Honestly, the headlines lately feel like they're being written by a tabloid from the nineties that somehow got access to a time machine. But here we are. In mid-2025, the political world was essentially set on fire by a report involving a "bawdy" birthday message. We're talking about the WSJ Trump Epstein letter, a document that surfaced as part of a 2003 birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein. It’s a mess. It's scandalous. And depending on who you believe, it’s either a smoking gun of a deep friendship or a total fabrication designed to take down a president.
The Wall Street Journal dropped this bombshell in July 2025, detailing a letter that reportedly features a hand-drawn sketch of a naked woman with Donald Trump’s signature placed, well, quite provocatively. Trump didn't just deny it. He went on what insiders called a "warpath," threatening to sue Rupert Murdoch and the Journal for $10 billion.
What was actually in the WSJ Trump Epstein letter?
The details are vivid, and frankly, a bit weird. According to reporters Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar, the letter was found in a leather-bound album compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s 50th birthday.
The Journal describes the letter as having several lines of typewritten text. But the part everyone is talking about is the drawing. It’s an outline of a nude woman drawn with a heavy marker. The report says Trump’s signature—that famous, jagged "Donald"—is located right below the woman’s waist. The text allegedly ends with the line: "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret."
It sounds like something out of a bad spy novel.
Trump’s defense was immediate and characteristically blunt. He hopped on Truth Social to claim he doesn't "draw pictures" and that the language isn't his. He even said he called Rupert Murdoch personally to tell him not to run the "fake" story. Clearly, that phone call didn't go the way he wanted.
The fallout within the MAGA base
What’s interesting about this specific controversy isn't just the "he said, she said" of it all. It’s the timing. This report hit right as the Trump administration was facing massive pressure from its own supporters to release the "Epstein Files."
During the 2024 campaign, Trump had basically promised to open the vault on Epstein’s records. But once he was back in office, the Department of Justice—led by Pam Bondi—started dragging its feet. They claimed some files didn't exist or couldn't be released. This created a weird rift. You had die-hard MAGA influencers demanding transparency, while the administration they support was playing defense.
Then the WSJ Trump Epstein letter shows up.
🔗 Read more: Why Battle for Berlin Photos Still Haunt Us Decades Later
It felt like a gut punch to the narrative. If the letter is real, it suggests a level of intimacy and shared "secrets" that contradicts the "we were just acquaintances who had a falling out" story that has been the standard line for years.
The lawsuit and the "I don't draw" defense
Trump filed a powerhouse libel lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida. He’s suing everyone: Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch, and the reporters. His main argument? The letter is a total concoction.
His legal team argues that the Journal didn't even publish a photo of the full letter, only a description. They're calling it "malicious and defamatory."
One specific detail that backfired on social media was Trump’s claim that he never draws. Within hours, the internet was flooded with photos of signed doodles he’s done over the years—sketches of the New York skyline, even a drawing of a house he did for a charity auction in 2017. While those aren't "bawdy" sketches of women, they did make the "I don't draw" defense look a bit shaky to the general public.
Why this letter matters more than the others
We’ve seen plenty of Epstein-related documents. We’ve seen flight logs. We’ve seen the photos at Mar-a-Lago. So why did the WSJ Trump Epstein letter cause such a massive freakout in the White House?
- The Source: The Wall Street Journal isn't exactly a "liberal rag." It’s a conservative-leaning pillar of the financial world owned by one of Trump’s biggest (former?) allies. When the Journal goes after a Republican president, people notice.
- The Nature of the Content: A "wonderful secret" is a heavy phrase when you’re talking about a convicted sex trafficker.
- The Maxwell Connection: The fact that this was in an album curated by Ghislaine Maxwell—who is currently serving 20 years—adds a layer of proximity that is hard to shake.
What happens next?
The legal battle is likely to be long and incredibly messy. Discovery in a libel case is a double-edged sword. To prove the Journal lied, Trump’s team might have to open up even more records that they’ve been trying to keep under wraps.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee is still churning through thousands of pages of Epstein’s emails. We've already seen names like Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon pop up in Epstein's orbit. The "Epstein Files Transparency Act" passed by Congress in late 2025 means more of this is coming out, whether the White House likes it or not.
How to track the facts
If you’re trying to keep your head straight with all the "fake news" accusations flying around, keep an eye on these specific developments:
- The Libel Suit Progress: Look for whether a judge allows the case to move to discovery. If it does, the WSJ will have to produce the evidence they used to verify the letter.
- DOJ Document Dumps: The Department of Justice is still under a 30-day deadline from the Transparency Act to release eligible files.
- The "Secret" Context: Analysts are looking into whether the "secrets" mentioned in the letter refer to business deals, social gossip, or something much darker.
The WSJ Trump Epstein letter isn't just a piece of gossip. It’s a focal point for a much larger conversation about power, accountability, and the promises made to the American public about uncovering the truth of the Epstein saga. Whether it’s a forgery or a piece of history, it has already changed the political landscape for 2026.
Keep a close eye on the court filings in the Southern District of Florida. That’s where the actual evidence—or lack thereof—will finally have to be shown to a judge rather than just posted on social media.