginia Giuffre, claims Donald Trump
Trump specifically acknowledged that one of those women was Virginia Giuffre, a central figure among Epstein's most prominent accusers in the long-running sex trafficking case. Giuffre has alleged she was recruited as a teenager and later abused by Epstein and his associates, according to the report.
Trump's comments expanded on remarks he had made a day earlier, when he said he had banned Epstein from his private club in Florida two decades ago because his one-time friend 'stole people that worked for me.'
At the time, he did not make clear who those workers were.
The Republican president has faced an outcry over his administration's refusal to release more records about Epstein after promises of transparency, a rare example of strain within Trump's tightly controlled political coalition.
Trump has attempted to tamp down questions about the case, expressing annoyance that people are still talking about it six years after Epstein died by suicide while awaiting trial, even though some of his own allies have promoted conspiracy theories about it.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's imprisoned former girlfriend, was recently interviewed inside a Florida courthouse by the Justice Department's No. 2 official, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, though officials have not publicly disclosed what she said. Her lawyers said Tuesday that she's willing to answer more questions from Congress if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony and if lawmakers agree to satisfy other conditions.
Aboard Air Force One while returning from Scotland, Trump said he was upset that Epstein was 'taking people who worked for me.' The women, he said, were 'taken out of the spa, hired by him — in other words, gone.'
'I said, listen, we don't want you taking our people,' Trump said. When it happened again, Trump said he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.
Asked if Giuffre was one of the employees poached by Epstein, he demurred but then said 'he stole her.'
The White House originally said Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago because he was acting like a 'creep.'
Giuffre died by suicide earlier this year. She claimed that Maxwell spotted her working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, when she was a teenager, and hired her as Epstein's masseuse, which led to sexual abuse.
Although Giuffre's allegations did not become part of criminal prosecutions against Epstein, she is central to conspiracy theories about the case. She accused Epstein of pressuring her into having sex with powerful men.
Maxwell, who has denied Giuffre's allegations, is serving a 20-year-prison sentence in a Florida federal prison for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls.
A spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee, which requested the interview with Maxwell, said the panel would not consider granting the immunity she requested.
The potential interview is part of a frenzied, renewed interest in the Epstein saga following the Justice Department's statement earlier this month that it would not be releasing any additional records from the investigation, an abrupt announcement that stunned online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's political base who had been hoping to find proof of a government coverup.
Since then, the Trump administration has sought to present itself as promoting transparency, with the department urging courts to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex-trafficking investigations. A judge in Florida last week rejected the request, though similar requests are pending in New York.
In a letter Tuesday, Maxwell's attorneys said that though their initial instinct was for Maxwell to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they are open to having her cooperate provided that lawmakers satisfy their request for immunity and other conditions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
5 minutes ago
- Economic Times
No formal discussion on F-35 fighter jets with US: Centre tells Parliament
Union Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply that there has been no formal discussion on F-35 fighter jets with the United States (US). Singh was responding to questions posed by Congress MP Balwant Baswant Wankhade, who enquired about the relationship with the US on military assistance. "During PM Modi's US visit, the joint statement issued after the meeting with Trump mentioned that the US will review its policy on releasing F-35 and underwater systems to India. However, no formal discussion has taken place on this issue so far," the junior minister said in his written reply. On the role of American diplomats to stop hostilities between India and Pakistan, MoS Singh said that there were a number of diplomatic conversations with various countries, including the US. He asserted that the discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request. "With specific reference to the United States, it was conveyed to Vice President JD Vance on May 9 that India would appropriately respond if Pakistan launched a major attack. The discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan through the existing channels of communication between the two armed forces, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request," the reply read. When asked about whether India has evaluated the impact of receiving US military assistance on the autonomy of its foreign policy, considering strategic implications, especially in a conflict scenario involving third-party mediation, Singh said that the outstanding issues with Pakistan will be discussed only bilaterally. "Our longstanding position remains that any outstanding issue with Pakistan will be discussed only bilaterally. This has been made clear to all nations, including by the Prime Minister to the US President," the reply read. "The India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership is anchored in mutual trust, shared interests, goodwill and robust engagement between our citizens. The partnership has also benefited from growing strategic convergence and cooperation. The Government of India closely evaluates all its external partnerships, including those in the defence and strategic domains, through the prism of India's national interest and commitment to strategic autonomy," it added.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 minutes ago
