Listen to the article
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt faced pointed questions Tuesday about President Donald Trump’s past connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, declining to confirm reports of a 2006 phone call between the two while leaving open the possibility of a pardon for Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
During a tense press briefing, Leavitt was asked about recent reporting that Trump had called Epstein in 2006, around the time Florida authorities were investigating the financier for sex crimes involving minors. Leavitt neither confirmed nor denied the reported call, instead pivoting to criticize the media for focusing on the matter.
“I’m not going to comment on every anonymously sourced story that comes out about the president from decades ago,” Leavitt said, characterizing the questions as politically motivated attacks. “The American people elected President Trump to address the serious issues facing our nation today.”
When pressed specifically on whether Trump would consider pardoning Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking and other crimes related to Epstein’s abuse of underage girls, Leavitt notably did not rule out the possibility.
“The president has broad constitutional pardon powers, and I’m not going to get ahead of any decisions he might make in the future,” she said. “He’ll evaluate any pardon requests as they come to him.”
The press secretary also defended Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a Trump appointee whose previous ties to Epstein have recently come under renewed scrutiny. Financial records and flight logs have shown Lutnick had business dealings with Epstein years before the financier’s crimes became widely known.
“Secretary Lutnick has the president’s full confidence,” Leavitt stated. “Many prominent business leaders and politicians from both parties had interactions with Epstein before his crimes came to light. The secretary has been transparent about any past professional contacts and has condemned Epstein’s actions in the strongest possible terms.”
Epstein, who died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, maintained relationships with numerous high-profile figures across business, politics, and entertainment. These connections have continued to generate controversy years after his death, particularly as more documents from related court cases have become public.
The questions about Trump’s potential contact with Epstein come at a sensitive time for the administration, as it works to implement its economic and immigration policy agenda during its first months back in office. Some political analysts suggest the renewed focus on these connections could become a distraction.
“The White House clearly wants to move past these questions, but they’re not likely to disappear,” said Rebecca Donner, a political analyst at Georgetown University. “The Epstein case remains a lightning rod for public interest because of the powerful figures in his orbit and the severity of his crimes.”
Meanwhile, victims’ rights advocates expressed concern about the possibility of a Maxwell pardon. Sarah Klein, an attorney who represents several Epstein victims, called the press secretary’s non-committal response “deeply troubling.”
“Maxwell was convicted by a jury of facilitating the abuse of young girls. Any consideration of a pardon would be a devastating setback for victims seeking justice,” Klein said in a statement released after the briefing.
The exchange highlighted the continuing political sensitivity surrounding the Epstein case nearly five years after his death. While Trump has previously sought to distance himself from Epstein, saying he “wasn’t a fan” after Epstein’s arrest, photographs and reports of their social interactions in Palm Beach and New York during the 1990s and early 2000s have periodically resurfaced.
As the briefing concluded, Leavitt attempted to redirect attention to the administration’s policy priorities, including border security and economic initiatives, but reporters continued to press for clearer answers on the Epstein-related questions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
22 Comments
The possibility of a Maxwell pardon is certainly concerning. Given the severity of the crimes, I hope the administration takes a firm stance against such a move.
I agree. A pardon would be highly inappropriate and send the wrong message. The victims deserve justice, not further insult.
While I appreciate the White House’s desire to move forward, the Epstein case has far-reaching implications that merit continued scrutiny. Transparency is key to maintaining public trust.
Well said. The public deserves a full accounting, not evasiveness, when it comes to high-profile cases involving abuse of power.
I’m curious to see how the administration handles the Epstein fallout and any potential Maxwell pardon. Maintaining public trust will be crucial, especially on such a sensitive issue.
Absolutely. The administration would be wise to take a transparent and principled approach, rather than appearing evasive or dismissive.
The reported 2006 phone call between Trump and Epstein is certainly troubling. I hope the administration provides a clear and convincing explanation, if they have one.
Agreed. Sweeping this under the rug will only fuel more speculation and undermine confidence in the government.
Interesting to see the White House’s response on the Epstein fallout. While I understand the desire to move past old scandals, transparency around the president’s connections would help reassure the public.
You raise a fair point. The American people deserve clarity on these matters, regardless of political affiliation.
The potential for a Maxwell pardon is deeply troubling. I hope the administration carefully considers the implications and decides against such a move, as it would be a grave injustice.
Agreed. A pardon would be a betrayal of the victims and a stain on the administration’s credibility.
While I appreciate the White House’s desire to focus on pressing issues, the Epstein case is too significant to simply brush aside. Transparency and accountability should be the top priorities.
Well said. The American people deserve a thorough and impartial investigation into this matter, regardless of political affiliations.
While I understand the White House’s desire to move forward, the Epstein case has far-reaching implications that merit continued scrutiny and transparency. The public deserves answers, not evasiveness.
Well said. Maintaining public trust should be a top priority, and that requires a clear and principled approach to this matter.
The possibility of a Maxwell pardon is deeply troubling. I sincerely hope the administration rejects such a move, as it would be a grave injustice and a betrayal of the victims.
Absolutely. A pardon would be a stain on the administration’s credibility and undermine the pursuit of justice.
The White House’s response seems to dodge the central issues at hand. While I understand the desire to move on, the public deserves a thorough accounting of these events.
I share your skepticism. Avoiding tough questions and dismissing legitimate concerns will only further erode public trust.
The reported 2006 phone call between Trump and Epstein is certainly concerning. I hope the administration can provide a clear and convincing explanation, if one exists.
Agreed. Avoiding the issue or dismissing it as a political attack will only raise more questions and deepen public mistrust.