Trump denies claim he wrote birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein - and says he has ordered release of more case files
In multiple posts on Truth Social, the US president accused The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of fabricating the letter that it claimed was written by Mr Trump as part of a collection of letters addressed to Epstein that his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell planned to give him as a birthday present in 2003.
According to documents seen by the WSJ, Mr Trump's letter featured several lines of typewritten text framed by what appeared to be a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman.
The paper said the letter concludes "Happy Birthday - and may every day be another wonderful secret", and featured the signature "Donald", allegedly drawn across the woman's waist, meant to mimic the appearance of pubic hair.
Responding to the WSJ's claims, Mr Trump wrote: "The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein. These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures.
"I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn't print this Fake Story. But he did, and now I'm going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DJT."
He said earlier he would also sue the WSJ and News Corp, which Mr Murdoch owns. The WSJ is published by News Corp subsidiary company, Dow Jones & Co.
1:47
In a separate post, Mr Trump said he has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to release "any and all pertinent grand jury testimony" in the case of the paedophile financier who was found dead in his Manhattan cell in August 2019, shortly after he was arrested on sex trafficking charges.
The release of any documents, Mr Trump said, would be subject to approval by a court.
The justice department has previously said it had around 200 documents relating to Epstein and that the FBI had thousands more. It is unknown how much of this is grand jury testimony - which is typically kept secret under US law.
Ms Bondi responded to the president on X, writing: "President Trump-we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts."
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
The Trump administration has come under criticism after the president appeared to U-turn on his own promise to release more information about the Epstein case publicly.
In the run-up to the US election last year, Mr Trump drew on rumours and conspiracy theories that appeared to accuse the Biden administration of suppressing the extent of Epstein's paedophilia, predatory behaviour and his so-called "client list" - thought to contain names of the rich and famous who conspired with him in a child sex trafficking operation.
Ms Bondi fuelled these rumours in February by telling Fox News that the alleged Epstein client list was "sitting on my desk right now to review".
In the same month, the Justice Department released some government documents regarding the case, but there were no new revelations.
After a months-long review of additional evidence, the department earlier this month released a video meant to prove that Epstein killed himself, but said no other files related to the case would be made public.
The decision was criticised by many in Mr Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, who Mr Trump later called "weaklings".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
23 minutes ago
- STV News
Protesters urged to be 'peaceful' during President Donald Trump's visit to Scotland
Protestors have been urged to remain 'peaceful' and notify police of their plans during Donald Trump's visit to Scotland The US President will visit both of his golf courses in Scotland: Turnberry in Ayrshire and Menie in Aberdeenshire, between July 25 and 29. The President will meet with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer while in Aberdeen, while plans are being put in place for the President to meet First Minister John Swinney, according to the Scottish Government. Police are working on the assumption that there will be protests in Ayrshire, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh Assistant chief constable Emma Bond, who is heading up the operation, said Police Scotland will take a 'proportionate' approach to ensure people can protest safely, with the force offering to engage with demonstrators ahead of time on a 'no surprises' basis. Bond told STV News 'We will absolutely look to accommodate and communicate with protest groups to make sure they are able to exercise those rights. 'Anybody who does plan to attend, I'd ask them to get in contact and speak to our protest liaison officers so we can maximise our no surprises approach. 'We have a style and desire that our approach is one that is a focused and positive one.' A warning was also issued to any supporters of Palestine Action planning to attend any protests during the President's visit. The ACC stated that people deemed to be supporting the proscribed group would be 'liable to arrest' under the Terrorism Act. The policing operation will be the biggest the force has faced since the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 2022. Although Trump's first visit since being voted in for a second term is 'complex', the large scale operation is something Police Scotland are 'very experienced' in dealing with, according to the ACC. The current plan involves local, national and specialist officer from Police Scotland as well as other forces following a request for mutual aid. ACC Bond said: 'It is a complex policing operation. 'One that focusses on maintaining public safety, ensuring we balance people's right to peaceful protest and making sure we minimise disruption to wider communities. 'It is a significant event but one where Police Scotland are very experienced in terms of planning operations and events at this scale.'. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump pulls U.S. out of 'woke' UN cultural agency AGAIN after raging against it for years
