President Donald Trump refused to address a birthday note that he reportedly wrote to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after House Democrats released it.
On Tuesday, NBC News contacted the president by phone to ask him about the message he allegedly sent for Epstein's 50th birthday. The note was written inside a doodle of a woman and included a reference to a "wonderful secret."
"I don't comment on something that's a dead issue," Trump told NBC. "I gave all comments to the staff. It's a dead issue."
The president had previously denied that the note existed.
White House aides insisted that the note released to Democrats by Epstein's estate was fake.
"The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on Monday. "As I have said all along, it's very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it."
Leavitt warned that Trump would "continue to aggressively pursue litigation" against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal for first publishing details about the note in July.
CNN senior legal analyst and attorney Elie Honig outlined what he said will be an outcome in the growing scandal over President Donald Trump’s past ties to Jeffrey Epstein on Tuesday — and it could put the president in a very precarious spot.
Trump is under renewed scrutiny for his past ties with Epstein, the late financier and convicted child sex offender, after a House committee published new documents Monday revealing details of the pair's relationship, including a bawdy letter Trump allegedly sent Epstein in 2003.
That letter was first reported in July by the Wall Street Journal, leading Trump to sue the outlet for defamation seeking $10 billion in damages and denying ever having written it — and even denying it existed.
With the letter now published, however, Trump’s case against the outlet “just got a heck of a lot more difficult for him,” Honig said Tuesday.
“Trump's lead claim is that this letter did not exist, he says it was nonexistent; well, now we know it certainly exists,” Honig said.
“And not only do we know it exists, let's remember how we saw this letter. The House subpoenaed it from the Epstein Estate, and that's exactly consistent with the Wall Street Journal's reporting that this letter was sent to Jeffrey Epstein. Turns out it was exactly where one would expect it to be based on the Journal's reporting.”
Following the trove of Epstein files published Monday, Trump’s lawsuit against the Journal has now reached a “crucial moment,” Honig said, and one that, under certain circumstances, could backfire strongly on the president.
“If the motion to dismiss is granted, well then case is over, defendant wins, but if not, then we get into discovery,” Honig said.
“Then the parties have to give each other documents, then we get into under oath depositions, and that could mean – if this survives the motion to dismiss – then we're going to see depositions of Journal personnel, under oath, and certainly we will see depositions of Donald Trump; he's the plaintiff. He absolutely will be put under oath in his own case and examined by lawyers for [the] Journal, if this survives the motion to dismiss. But I think that just got a lot less likely.”
Donald Trump has been no stranger to denying accusations levied against him, with the president having popularized the term "fake news" to dismiss negative press coverage, but his latest attempts to deflect on his past ties with Jeffrey Epstein have reached a new low “even by his standards,” a columnist noted Tuesday.
“Trump’s efforts to make the Jeffrey Epstein controversy go away have been ham-fisted and inept, even by his standards,” wrote Salon columnist Amanda Marcotte for her biweekly newsletter “Standing Room Only.”
The late financier and convicted child sex offender allegedly ran a blackmail operation targeting powerful figures, and he had a storied history with Trump, new details of which were revealed Monday by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.
Among the most notable documents released by the House committee was a copy of a letter Trump had allegedly sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, in which Trump wrote “may every day be another wonderful secret” against a backdrop of a crudely-drawn woman’s torso, presumed to also be drawn by Trump. The president denied having written the letter, which was first reported on by the Wall Street Journal back in July and was released by a House committee Tuesday.
There’s one detail in the letter, however, that Marcotte zeroed in on as particularly disturbing, given that the Journal’s initial reporting did not include an image of the letter, only describing it with words.
“Somehow, it’s even worse than I pictured it,” Marcotte wrote. “I was assuming a cartoonish Playboy-bunny model, because that fits more with the image of himself Trump likes to project. The drawing, however, looks more like a stylized teenage girl."