- First Post
Why Trump's public order to reposition nuclear submarines near Russia is concerning
US President Donald Trump has ordered two nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions' after a fiery exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, raising eyebrows worldwide. While experts stress this is more of a signal than a military move, Trump's decision to publicise submarine positioning marks a rare escalation in rhetoric with Moscow read more US President Donald Trump looks on as a member of the media raises their hand, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, August 1, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump on Friday revealed that he had directed two American nuclear submarines to be relocated to what he described as 'the appropriate regions.' His announcement followed a volatile exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev … I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He added, 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Later in the day, Trump doubled down on his decision during an interaction with reporters, stating, 'A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we're going to protect our people.' In an interview with Newsmax, he offered further reasoning, saying, 'We always want to be ready, and so I have sent to the region two nuclear submarines. I just want to make sure that his words are only words and nothing more than that.' The Pentagon and the US Navy, however, remained silent on the development, highlighting how rare it is for a sitting US president to publicly disclose or even allude to the positioning of nuclear-capable submarines, an issue typically kept behind numerous classified protocols. Why Medvedev's remarks triggered Trump The chain of events began days earlier, when Trump issued a blunt ultimatum to Moscow: agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine within ten days or face sweeping tariffs. The warning was the latest in Trump's already hardening stance on the conflict, which has dragged on for more than three years since Russia's invasion in 2022. Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, responded with a post that bristled with mockery and menace. He wrote that Trump's series of ultimatums represented 'a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' Dmitry Medvedev is a former President as well as Prime Minister of Russia. File Image/Reuters The post referenced 'Sleepy Joe,' a nickname Trump has long used to deride his predecessor Joe Biden. By comparing Trump's ultimatum to Biden's policies and warning of potential war, Medvedev appeared to deliberately provoke a reaction. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In another statement, he made reference to Russia's Cold War-era automatic nuclear retaliation capabilities — a statement that escalated the online confrontation and set off alarms in Washington. Trump, who has increasingly voiced anger toward Russia in recent months, snapped back and told Medvedev to 'watch his words,' accusing Moscow of carrying out 'disgusting' attacks on Ukraine and warning of additional sanctions. In one message, he wrote: 'This is Biden's War, not 'TRUMP's.' I'm just here to see if I can stop it!' Though Medvedev is widely seen as a political figurehead with little direct control over Russia's nuclear arsenal, his language has often been combative and is viewed by many Western officials as reflecting the Kremlin's ideological posture. Some US officials quietly downplayed the seriousness of Medvedev's comments, saying they were not treated as an imminent nuclear threat. But for Trump, the exchange became personal — and public. What submarines did Trump mean One of the biggest questions following Trump's announcement was: what exactly did he mean by 'nuclear submarines'? The United States operates 71 nuclear-powered submarines, which fall into two broad categories: fast-attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The latter — the Ohio-class fleet — forms one of the three pillars of America's nuclear 'triad,' alongside land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers. The US has 14 Ohio-class submarines, each able to carry up to 24 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles. These missiles are capable of delivering multiple thermonuclear warheads to targets up to 4,600 miles (7,400 km) away. At any given moment, between 8 and 10 of these subs are on patrol in undisclosed locations across the globe, maintaining a constant state of readiness. Experts note that such submarines do not need to be 'moved into position' to strike potential targets, because their range covers vast swaths of the planet. