Trump Says He’ll Sue Wall Street Journal Over Story on Alleged Epstein Letter
Trump also directed AG Pam Bondi “to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval” regarding Epstein.
President Donald Trump announced he will sue The Wall Street Journal after the publication published a letter he allegedly penned to Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump also told everyone he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce grand jury testimony.
He wrote on Truth Social:
The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so. The Editor of The Wall Street Journal, Emma Tucker, was told directly by Karoline Leavitt, and by President Trump, that the letter was a FAKE, but Emma Tucker didn’t want to hear that. Instead, they are going with a false, malicious, and defamatory story anyway. President Trump will be suing The Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, and Mr. Murdoch, shortly. The Press has to learn to be truthful, and not rely on sources that probably don’t even exist. President Trump has already beaten George Stephanopoulos/ABC, 60 Minutes/CBS, and others, and looks forward to suing and holding accountable the once great Wall Street Journal. It has truly turned out to be a “Disgusting and Filthy Rag” and, writing defamatory lies like this, shows their desperation to remain relevant. If there were any truth at all on the Epstein Hoax, as it pertains to President Trump, this information would have been revealed by Comey, Brennan, Crooked Hillary, and other Radical Left Lunatics years ago. It certainly would not have sat in a file waiting for “TRUMP” to have won three Elections. This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS!
The Wall Street Journal published a long piece about Trump supposedly contributing to a gift put together by Ghislane Maxwell for his 50th birthday.
Maxwell received letters from many people associated with Epstein and put them together in an album.
The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
—
It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.
“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.
Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.
Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.
The WSJ admitted that Trump told the newspaper it was “fake news” and threatened a lawsuit on Tuesday:
In an interview with the Journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he said.
“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”
He told the Journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if it published an article. “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,” he said.
It’s weird, though.
The WSJ only mentioned Trump, billionaire Leslie Wexner, and Alan Dershowitz.
Um, who else wrote these letters to Epstein? James Fishback asked all the questions we have racing through our brains:
1. How on earth did you just suddenly find a letter from 2003?
2. Who gave it to you? When? What were the terms?
3. Why didn’t you publish the “letter” in full?
4. President Trump’s always been known for writing personal letters by hand. Can you cite a single example of him sending a typewritten note?
5. He is also known for his straightforward and direct writing style (just like his speaking style). Can you cite one (1) other example of him writing in whimsical riddles like this “letter” you suddenly found?
6. Don’t you find it odd that this “letter” magically appears now—not before 2016, 2020, or 2024—but right when the Democrats are trying to weaponize “Epstein” against Trump?
6 questions for the idiots at the Wall Street Journal:
1. How on earth did you just suddenly find a letter from 2003?
2. Who gave it to you? When? What were the terms?
3. Why didn’t you publish the “letter” in full?
4. President Trump’s always been known for writing personal…
— James Fishback (@j_fishback) July 18, 2025
Release the Files
And yes, the DOJ and FBI should release everything they have on Epstein.
After Trump posted about the WSJ, he said:
Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!
Bondi responded:
President Trump—we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts. pic.twitter.com/hOXzdTcYYB
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 18, 2025
Good. Do it. It should have been done a long time ago.
But read it closely: “pertinent” and “Court approved.”
In other words, it likely won’t happen. They can classify anything they want.
Then again, if the material is damning towards Trump, the courts just might approve the release.
I’m not getting my hopes up.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dershow podcast by Alan Dershowitz, from 3 days ago?, in which he says no elected official is named on any list or documents related to Epstein. He says the press probably could get these documents by suing, but all the names have been blacked out by a judge.
Regarding Epstein, if Alan said the sun was shining, I’d get an umbrella!
And so, as the conspiracy underlying the Russian collusion hoax involving key democrats, including Obama, comes more into focus as well as the possibility of a criminal investigation, we get this nonsense from the WSJ to distract. Can the deep state hacks be more obvious? Kind of bold in an insulting to the intelligence way, manufacturing a new hoax to distract from the old hoax.
If this is true, wouldn’t the Autopen administration have had it, and released it, to further discredit Trump?
Of course they would have released the information. Of COURSE they would have.
That’s why every time I read someone write “if the material is damning towards Trump” I want to scream.
Where have these people been these last 10 years?
Let me guess…Dan Rather found it.
Why does it appear that so many women are behind these attacks? Do any of them ever read anything besides whatever the “oracle says”? AWFLs all.
The problem in society today is women. Not all women, but women still. It started in the 60s and it’s escalated. It’s like they are totally out of control.
It sounds like the WSJ didn’t claim that Trump wrote it, but only that a letter from Trump appeared in the album. If that much is true, or at least the WSJ has a source that told them it’s true, then I don’t see how Trump can possibly have grounds for a lawsuit. He told them he didn’t write it, and they reported that denial, so what more could he demand?