Trump has called the letter a hoax, and even implied that his signature had been forged, a denial repeated by White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt. His ability to move past a scandal with outright denials, however, has appeared to reach a breaking point, with many in the MAGA ecosystem not happy with the president’s handling of the matter, and some experts even warning that the Epstein scandal could tank the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections.
The stunning release of a photograph of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein holding a joke novelty check as payment for a woman at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate may be a precursor to even worse revelations about Trump and his former friend.
Appearing on MSNBC on Tuesday morning, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade claimed the photo, which has been described as “Epstein and a longtime Mar-a-Lago member joking about selling a 'fully depreciated' woman to Donald Trump for $22,500," is far more alarming than the actual birthday letter Trump allegedly wrote to his pal Epstein, which was also revealed on on Monday after being hinted at weeks ago.
McQuade was asked on “Morning Joe, “Where do you see this going from a legal perspective?”
“I found this item even more troubling than the drawing because of what it suggests,” she began. “Now, of course, it appears that it was created by some member, It may be a completely fabricated joke, but, you know, people make jokes based on some grain of truth because that's what makes it funny.”
“So I think it raises a lot of questions,” she continued. “I also think the drawing suggests, you know, the drawing itself is sort of bawdy, but it suggests a close relationship with Trump — if it's authentic — referring to Jeffrey Epstein as his pal and that they have secrets together. So I think it raises a lot of questions as to where it's going.”
“I am very cognizant of protecting the identities and the privacy of the survivors here, that's very important,” she elaborated. “I'm even cognizant of protecting the identities of subjects of investigation for whom there was insufficient evidence to charge. But one thing President Trump could do immediately is to say, in an effort to clear my name once and for all, I hereby direct the Justice Department to disclose every piece of material, whether it's a document, an image, or a video that includes me. Let's put that out there and let's put this scandal to rest.
"He could do that, but he's not, and why is he not doing it? I think it is for fear that there are things like this, or other things that would cause him embarrassment, if not shame, within his base.”
The niece of Donald Trump smashed his argument that his signature was forged on a lewd message sent to celebrate pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday.
Tthe House Oversight Committee released the complete 238-page volume of a birthday book compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell Monday, reigniting a scandal that has had Trump's camp reeling for weeks.
The document contains a birthday note reportedly written by Trump, positioned near an illustration of a nude woman. The signature appears in a provocative manner, resembling pubic hair. Trump has vehemently denied involvement and has initiated a lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for first publishing the story.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted to dismiss the allegations Monday, stating emphatically that President Trump neither drew the picture nor signed it. However, her denial was quickly challenged by Trump's own niece.
Mary L. Trump, a psychologist and author known for her critical stance toward her uncle, weighed in on social media. "That's definitely his signature," she wrote on X. "Just saying."
The assessment of the daughter of Donald's older brother Fred Trump Jr. carries particular weight given her professional background and intimate family knowledge. She previously authored a scathing book about Trump titled "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man."
MSNBC's Jonathan Lemire dumped cold water on the "hoax" denials of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal coming from President Donald Trump and his allies.
Trump had denied writing a suggestive birthday note decades ago to the late sex offender, and now that House Oversight Committee Democrats have obtained a copy, the president's allies are insisting his signature was forged as part of a years-long political hit campaign.
"There were real hopes in the White House that over the August recess that this story would fade away, that we would talk about other things, and we did for a time, the story lost some heat," Lemire told "Morning Joe."
"But it's come back now, and we shouldn't overlook the fact that some of the women involved here, the victims, you had that very powerful news conference a few days ago and put a real human face to this. It's not just a political story, it's a human tragedy. It's a crime, and yesterday you saw what is the familiar playbook, just an attempt to deny reality, to say, 'No, no, no, it's a lie, it's a hoax, it's a witch hunt,' whatever it is, without actually offering any evidence to support those claims, and the Wall Street Journal, let's remember, the president sued the Journal. Members of his administration attacked the Journal, basically daring them, like, show us the evidence here.