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists highlighted this point, saying: 'The subs are always there all the time and don't need to be moved into position. He grants Medvedev a response to these crazy statements.' It remains unclear whether Trump was referring to these nuclear-armed Ohio-class subs or to other nuclear-powered attack submarines, which are not armed with nuclear weapons but can carry conventional missiles and conduct surveillance, intelligence, and anti-ship operations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Russia boasts around 64 vessels in its submarine fleet of which more than half of them are reportedly nuclear-powered. This includes 11 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines, 14 nuclear-powered attack submarines, and 16 ballistic missile submarines, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Why this is unusual by a US president While the US military regularly shifts its submarine deployments, it almost never advertises those movements. In fact, the operational secrecy of ballistic missile submarines is a foundational element of US nuclear deterrence strategy — their undetected presence is meant to assure adversaries that any nuclear strike on the United States would be met with devastating retaliation. That is what made Trump's announcement so unusual. By publicly declaring the submarine repositioning, he effectively turned a normally silent act of military deterrence into a loud political signal. Analysts say this appears to be part of Trump's well-known style of performative strength — responding visibly when provoked. Security expert explained the move by saying that the submarines were likely already where they need to be, but announcing their movement amplifies the signal to Moscow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's decision to go public also fits a broader pattern. In December 2016, weeks before his first inauguration, Trump had posted on Twitter that the US 'must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.' That statement triggered fears of a potential arms race, even though the number of US nuclear warheads has largely remained stable in recent decades, shrinking from Cold War highs through arms control agreements. Why Trump publicly mentioned the nuclear submarines Trump's relationship with Russia and its leadership has long been a matter of intense debate. In his first term, he frequently boasted about his rapport with President Vladimir Putin, portraying himself as a dealmaker who could manage the bilateral relationship better than his predecessors. But his recent language suggests a turn toward frustration and confrontation. In recent weeks, Trump has blasted Russia's military actions in Ukraine, describing them as 'disgusting' and accusing Putin of talking 'bullshit.' He has also threatened secondary sanctions on countries purchasing Russian energy — explicitly mentioning India — and warned that buyers of Russian oil could face economic penalties. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At the same time, he has pursued aggressive tariff policies, declaring, 'They can take their dead economies down together.' Although Medvedev was the immediate target of his submarine remarks, many observers believe the real message was aimed at Putin. Trump has become more critical of the Kremlin while still appearing to believe he retains a personal channel with the Russian president. Experts weigh in: signalling, not immediate conflict Despite the fiery language and the alarming subject matter — nuclear weapons — most security analysts say Trump's announcement is not evidence of imminent military escalation. Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior Pentagon official, argued that this move was mostly about messaging rather than preparing for a nuclear clash. 'It's really signalling. It's not the beginning of some nuclear confrontation and nobody reads it as such. And I would imagine the Russians don't either,' she told Reuters. At the same time, there are concerns about the potential consequences of such rhetoric. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, condemned the tone of the exchange, stating: 'This is irresponsible and inadvisable. No leader or deputy leader should be threatening nuclear war, let alone in a juvenile manner on social media.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Other analysts warn that Trump could be stepping into what they call a 'commitment trap,' in which strong words create an expectation that he will follow through with increasingly forceful actions if tensions escalate further. What next for Trump, Ukraine and Putin Trump's submarine declaration did not happen in isolation. It is part of a broader strategy — or at least a series of moves — to pressure Moscow into ending the war in Ukraine. On July 29, Trump had given Russia a ten-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire or face punishing tariffs. The deadline expires on August 8, and Moscow has shown no signs of complying. Putin has instead reiterated that the 'momentum of the war' favours Russia, while saying he remains open to 'peace talks,' a statement that has not been accompanied by any real concessions. Supporters may see this as a show of decisiveness and resolve, especially toward a Russia that has frequently used its own nuclear rhetoric to intimidate. Critics, however, argue that publicising such decisions undermines the quiet deterrence posture that the US has cultivated for decades — and raises unnecessary fears of a nuclear standoff. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
New Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Academics warn Columbia's $200M Trump deal could set blueprint for wider assault on universities
WASHINGTON: Columbia University's $200 million agreement with US President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme."
