That Signature in Epstein Birthday Letter Sure Looks Like Trump’s

The House Oversight Committee obtained a copy of Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday book on Monday.

The book, initially reported on by The Wall Street Journal, was said to contain a strange birthday poem from Trump to Epstein framed by a sketch of a woman’s figure.

The image released verifies the Journal’s reporting, showing the form of a woman surrounding a poem addressed to Epstein in which Trump allegedly wrote “a pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret. Donald J. Trump.”

There is also a signature at the bottom of the woman’s figure, potentially mimicking pubic hair. It reads “Donald.”

The White House was quick to declare the image a fake, accusing The Wall Street Journal of defamation.

“The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire “Birthday Card” story is false,” wrote White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”

“Time for @newscorp to open that checkbook, it’s not his signature,” White House deputy chief of staff for communications Taylor Budowich wrote. “DEFAMATION!” Attached to his post were four other images of more recent signatures from Trump that were a bit more rigid and sharp than the one shown in the Journal.

But unfortunately for Team Trump, there are countless examples of Trump signing other documents with the signature extremely similar to the one shown by the Journal, demonstrating that Trump’s signature has likely changed over time and that his signature is different when signing his first name versus both of his names.

“Taylor’s examples are all from after he became President, at least two are from 2024,” journalist Damien Toll wrote above Budowich’s post. “The birthday letter is from 2003. For comparison, here’s a book Trump signed for Epstein in 1997, also with just his first name.”

“Two seconds on google I found this 2005 autograph when his signature was clearly different. He spelled out both names. The Dons letter to his friend Jeff just has him signing Donald,” said Talking Point Memo’s Josh Marshall. “Back to the drawing board @TayFromCA.”

Another 1999 letter shows a similar Trump signature.

Each defense the Trump administration has offered has been shaky at best. When reports of his naked woman sketch to Epstein first came out, he responded with, “I don’t draw pictures.” The internet was quick to point out that outright lie, as at least five sketches of his have been auctioned off over the years. Now they’re dismissing a signature that looks very real.

The Trump administration continues to turn to lies and excuses as the Oversight Committee’s possession of the book may lead to new insight into Trump and Epstein’s relationship.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on immigrants is coming to Chicago.

The Department of Homeland Security on Monday announced Operation Midway Blitz, an Immigration Customs Enforcement operation targeting undocumented immigrants in Chicago and Illinois.

Undocumented immigrants had “flocked” to Illinois, the DHS said, because they “knew Governor Pritzker and his sanctuary policies would protect them and allow them to roam free on American streets.”

While sanctuary cities have policies in place that limit coordination and information sharing with federal immigration authorities about noncitizens, undocumented immigrants accused of committing crimes are processed by local law enforcement similarly to how anyone else would be.

The DHS announcement follows the takeover of the Naval Station Great Lakes, north of Chicago, which came as a surprise to local leaders. A procurement document for portable lavatory and laundry trailers indicated that ICE would use the naval base as a headquarters for at least a month, The Independent reported.

For weeks now, Trump has set his sights on Chicago to expand his intimidation campaign against Democratic cities. This latest operation comes as the Supreme Court has rubber-stamped ICE’s racial profiling. The announcement comes just months after sweeping ICE raids in Los Angeles led Trump to call in the National Guard—which a California judge had ruled was a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

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.”

President Donald Trump was so desperate to claim he’s conquered crime in Washington, D.C., Monday, he dismissed claims of domestic violence.

Speaking to the White House Religious Liberty Commission at the Museum of the Bible, Trump tried to tout some impressive crime reduction numbers in Washington, where he has federalized police and unleashed thousands of National Guard troops.

To support his assertion that crime was down “more than 87 percent,” Trump callously claimed that people were attempting to undermine his success by crying wolf about “much lesser things, things that take place in the home.”

“You know, they’ll do anything in the home to claim something. If a man has a little fight with the wife they’ll say this was a crime, see? So now I can’t claim 100 percent,” Trump said.

Trump’s effort to downplay domestic violence is not only desperate but despicable. Every minute, 24 Americans experience rape, stalking, or physical violence by their partner, and domestic violence results in more than 1,500 deaths every year. Eighty-five percent of victims of intimate partner violence are women, meaning a woman is beaten every nine seconds.

Despite all of Trump’s talk about cracking down on crime, it seems his commitment only goes so far.

Over the past few weeks, the president has been eager to claim victory over violent crime in the capital. Since Trump deployed the National Guard in Washington D.C., violent crime has decreased by just 22 percent. Property crime has decreased considerably though, with carjackings down 83 percent, car thefts down 21 percent, and robberies down 46 percent.

The Trump administration has also been sending mixed messages on its use of National Guard troops. While Trump would like to imagine his crackdown is so complete that there are no more criminals to arrest, Attorney General Pam Bondi keeps touting a running tally of arrests.

At the same time, National Guard troops with no actual work have been tasked with raking up leaves and laying out mulch.

Last week, D.C. sued the Trump administration, alleging that the use of federal troops was “illegal federal overreach.” That lawsuit follows a California judge ruling that Trump’s deployment of troops in Los Angeles in June had violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

President Trump lost to E. Jean Carroll again.

A federal appeals court has rejected the president’s appeal of the initial $83.3 million verdict that found him guilty of defaming Carroll in 2019 after she accused him of rape.

A three-judge panel on Monday ruled unanimously in favor of Carroll, rejecting Trump’s presidential immunity arguments in the process.

Since the initial ruling last year, the amount Trump owes Carroll has increased, thanks to a 9 percent annual interest rate in New York, where the case was decided.

Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. She sued him twice for defamation: first in 2019, when he said she made up the rape allegation to promote her book, and again in November 2022 for the countless social media posts he made about her. Those posts haven’t stopped. Trump called Carroll out again on Memorial Day last year, writing on Truth Social:

Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for “DEFAMATION.” She didn’t know when the so-called event took place - sometime in the 1990’s - never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the “dress” that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half - Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury!

The vast majority of the verdict money—$65 million—was specifically for punitive damages, as the jury found that the president acted with malice toward Carroll.

While Trump’s team seems to be surrendering on the defamation charges, they have indicated that they intend to challenge the $5 million in damages Carroll received in a separate defamation case in which Trump was also found liable of sexually abusing Carroll.

Vice President JD Vance hit a new low while attempting to defend a deadly extrajudicial military strike on an alleged “drug boat,” and even Republicans are noticing.

Vance, who is known for his emotional outbursts—both online and off—has once again demonstrated that he can’t take any amount of criticism.

“Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,” Vance wrote on X Saturday morning, referring to the president’s strike on a boat in international waters last week. The government has claimed the strike killed 11 members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were bringing drugs to the United States.

Brian Krassenstein, a political podcaster and social media influencer critical of Trump, stepped in to remind Vance that the government hadn’t provided any actual evidence to support the claim that they were TdA members. (If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t be the first time.)

“Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” he wrote.

“I don’t give a shit what you call it,” Vance replied.

What Vance might have imagined as a defiant mic-drop moment betrayed his disturbing willingness to ignore federal and international law to commit executions.

Republican Senator Rand Paul slammed Vance’s statement.

“JD ‘I don’t give a shit’ Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the ‘highest and best use of the military.’ Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” Paul wrote in a post on X. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Vance’s comment was particularly disturbing in light of remarks from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who imagines that he has “absolute authority” to commit acts of war against nations Congress has not declared war against.

In reality, the Trump administration received no legal authorization for the use of force, and is still struggling to invent a legal basis for its own strike. It seems they even struggled to decide where to say the boat was headed.