"Well, they did, but let's remember, this isn't something they conjured up."
"This was in the Epstein estate since 2003," Lemire added. "That'd be quite the long game to try to get President Trump. If this was indeed a hoax to plant a birthday card more than two decades ago, and the Journal did a very good job, one of the lines of defense was the White House said, 'Well, the president always signs first name, first and last name.' Well, that's not the case. They presented a number of letters where sometimes it's just 'Donald,' so the signature certainly would appear to match that photograph you just showed with the fake check. Certainly would raise some eyebrows, and, again, this is a story that even some Republicans are not willing to let go."
Host Joe Scarborough reminded viewers that conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch was helping to drive the scandal with fresh reporting in the Journal, his flagship newspaper.
"It is now, again, safely the most conservative, the most powerful conservative media organization on the planet," Scarborough said. "They are the ones who have broken this story, they are the ones who have continued reporting on this story. It is Rupert Murdoch's own conservative media empire that is running this, not Democrats, not a Democratic hoax, not a left-wing CBS News edit, whatever they would want to say. This is straight out of the Murdoch empire – all of it."
Not content with twisting the arms of the Republican Party at the state level to redistrict in an effort to hold on to a slim GOP majority in the House, the White House is now compiling a first-ever national voter roll by demanding information from over 30 states — most of which have been resisting.
That, in turn, has “elicited serious concerns among voting rights experts” who believe the current administration may use the data to cast more doubt on future elections because the efforts are being led by allies of the president who still maintain the 2020 election was stolen.
According to the Times’ Devlin Barrett and Nick Corasaniti, “The initiative has proceeded along two tracks, one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division and another at its criminal division, seeking data about individual voters across the country, including names and addresses, in a move that experts say may violate the law.”
That led election expert Justin Leavitt of Loyola Marymount University’s law school to warn, “Nobody has ever done anything like this.”
The report notes that administration officials plan to share the information with the Department of Homeland Security which, during the current administration, has been hellbent on deporting immigrants.
That has election officials leery about motive.
In a letter to the Justice Department, Justin R. Erickson, general counsel for Minnesota’s secretary of state, wrote, “Equally concerning is the possibility that the D.O.J. will use the data inappropriately and the fact that the D.O.J. does not appear to have complied with the necessary legal requirements to obtain or use data on several million people.”
Leavitt, agreed, adding, “It’s wading in, without authorization and against the law, with an overly heavy federal hand to take over a function that states are actually doing just fine. It’s wildly illegal, deeply troubling, and nobody asked for this.”
A CNN panel painted a grim picture Tuesday for President Donald Trump and the Republican Party headed into the 2026 midterm elections as evidence mounts against the president regarding his past ties with Jeffrey Epstein, new details of which were revealed Monday by a House Committee.
“This is the story that will not go away and it is driving them nuts!” said Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha, a former union organizer and campaign advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
“Every day that we're not talking about immigration, law enforcement and all the things that Trump wants to talk about, is losing. And it's his own fault because, as a political consultant, we all remembered we covered this: how the right is just rampant over this issue because they fed this machine, and now this machine wants something in return, and they're like 'not our Donald!'”
New details of Trump and Epstein’s relationship were revealed Monday by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee after having issued a subpoena to the Justice Department, compelling the agency to release more files that it holds on Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges and is alleged to have run a blackmail operation targeting powerful figures.
Such details include a copy of the letter Trump allegedly sent Epstein for his 50th birthday, in which the president supposedly writes to the disgraced financier “may every day be another wonderful secret.” Another new revelation is that Epstein once joked about selling a “fully depreciated” woman to Trump for $22,500.
Trump has called the birthday letter a hoax and denied any wrongdoing as it relates to his history with Epstein. Participants on the CNN panel Tuesday, however, noted that Trump’s persistent denials were only digging him a deeper whole.
“The more he denies it – if he really did do it – the longer the story is going to last,” said Ashley David, a former White House official under President George W. Bush.
Susan Page, political commentator, journalist and author, came to the same conclusion that Trump and the White House were only making things worse with their outright denials.
“The White House has been, I think, stunned by the inability to put the Epstein issue behind them, and it just keeps getting bigger,” Page said. “[It’s adding] more fuel to the fire.”
Trump’s ties to Epstein go much further than the details revealed Monday. Trump once called Epstein a “terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
It’s the trove of evidence that suggests the two enjoyed more than a passing relationship, Rocha argued, that could even create a major liability for Trump and the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections.
“Midterm elections are not presidential elections, not everybody votes, and it's motivation; he needs his base to show up in a big way to win back Congress for the Republicans,” Rocha said.
“There's people on the right – I'm not saying they'll vote Democrat, I'm just saying that there's enough people that could be frustrated by this because they fed this machine that they could be aggravated enough to stay home.”
The cost of President Donald Trump's drive to rename the Department of Defense could be billions of dollars, according to a new report in The Atlantic.
Trump declared the department would now also be known as the Department of War — a change that he would need Congressional approval if it was to become a permanent replacement. It seems in stark contrast to his pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, The Atlantic reported.
The violent rhetoric was backed up in a recent social media post, Trump shared a meme referencing "Apocalypse Now," replacing the film's original quote with "I love the smell of deportations in the morning" and dubbing his potential military intervention in Chicago "Chipocalypse Now.
The president's inflammatory language represents a troubling escalation of violent discourse, The Atlantic's David A. Graham wrote. After deploying National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., and Marines to Los Angeles, Trump has continued to threaten military intervention in American cities. Despite later claiming his Chicago post was "fake news," the underlying message of potential urban military action remains deeply concerning.
Trump's attraction to martial imagery is notable, especially considering he obtained five draft deferments during the Vietnam War, wrote Graham.
Last week, he signed an executive order rebranding the Defense Department as the "Department of War" — a move that's not officially recognized but which will cost millions — if not billions — in rebranding, Graham wrote.
"He can’t legally rename it without Congress’s permission, and the cost of changing the branding could reportedly run into millions or billions of dollars. Either he means it or he’s willing to light money on fire for a symbolic stunt," he wrote.
"Neither is good."
This isn't a new pattern for Trump. Throughout his political career, he has consistently employed aggressive rhetoric. During his first campaign, he encouraged rally attendees to physically confront protesters. As president, he has urged police to treat suspects brutally and famously encouraged supporters to "fight like hell" - rhetoric that ultimately contributed to the January 6th Capitol riot.
The administration's militaristic tendencies extend beyond domestic rhetoric. The U.S. military recently attacked and destroyed a Venezuelan boat, with Vice President J.D. Vance callously stating, "Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military." This statement drew sharp criticism from Senator Rand Paul, who condemned the glorification of extrajudicial killing.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt's concept of the "imperial boomerang" provides critical context, Trump wrote. This theory suggests that repressive tactics used internationally can eventually be turned inward against a domestic population. Trump's actions - from military parades to threatening urban interventions - seem to manifest this very concern.
The administration's comfort with violent language is perhaps best exemplified by recent reports of internal conflicts, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's profanity-laden threat to punch a fellow official "in the f---ing face" during a social gathering.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has done a shockingly poor job of managing the Jeffrey Epstein files story for President Donald Trump, according to two analysts.
Journalist Jonathan V. Last joined The Bulwark's Managing Editor, Sam Stein, on a new episode of "Bulwark Super Feed" on Monday to discuss how the Republicans have handled the story. The episode aired after the Wall Street Journal and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee published new information about Trump's ties to the billionaire pedophile — including a lewd birthday message apparently penned by the now-president.
Last and Stein laid the blame at committee chairman Comer's feet for the new revelations published in the media. Comer has previously been accused of doing Trump's "dirty work" to cover up his ties to Epstein.