President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from UNESCO, citing the agency's decision to admit Palestine as a member state and its commitment to ' woke ' causes. In a statement to the Daily Mail, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said UNESCO 'supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November.' The State Department formally announced the decision on Tuesday. It will take effect December 31, 2026. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce added that the agency's 'decision to admit the 'state of Palestine' as a member State is highly problematic and contrary to U.S. policy. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay said he deeply regretted Trump's decision but had anticipated it and adjusted its budget accordingly. 'Thanks to the efforts made by the organization since 2018, the decreasing trend in the financial contribution of the U.S. has been offset, so that it now represents 8% of the organization's total budget compared to 40% for some United Nations entities,' Azoulay said in a statement. UNESCO first admitted Palestine as a full member in 2011, in a bow to Palestine's strategy to seek international recognition through UN agencies. This is the third time the U.S. has left UNESCO, with the first withdrawal occurring in 1984 under President Reagan. The U.N. agency, which is based in Paris, promotes international cooperation in education, science, culture, and communication. But some of its decisions, particularly around the naming of world heritage sites, have been controversial. The Trump administration ordered a review of the United States' membership in the organization earlier this year. Israel has also left the agency. UNESCO is best known for designating World Heritage Sites, including the Grand Canyon in the United States and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria. But the organization has been criticized for supporting the eviction and abuse of Indigenous peoples in some World Heritage sites. And it faces complaints about its overly-bureaucratic structure. Trump removed the U.S. from UNESCO during his first term - citing anti-Israel bias - but President Joe Biden readmitted the country to the organization. After withdrawing from the agency during the Reagan administration after claims it advanced the interests of the Soviet Union, President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO in 2003. Trump, in a push for isolationism, has removed the U.S. from other global bodies. He's already decided to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization and halt funding to the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA as part of a review of the U.S.' participation in UN agencies, due to be concluded in August. In his first administration, Trump removed the U.S. from the WHO, the U.N. Human Rights Council, a global climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal. Biden returned the country to those bodies.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The supreme court is giving a lawless president the green light
Just when we thought the US supreme court couldn't sink any lower in bowing and scraping to Donald Trump, it issued a shocking order last week that brushed aside important legal precedents as it ruled in the president's favor. In that case, the court's rightwing supermajority essentially gave Trump carte blanche to dismantle the Department of Education, which plays an important role in the lives of the nation's 50 million public schoolchildren, sending federal money to schools, helping students with disabilities and enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Many legal experts, along with the court's three liberal justices, protested that the court was letting Trump abolish a congressionally created federal agency without Congress's approval. In their dissent, the liberal justices warned that the court was undermining Congress's authority and the constitution's separation of powers. Not only that, we should all be concerned that the court was giving dangerous new powers to the most authoritarian-minded president in US history. In the Department of Education case, the court issued a one-paragraph, unsigned order that lifted a lower court's injunction that blocked the Trump administration from making wholesale layoffs that went far toward dismantling the department. Recognizing that Article I of the constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund federal agencies and define their responsibilities, prior supreme court decisions have held that presidents don't have the power to defy what Congress has legislated and gut an agency without Congress's approval. In a stinging dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: 'Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive's task, by contrast, is to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Sotomayor added that the court's order 'permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department' was 'indefensible'. Making the court's move even more maddening was its failure to include any reasoning to explain its action – it was the most recent in a string of brief 'emergency docket' orders which, without giving any rationale, ruled on Trump's behalf. The rightwing justices might argue that this was a harmless, minor order, merely lifting a lower court's injunction until the case is fully adjudicated. But by vacating the injunction, the court let Linda McMahon, the secretary of education, speed