I think he’s just posturing.
Because most people capable of rubbing two or more functioning brain cells together know this is a lie, just like they knew the Russian hoax was a lie.
Also, they should absolutely be punished for publishing a known lie for no other reason than to undermine a political enemy they utterly detest.
If they have a source that tells them the letter is in the album they have every right to publish that fact. It makes no difference whether or not he wrote it. He didn’t deny that it’s in the album; he probably has no knowledge of that.
Even if he had denied it, though, they would still have every right to publish what they did, which is that they’d been told it was there; his denial wouldn’t make it false.
The first amendment is more important than your feelings, or Trump’s.
When did the 1st Amendment start protecting defamation?
It’s not defamation. Truth is an absolute defense in all cases. If you say the letter was in the album, and it was, that’s an absolute defense, even if it’s about a private person.
And in the case of public figures it doesn’t even have to be true. All you need is that you had some reason to suppose it might be true. It’s only actionable if the plaintiff can prove either that you knew it was false, or that you just didn’t care. Having a source is enough to dismiss that.
The first amendment prohibits any stricter rules.
I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember when WAPO published that Jimmy Carter had the Blair House bugged when pre-inaugural Reagan was staying there and WAPO was held to account, its excuse that someone told them that didn’t hold up
No, it was not “held to account”. Carter complained and threatened to sue, but he wouldn’t have got anywhere in court. But WaPo claimed to have looked into it and concluded that it wasn’t true, so it apologized. Of course it wouldn’t have done that to a Republican; had it been Reagan rather than Carter WaPo would have said “see you in court”, and it would have won.
You make a good argument. If it was that important for the WSJ to publish the story and the President said he didn’t write it, well then the WSJ needs to ID the source. This anonymous bs needs to be brought to heel. Did the WSJ have other sources that verified the letter? I’ll bet NO they didn’t. Don’t forget that Lachlan Murdoch and his wife are far left loons.
No, it doesn’t need to ID anyone. It source said that the letter was in the album. Trump does not deny this. Trump probably has no idea whether it’s there or not.
But even if he did deny it, it wouldn’t matter. They don’t have to identify their source, it’s enough that they say they have one, whom they’d found reliable in the past. The plaintiff would have to prove they didn’t. This is extremely well known and established, and I’m shocked that you’re unaware of it. There are dozens or hundreds of cases.
Of course there’s always a chance that the Supreme Court will change the rules; but this is not the case where it will do it, because as I said he hasn’t even denied that the letter is there. All he denies is that he wrote it, which is (1) irrelevant, and which (2) in any case the WSJ duly reported.
Reckless disregard for the truth. Either the WSJ apologizes or it is defamation.
You could learn a lot by going to law school.
No.
(1) If they have a source it’s not reckless disregard. That’s black letter law, with dozens of cases to back it up.
(2) Even if they had no source, Trump doesn’t deny what they wrote is true, so the case doesn’t even start.
(3) Even if he had denied it, it’s not defamatory. They never claimed he wrote it, and in fact reported his claim that he didn’t write it. What more could he possibly want?
Hiding behind a source that they KNOW is lying. Ok, so lets give them the benefit of the doubt, Joe Bloggs (d) comes to a journalist at Wapo saying “Hey, Trump sent this letter that is in an album of best wishes for Epsteins child rape enabler”. Any journalist worth their weight in gold would automatically say “show me the album. No album, no story”.
But they didnt. Wapo actively colluded to spread a known lie against a political opponent they utterly detest for no other reason than to undermine his administration and sow disinformation and misinformation deliberately to achieve that objective.
Also keep in mind that these same “journalists” deliberately chose NOT to run the Hunter Biden laptop story that they deemed was Russian disinformation. These same people lecture us daily on the dangers of disinformation and misinformation while actively campaigning to restrict your right to free speech.
Yet here, with no evidence they just ran with the story.
Like they had no evidence of Russian collusion. Just ran with that story.
Like they had no evidence for Trump hating servicemen in France. Just ran with that story.
And so on and so on and so on. All of those stories were lies. Lies that ANYONE capable of thinking for themselves could say from day 1…which apparently does not include you Justice Milhouse.
1. They don’t know the source is lying. Nor do YOU know it. You have no idea, and are just making shit up, in reckless disregard of the truth.
2. The source did NOT tell them that Trump sent the letter, and they did NOT report that he sent it. So you’re again making shit up. Stop lying.
3. What they chose to report or not report in other cases is completely irrelevant. They have NO REQUIREMENT to be politically neutral or evenhanded. They are 100% entitled to report bad things about Republicans on the front page and not report bad things about Democrats at all. The first amendment protects their right to do that. And the first amendment is more important than your feelings, and Trump’s feelings.
Well, I’m not. I’m canceling my subscription….
Why did you even have a subscription in the first place? If I had ever had one I would have canceled it more than 20 years ago, at the same time that I did cancel my NYT subscription.
Oops, sorry, I was thinking of WaPo, not WSJ. Though in terms of news coverage WSJ has for many decades been run by the same leftists as all the others. The only good thing about WSJ was ever the opinion pages, which are a separate department, and I assume that’s still good, so if you were subscribing for that, despite the leftist news section, why would you stop now?
The headline reads: “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.”
Does not sound like your defense is very strong.
The writers and editors could’ve been caught on video cooking up this fictitious nonsense and Outhouse would give them the benefit of them the benefit of the doubt, at minimum.
Yes, there was a letter from Trump. He says he didn’t write it. Fine. They reported that. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Also, headlines are not written by the same people who wrote the articles they’re on. It’s not uncommon that whoever wrote the headline only skimmed the article, and completely misunderstood it. I’ve seen headlines that say the exact opposite of the article. So even if the headline was misleading, that’s easily fixed with a retraction and apology. “We’re sorry for the misleading impression some got from the headline, but we stand by the story.”
“A letter from Trump” certainly suggests that Trump wrote it.
No, it doesn’t, especially when they report that he says he didn’t write it. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s there (if that is a fact). If he didn’t write it then someone else did.
“It certainly would not have sat in a file waiting for “TRUMP” to have won three Elections.”
He certainly doesn’t pull punches, does he.
Then again, if the material is damning towards Trump, the courts just might approve the release.
Spare me.
Maybe this will be the case that finally undoes New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a horrible decision that gave WAY too much protection to media organizations. Because of that ruling, when reporting on ‘public officials,’ they can essentially fabricate ‘news’ stories out of whole cloth without much fear of being sued for defamation so long as there isn’t some kind of smoking gun that they knowingly printed false information with ‘actual malice,’ an incredibly difficult thing to prove.
This won’t be the case that does that. Such a case may well come up in the near future, and it may very well be a case brought by Trump, but it won’t be this one.
To paraphrase Churchill, it is a riddle, wrapped in pubic hair inside an enigma.
IMO the entirety of the Epstein/Maxwell files, still photos, audio recordings and videos should be released. All of it. Redact the names of the minor children and blur their faces. Aside from that …put it out there. Compile a list of every adult captured in any images, audio recordings, guest books, photo albums, visitor logs, flight records. Include and highlight any exculpatory evidence and provide a simple list of adults who had contact with either Epstein or Maxwell but for whom there’s no evidence of wrong doing. That puts the issue of transparency to bed as well as ending most of the innuendo and ‘guilt by association’ sorts of media hit pieces. No whining about ‘conspiracy theories’ or the public’s continued interest in this mess until that occurs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant to claims/perception of corruption.
hmmm
well djt telling them it was fake shouldnt make it illegal for them to post the letter
And, please blur the men’s naughty parts.
only for those threatened by such
dont forget this isnt just about todays djt
its still about him defeating clinton
its still about him being a wht male
its still about him loving women
its still about them cheating him out of 2020 win
its still about him defeating harris
its still about him gaining the blck male vote
and the latino vote
and
MAGA!!!
Right now it is more than that
There is also the question
Do you trust
1. All available evidence
2. The detailed rulings of multiple federal judges
3. Trump administration
4. That Trump is not a rapist who covers for other rapists (what the accusations amount to)
5. That professional prosecutors judges and defense attorneys know what they are doing
Or
1. Claims on the internet with no evidence behind them some of which have already been proven to be lies
2. America lovers like Trump or Nazis like Tucker Carlson and Communists like Bernie Sanders
It is a very easy choice to make for me
Anyone who picks Tucker (Nazi) or AOC (communist) by the way get out of my party we call our victories worth fighting for and are fighting for the future you call it appetizers it means you did not think it should have been done.
I’m so done with the WSJ. I cancelled my subscription this morning after being tempted to do it over the last few years
Trump will have an uphill battle suing WSJ. The DOJ had seized the leather-bound journal as part of its investigation into Epstein; therefore, there can be no doubt about its authenticity. The DOJ can attest to it.
As for the typewritten part of the letter, I agree that Trump probably did not author those words. Some of the paragraphs are lifted from the novel “Lolita” by Humbert Humbert, so they have a pedophilic meaning.
Ghislaine Maxwell put together the journal, and I suspect she authored the text and had Trump draw a naked woman and sign his name.
Or even drew it herself and signed his name. With or without informing him.