The British editor who revealed Trump's Epstein letter
It was the US president, dialling in from Air Force One to have a word with the British editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Earlier that day Mr Trump had been announcing an AI investment package in Pittsburgh. Now he was irate, demanding the 'fake' story was pulled and threatening to sue if Ms Tucker did not yield.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CNN host laughs at Republican senator as he fact-checks him on Epstein ‘sweetheart' deal
CNN's Jake Tapper repeatedly fact-checked a Republican senator on air Sunday as the lawmaker insisted that Democrats and Barack Obama's administration were at fault for a 'sweetheart' deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to escape his 2008 conviction on child sex charges virtually unscathed. Sen. Markwayne Mullin appeared on CNN's State of the Union and repeatedly claimed that a plea agreement to keep Epstein from being charged federally for child sex crimes was signed in 2009, under the Obama administration. But Epstein's plea agreement was drafted in 2007 and signed in 2008, when he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for sex, before Obama was even president. 'It was 2008,' Tapper corrected him, chuckling. Tapper noted that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the non-prosecution agreement was Alex Acosta, who went on become Donald Trump's secretary of labor during his first administration. 'It all took place in 2008,' Tapper said. Mullin then shot back, asking 'who was in office at the time?' — seemingly making the error of assuming that Obama was the president. Obama won the presidential election that year but was inaugurated in January 2009. 'In 2008, George W. Bush was the president,' Tapper said, as he was cut off by Mullin repeating his question. 'George W. Bush.' Mullin went on to insist that because the case was 'sealed in 2009' that Democrats were somehow involved. A clearly exasperated Tapper responded that 'the point is, the 'sweetheart deal', which was completed in 2008, was under the Bush administration.' The plea agreement inked between Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, was staggering in its leniency. Epstein was allowed to leave the prison facility for hours at a time for 'work release' to the headquarters of a nebulous enterprise called the 'Florida Science Foundation' he founded shortly before beginning his sentence and shut down when it concluded. Inside the prison, Epstein was allowed to maintain his own office, just as he'd done at Harvard University for years, while watching television and was watched by guards who wore suits and were partially on his payroll. Mullin and other Republicans closely aligned with the president are treading a careful line on the issue of the Epstein investigation. The Trump administration ignited a firestorm early in July when the Department of Justice and FBI announced that the agencies would not release any more documents related to the Epstein investigation despite having promised to do so. The agencies cited a refusal to release identifying information about victims and graphic sexual imagery involving children. Most glaringly, the agencies also declared in that early July announcement that a so-called 'client list' of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators had not been found. Having latched on to the issue long before Trump was elected to a second term, his MAGA base descended into chaos. Many of the president's 2024 supporters called the reversal a betrayal by the administration, while some questioned whether Trump himself was involved in a cover-up to protect himself or other powerful men named as Epstein's accomplices in the files. Some Democrats latched on to the issue at the same time, joining calls for transparency. Then, a pair of articles in The Wall Street Journal purported to outline Trump's own connections to the investigation. The newspaper reported the contents of a message allegedly penned by Trump to Epstein as part of a 50th birthday celebration in 2003, including allusions to a 'secret.' Trump firmly denied authoring the note, and sued the newspaper and its reporters in response. A second article from the WSJ days later reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump in May that he was mentioned in the Epstein investigation multiple times, thought it was not clear in what context The White House called that story 'fake' and has repeatedly insinuated that Democrats including Joe Biden tampered with the Epstein files in response. Being mentioned in the files does not mean wrongdoing, and hundreds of names are reportedly included. Republicans on Capitol Hill are caught in the middle. Some are joining on to a bipartisan effort led by Thomas Massie — a Republican who clashed with the president over the GOP budget reconciliation package earlier this year — and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to force the Justice Department to release the entirety of its document trove, with redactions for child sexual assault material and the names or identifying information of victims. Others more aligned with leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. But Johnson and others have been careful not to label the Epstein story a distraction, to the White House's annoyance. Johnson called the August recess early this past week, sending lawmakers home for the month to avoid a vote legislation from Massie and Khanna.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Number of Democratic voters who are ‘extremely motivated' to vote in next election skyrockets
Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to cast their ballots in the 2026 midterm elections, a dramatic uptick from four years ago, polling shows. Just six months after Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic-aligned voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to vote in the next election, a CNN poll conducted by SSRS this month found. By contrast, only 50 percent of Republicans say the same. Democrats are now looking to enter midterm elections in 2026 under similar circumstances as 2018 in an attempt to break up the GOP's control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. During the 2018 elections, voters dealt a massive blow to President Donald Trump's first-term agenda, with House Democrats gaining 23 seats to take control of the House. In October 2022, two years into President Joe Biden's term when Democrats narrowly controlled the trifecta, just 44 percent of Democratic voters expressed the same motivation to vote in the midterm. That figure was just slightly higher for Republicans, with 48 percent saying they were eager to vote. In that election, Republicans clinched the House of Representatives while Democrats retained control of the Senate. Still, the poll shows Democrats could have some work cut out for them. Just 28 percent of respondents said they view the Democratic Party favorably. Meanwhile, 33 percent expressed a favorable view of the Republican Party. 'I think that the Democratic Party, we have a lot of work to do to make sure we are meeting voters where they are, listening to what they have to say, and talking to them about issues that they want us to take action on,' Virginia Democratic Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan told CNN in response to the poll. "What's going to matter is what we're doing on the ground in these districts.' Recovering from Kamala Harris' defeat to Trump in 2024, Democrats are looking to harness an electorate that they lost in the last election. A separate poll by Lake Research Partners and Way to Win analyzed 'Biden skippers,' those living in battleground states who voted for Biden in 2020 but sat out of the 2024 presidential election. The survey poked holes in the idea that Harris was 'too far left.' Progressive lawmaker Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez topped the list of public figures respondents viewed positively, with 78 percent having a favorable view of Sanders and 67 percent having a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez. Republicans are also making moves ahead of the 2026 midterms. The White House is already strategizing to ensure the GOP retains the trifecta. The plan reportedly includes Trump returning to the campaign trail as well as him having a hand in advising which candidates run and which 'stay put' in the upcoming election, sources told Politico.
Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
EU trade deal with Trump helps Europe ditch Russian fuels
The new trade deal that President Trump unveiled with the European Union includes a European pledge to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy. Why it matters: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it will help the bloc further wean itself off Russian gas. The $750 billion is spread across three years, she told reporters in Scotland on Sunday. The big picture:"We still have too much Russian LNG that is coming through the back door ... to our European Union," von der Leyen said, and also cited some continued oil shipments. "We want to absolutely get rid of Russian fossil fuels, and therefore it is much welcome to purchase the more affordable and better LNG from the United States," she said. EU pipeline imports of gas from Russia, once its dominant supplier, have fallen greatly. But imports of Russian LNG remain substantial. What we're watching: EU members' purchases of U.S. LNG and oil have risen sharply since Russia invaded Ukraine. And European energy companies have already been signing deals for future LNG volumes from U.S. projects that are planned or already under construction. The bottom line: Details are lacking. The big question is how much this increases purchases that would have occurred anyway. ClearView Energy Partners, in a note, said that even if the $250B annually includes existing U.S. energy exports to the EU of roughly $78B per year, it would still be a big jump. The total "would far outstrip" U.S. energy purchases in Trump's "phase one" deal with China, ClearView said.
