The Wall Street Journal, one of America’s most influential newspapers, has found itself backpedaling in dramatic fashion following the uproar generated by its recent coverage connecting President Donald Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein.
After publishing a bombshell story that reignited speculation about Trump’s ties to the convicted sex offender, the Journal’s editorial board has now issued a striking rebuttal to its own reporting—taking Trump’s side against calls for a special counsel to oversee the release of Epstein-related government files.
This sudden shift marks a significant moment in the ongoing political and media war surrounding Epstein’s legacy, the mysterious circumstances of his death, and the lingering suspicions about who, among the world’s elites, might have been entangled in his sordid web.
Trump, who has weathered relentless scrutiny over his past connections to Epstein, has been vocal and combative in pushing back against both the media and political opponents seeking to revive these controversies as his second term gathers steam.
In a sharply worded editorial titled “No Special Counsel for the Epstein Files,” the Wall Street Journal’s editors defended Trump’s reluctance to approve a special counsel, arguing that such an appointment would be less about transparency and more about bureaucratic obfuscation.
The piece acknowledged Trump’s deep-seated skepticism of special counsels, formed in the crucible of the Mueller investigation into alleged Russian collusion during his first term. The Journal’s writers wryly noted, “Donald Trump, skeptical of special counsels. Who would have guessed?”
The editorial went further, warning that any special counsel investigation into Epstein’s connections—or more specifically, into the government’s handling of Epstein’s files—would almost certainly devolve into yet another prolonged, opaque, and politically tainted probe.
“Forget about any immediate disclosure of anything new,” the Journal cautioned. “The questions that MAGA minds want answered would instead get buried for months or more. Rumor and innuendo would reign. And if the special counsel emerged after a year and announced there really wasn’t much to see here, would any of the Epstein theorists really be convinced? Unlikely.”
This unexpected alliance between Trump and the Journal’s editorial board arrives on the heels of the newspaper’s own controversial reporting just days earlier, in which it published incendiary claims about an alleged personal note Trump had once sent Epstein.
The article alleged that Trump sent Epstein a risqué birthday card in 2003, complete with sketches of a nude woman and cryptic, suggestive language referencing “enigmas” and “secrets.”
The story set off a firestorm, fueling speculation on social media and across political circles about the true nature of Trump’s relationship with the disgraced financier.
Trump, characteristically, did not let the claims stand unchallenged. He issued an immediate and categorical denial, dismissing the story as a fabrication and announcing his intention to sue both the Wall Street Journal and its parent company, News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The lawsuit threat alone was enough to shake the foundations of media discourse, given Trump’s complicated yet enduring relationship with Murdoch and the influence of Murdoch’s media empire over conservative politics.
According to sources close to the president, Trump had personally called Murdoch to express his outrage over the Journal’s reporting, warning him that publishing the story would have severe consequences.
The tension between the two media titans—Trump and Murdoch—was palpable, though it was partially masked by their recent appearance together at the FIFA Club World Cup, where they were seen chatting cordially in a luxury box. The optics of their public camaraderie contrasted sharply with the private friction that the Epstein story had inflamed.
Amid this backdrop, the Journal’s editorial board appeared eager to recalibrate its position. The “No Special Counsel” editorial not only aligned with Trump’s stance but also sought to reframe the broader debate over the Epstein files, emphasizing the constitutional and practical perils of appointing a special counsel in this context.
The editors argued that Trump had issued a “fine” directive when he instructed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue the unsealing of grand jury testimony from the Epstein investigation, while carefully navigating judicial restrictions and privacy considerations.
“It’s easy for those on the outside to demand more disclosure, since they don’t have to make those hard calls or be accountable for them,” the editorial stated, underscoring the complexities of balancing public interest with legal obligations.
Adding another layer to the evolving discourse, the Journal cited a recent op-ed by famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, a figure whose own proximity to Epstein has made him a lightning rod for controversy.
In his piece, Dershowitz attempted to dispel the persistent myth of a definitive “client list” of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators. He confirmed that in his time around Epstein, he never encountered such a list and urged caution in interpreting the FBI’s interviews with alleged victims, some of whom did name prominent individuals.
“We don’t know whether the accusations are true,” Dershowitz wrote, echoing a sentiment that resonates with those wary of trial by media and speculation.
While the Journal sought to inject a tone of restraint into the feverish speculation surrounding Epstein, its pivot could not erase the gravity of its original reporting, nor the intensifying public demand for answers.
Trump, seizing on the momentum, has continued to frame the Epstein narrative as yet another example of Democrat corruption and media complicity. From Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden, Trump has accused top Democrats and segments of the FBI of orchestrating a cover-up to protect an entrenched elite allegedly tied to Epstein’s criminal enterprise.
The Epstein controversy had largely simmered on the periphery of the national conversation following his death in 2019, an event officially ruled a suicide but widely viewed with suspicion.
Yet with the 2024 election cycle having reinstalled Trump in the White House, the issue has reemerged as a potent symbol of the unresolved questions and deep mistrust between the American public and its institutions.
The Journal’s partial retreat underscores the treacherous terrain media organizations now navigate when covering Epstein-related matters—an arena where the thirst for truth collides with political agendas, legal constraints, and reputational risks.
Trump’s defiant posturing and aggressive legal threats have only amplified the stakes, leaving outlets like the Journal to reconsider how far they are willing to go in pushing unverified or loosely sourced allegations against the president.
Furthermore, the episode has rekindled debates over the role of the press in holding power to account versus serving as instruments of political warfare. Critics of the Journal’s initial story accuse the paper of succumbing to sensationalism, while defenders argue that no public figure, including Trump, should be immune from scrutiny when it comes to associations with a figure as notorious as Epstein.
As the dust settles, the reality remains that much of Epstein’s network of influence, his alleged collaborators, and the full extent of his blackmail operations remain shrouded in secrecy.
The files held by the government, the grand jury testimony, and any lists of potential co-conspirators remain tantalizing yet elusive pieces of a puzzle that continues to captivate the public imagination.
Trump, for his part, appears determined to shape the narrative on his own terms. By preemptively dismissing media reports, threatening legal action, and controlling the flow of information through trusted channels, he has reasserted his ability to dominate the conversation—even on topics as toxic as Epstein.
The Wall Street Journal’s retreat does not signify an end to the controversy but rather a tactical recalibration in a story that shows no signs of fading. Whether through court battles, political investigations, or further leaks, the search for the truth behind Epstein’s connections to the world’s most powerful figures, including Trump, is far from over.
And with Trump back in the White House and a resurgent conservative media ecosystem rallying behind him, the battle over the Epstein files is poised to become yet another defining saga in America’s ongoing clash between power, secrecy, and the right to know.