ahead with her plan to slash the department's workforce by over 50%, a move that will gut the agency and prevent it from carrying out many functions that Congress authorized it to do. The supreme court's order is likely to leave the department an empty shell by the time the judiciary issues a final ruling on whether Trump broke the law in gutting the department – and there's a good chance the judiciary will conclude that Trump acted illegally. The Trump administration insisted that it wasn't dismantling the education department, that it had merely ordered massive layoffs there to boost efficiency. But the district court judge didn't buy the administrations' arguments, especially because Trump had spoken so frequently about killing the department. Sotomayor wrote that the constitution requires all presidents, including Trump, to faithfully execute the law. But in this case, Trump seemed eager to execute the Department of Education, while showing scant concern for executing the law. Noting Trump's repeated vows to abolish the department, Sotomayor chided the supermajority, writing: 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' With that language, the three dissenting justices were in essence accusing the supermajority of aiding and abetting Trump's defiance of the law. In the court's 236-year history, rarely have dissenting justices been so emphatic in criticizing the majority for 'expediting' a president's lawlessness. Sotomayor hammered that point home, writing: 'The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Constitution's separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle.' If the US constitution means anything, it means that the supreme court should stand up to a president who seeks to maximize his power by defying the law. But far too often today's rightwing supermajority seems to lean in to back Trump. The court leaned in for Trump last year in Chief Justice John Roberts' much-criticized ruling that gave Trump and other presidents vast immunity from prosecution. The supermajority leaned in for Trump last month when it gave Elon Musk and his Doge twentysomethings access to sensitive personal information for over 70 million Americans on Social Security. One would think the nine justices would be eager to strengthen the pillars that uphold our democracy: the separation of powers, fair elections, respect for the law, limits on the power of the executive. But the Roberts court has too often weakened those pillars: by giving Trump huge immunity from prosecution, by turning a blind eye to egregious gerrymandering that prevents fair elections and by letting Trump fire top officials from independent agencies long before their terms end. In late June, the supermajority curbed district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions to put a brake on Trump's rampant lawlessness – by that time, lower court judges had issued over 190 orders blocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they deemed unlawful. In the Department of Education case, the court again weakened a pillar upholding our democracy; it gave Trump a green light to ignore Congress's wishes and take a wrecking ball to the department. It's hugely dismaying that the court undercut Congress's power at a time when Trump has transformed the nation's senators and representatives into an assemblage of compliant kittens by intimidating them with a social media bullhorn that bludgeons anyone who dares to defy his wishes. Instead of shoring up Congress's power in the face of such intimidation, the Roberts court has seemed happy to undermine Congress and hand over more power to Trump. On top of all that, it is galling to see the court issue so many pro-Trump orders without giving any rationale. When the US is so polarized and the court so widely criticized for its many pro-Trump rulings, it would seem incumbent upon the court, when issuing orders, to explain why it's doing what it's doing. But the court has repeatedly failed to sufficiently explain its decisions, revealing an unfortunate arrogance and obtuseness. Justice Samuel Alito has complained about those who criticize the court over the rushed, unexplained decisions on its emergency docket. Critics have faulted the court for issuing too many orders through that docket, which uses abbreviated procedures to issue orders that remain in force while the courts adjudicate whether Trump's actions are legal. Alito maintains that with the crush of cases, the court doesn't have the time to write its usual, carefully wrought decisions. Alito has suggested, rather outrageously, that many critics of the court are engaged in improper bullying. He said that some critics of the emergency docket suggest it has been 'captured by a dangerous cabal' that uses 'sneaky' methods. Those criticisms, Alito warned, fuel 'unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court'. When the court issues one order after another that favors Trump, the most lawless president in US history, often without explanation, the court should expect to be criticized for doing too little to defend our democracy and the rule of law. Alito shouldn't be so thin-skinned or paranoid about supposed intimidation; he does have life tenure. The court's critics aren't seeking to intimidate the justices. Rather they're pleading with the rightwing supermajority to stop bowing to Trump and become more resolute in enforcing the law against the most authoritarian president in history, a president who said he could 'terminate' parts of the constitution and who claims sweeping powers to singlehandedly nullify laws. The court's supermajority should remember: we are supposed to have a government of laws, not of strongmen. Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues
