Here’s Trump’s Birthday Letter to Epstein—With His Signature on It

At the height of Donald Trump’s scandal surrounding notorious late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, the Wall Street Journal in July reported that the president had written a cryptic message wishing Epstein a happy 50th birthday in 2003. The note was reportedly contained within a marker drawing of a woman’s naked torso.

Trump insisted this was a “fake thing.” “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he told the Journal. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.” Vice President JD Vance called it “complete and utter bullshit.”

The president filed a lawsuit against the newspaper in hopes of, in his words, suing owner Rupert Murdoch’s “ass off, and that of his third rate paper.”

Murdoch and the Journal’s asses may live to see another day, as the paper on Monday released a photo of the letter.

In response to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, the Journal reports, lawyers for Epstein’s estate provided Congress a copy of the birthday book in which the letter was reportedly contained. And lo and behold, the document whose existence Trump vehemently denied appears exactly as reported—complete with its bizarre typewritten note and bawdy drawing, including Trump’s signature scribbled to mimic pubic hair.

The message is an imagined dialogue between Trump and Epstein, in which the two knowingly express awareness that there’s “more to life than having everything,” while refusing to utter what exactly that secret something is. “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey,” says Donald in the dialogue, to which Jeffrey replies, “Yes, we do, come to think of it.” Donald answers: “Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?”

Trump signed off the message by calling Epstein a “pal,” wishing him happy birthday, and writing, “May every day be another wonderful secret.”

White House spokesperson Taylor Budowich took to X to claim that the signature on the letter is not Trump’s—citing recent pictures in which the president’s autograph looks different. But reporters were quick to produce examples from the 1990s and 2000s in which the signature is a clear match.

It’s not the first time Trump has apparently been caught in a lie regarding the notorious late sex criminal, with whom he was formerly close friends. The Journal’s revelation is sure to complicate the president’s so-far futile efforts to sweep the Epstein affair under the rug.

A new poll says capitalism’s hold over the U.S. population is slipping.

Only 54 percent of Americans view the economic system of capitalism favorably, down from 60 percent in 2021. It’s the lowest percentage since Gallup began collecting data in 2010.

Both Democrats and independents view capitalism less positively this year, as well. Less than half of Democrats, 42 percent, have a positive image of capitalism. Just over half of independents feel the same, compared to three-quarters of Republicans (whose views on the economic system haven’t changed since 2010).

What about the alternatives? Socialism still polls positively for 39 percent of respondents, holding steady since 2019.

But if you dig a little deeper, there are two diverging perspectives hidden behind that steady number: Democrats’ view of socialism has been increasing, while Republicans’ view has been decreasing.

While around 50 percent of Democrats had a positive view of socialism in 2010, nearly two-thirds do today. They’re the only partisan group who view socialism more positively than capitalism, at 66 to 44 percent, respectively.

It’s not hard to see why people may be fed up with the economic status quo. The cost of buying a home has skyrocketed, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic, and wages haven’t kept up. And since 2001, rents have risen 10 times faster than income.

Democratic socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders and New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani have become more popular recently, as voters look to leaders who acknowledge that the cost of living is unacceptable.

Things have gotten so bad, it seems that even President Donald Trump may have lost his faith in capitalism—just ask Intel or Nippon.

The man accused of trying to kill President Trump on his Florida golf course began his trial on Monday—and he’s already running into some strange jury selection issues. 

On September 15, Ryan Routh, a 59-year-old construction worker, allegedly hid in the bushes of Trump Palm Beach golf course with a rifle for hours. When Trump was a hole away, the Secret Service spotted Routh’s rifle peeking from the foliage and shot at him. He ran, and was later arrested and hit with five criminal charges, including attempting to kill a presidential candidate and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Routh is facing life in prison and pleads not guilty. 

Routh is representing himself, a controversial move that’s been most bothersome to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in her effort to oversee the three-day, 60-person jury selection process. 

“I will be representing myself moving forward; It was ridiculous from the outset to consider a random stranger that knows nothing of who I am to speak for me,” Routh wrote in a letter to Judge Cannon in July. “I am so sorry, I know this makes your life harder.”

Routh has been holding up the process by asking potential jurors questions like how they would react if they saw a turtle in the middle of the road while they were driving, because their answers would “speak to their character and mindset,” he said, according to ABC News. Routh also attempted to ask jurors what they think about Palestine and about Trump’s attempted takeover of Greenland.

Cannon struck the questions, saying, “They are all really off base and have no relevance to the jury selection process.”

Court filings also quote Routh requesting both a “beatdown session” and a round of golf with Trump instead of going on trial. 

“I think a beatdown session would be more fun and entertaining for everyone; give me shackles and cuffs and let the old fat man give it his worst,” he wrote. “A round of golf with the racist pig, he wins he can execute me, I win I get his job.” He also asked for female strippers.

Routh’s witness list is an odd cast of characters, including his son, an ex-girlfriend, a Palestinian activist group, and President Trump. 

Cannon is already over Routh’s shenanigans, and has accused him of orchestrating “calculated chaos” in her courtroom and called one of his witnesses “a farce” and “obviously ludicrous.”  

Routh has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, according to his family, but he does “fixate” on things. That would explain what prosecutors say was months of planning for a failed assassination attempt, or his willingness to “FIGHT AND DIE” as a civilian volunteer for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Opening statements in Routh’s trial are on Wednesday. We’ll see what he has to say for himself.

Four in 10 Americans say that they’re buying less thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to a new poll from CBS.

Support for the tariffs has fallen steadily since June, when 41 percent of those surveyed supported them. In July, that number fell to 40 percent and in August, 38 percent.* Over half of all Americans oppose the tariffs.

Republicans make up the bulk of those who still favor the tariffs, according to CBS. They also are more likely to say higher prices are OK, actually, when Trump is responsible: 70 percent of Republicans believe Americans should be willing to pay more to support Trump’s trade policies, opposed to a mere 6 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents.

It’s not just the court of public opinion where Trump’s tariffs are facing an uphill battle. After an appeals court ruled that the president’s tariffs were illegal, the president asked the Supreme Court to make an “expedited ruling” to overturn the decision.

If the highest court rules against the president—which, if it follows precedent rather than bow to Trump’s whims, it very well could—then the U.S. Treasury would have to issue enormous refunds, “about half” of the $180 billion the country has collected in tariffs so far, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Trump has said that refunds of this size would lead to a second Great Depression. But if the latest dismal jobs report is any indication, it seems like we might be heading that way regardless.

* This article previously mischaracterized the polling on tariffs.

The Supreme Court on Monday accepted another emergency request from the Trump administration—this time lifting a lower court’s order that prohibited roving immigration agents in Los Angeles from profiling individuals on the basis of race, language, job, or location.

The majority ruled without explanation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, took her conservative colleagues to task in a blistering dissent.

“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor,” wrote the court’s eldest liberal justice. “Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

The Fourth Amendment “prohibits exactly what the Government is attempting to do here,” Sotomayor observed, as the Trump administration has “all but declared” Latinos in low-wage jobs “fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

Kavanaugh’s concurrence, Sotomayor noted, falsely assumed agents are just conducting “brief stops for questioning” and seizing only undocumented immigrants.

In reality, they “are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” and whisking away American citizens as well. Further, she wrote, Kavanaugh incorrectly places the burden of proof during immigration stops not on law enforcement but on “an entire class of citizens to carry enough documentation to prove that they deserve to walk freely”—essentially creating “a second-class citizenship status” that is incompatible with the Constitution.

In Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has repeatedly enabled the president’s lawless excesses via its emergency docket—overruling lower courts that halt his actions, oftentimes, as on Monday, providing little or no explanation. Sotomayor’s dissent railed against these tendencies, calling the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” whose lack of explanation is “troubling.”

“In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially,” she pointed out. “Its interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not.”

Whereas there are sometimes good reasons for issuing orders without explanation, other “situations simply cry out for an explanation,” Sotomayor said—“such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law, or when lower courts and litigants need guidance about the issues on which they should focus.”

To conclude, Sotomayor wrote that Monday’s ruling means the Fourth Amendment may no longer protect the rights of people “who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.”