"The Oversight Committee is run by Republicans and, in theory, they probably could control the information that flows into and out of the committee," Stein said. "And yet here we are, the Oversight Dems got their hands on this thing, and now they've published it."
"It's a humiliation for Trump because it keeps Epstein in the news," he added. "It's funny to see James Comer just obviously doing a very poor job managing this for the president."
On Monday, the Wall Street Journal and Democrats on the Oversight Committee published a newly unearthed photo showing Trump jokingly purchasing a "fully depreciated" woman from Epstein at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. The Journal also published a copy of the letter Trump sent to Epstein on his 50th birthday.
"I can't believe that James Comer screwed up again," Last said. "That just seems shocking to me."
Democratic strategist Neera Tanden slammed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to allow immigration officials to use race to decide who to target for immigration actions.
Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progress, joined CNN's "NewsNight with Abby Phillip" on Monday to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling. Tanden argued that it the court should give a "rationalization" of its decision because of the magnitude of the case.
"The fact that they are providing these decisions without any explanation, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has time to write a memoir but not a decision, on an issue that affects all of our rights, is frankly outrageous," Tanden said.
"And the truth is, we have no idea whether the Supreme Court is basically sanctioning a system where everyone who is Brown has to come with papers," she continued. "ICE officers can go after every single person. We don't know whether the limit of this decision is or not because they didn't give us any rationalization."
A New York Times book critic flagged a "spectacularly scornful line" in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's new memoir, 'Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.
Jennifer Szalai, the NYT's nonfiction book critic, argued in a review of Barrett's book on Monday that Barrett's book is a "carefully controlled performance" that includes some "breadcrumbs" about the future she envisions building on the court.
"I kept thinking about this spectacularly scornful line while reading Barrett’s new book," Szalai wrote.
Szalai recounted a part of the book where Barrett hosted a dinner for the court's newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett wrote that she served some of Brown's favorite dishes and asked a Broadway performer to sing songs from 'Hamilton'.
"It all makes for a pleasant (if surreal) scene," Szalai argued. "But if you really listen to what Barrett says... you’ll quickly realize that she isn’t on the Supreme Court because she wants to make friends."
"Barrett, a former law professor and circuit court judge, clearly knows that readers crave relatability, especially from women, so she deigns to offer a few breadcrumbs," she continued. "But her book is inevitably a controlled performance, as careful and disciplined as its author."
Szalai adds that some of the discussions about the rule of law in the book don't seem to match Barrett's jurisprudence.
"Given all the nice things she has to say about 'the rule of law,' 'pluralistic society' and the importance of 'stability,' you might think that Barrett would be at least somewhat perturbed by the Trump administration’s incessant defiance of lower courts’ orders," Szalai wrote. "But that doesn’t seem to be the case."
Barrett was interviewed by Fox News anchor Bret Baier about her recently released memoir, where she gives insight into some of the Supreme Court's decision-making process. During the interview, Baier asked Barrett if the 22nd Amendment is "cut and dry" about a president serving more than two terms.
"That's what the amendment says," Barrett said. "After FDR has four terms, that's what the amendment says."
Her comments were made at a time when President Donald Trump publicly speculated about his ability to run for a third term.
Political commentators and analysts responded to Barrett's claim on social media.
"The fact that a 'news' outlet is even asking a Supreme Court justice this question is a f------ travesty and clear sign of how demented everything has become," writer and producer Jordan Zakarin posted on X.
"Cut and dry," Veterans for Responsible Leadership posted on X. "Anyone who argues otherwise is an enemy of the Constitution."
"But Trump’s plan is to run as Vance’s VP, have him resign and switch places, and serve a third term," government affairs professional Michael Colbruno posted on X." The amendment is silent on that and can we trust SCOTUS?"
"I would strongly encourage people not to read too much into this — from either side," CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake posted on X.
