End of Story: New York Times Admits There’s Zero Evidence Trump Had Anything to Do With Epstein’s Abuse, Trafficking of Minors
In a rare moment of candor, The New York Times acknowledged earlier this month that after reviewing the historical record, it found no evidence connecting Donald Trump, the current President of the United States, to Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal abuse or trafficking of minors.
“Mr. Epstein had a talent for acquiring powerful friends, some of whom have become ensnared in the continuing scrutiny of his crimes,” the article read. “For months, Mr. Trump has labored furiously to shift himself out of the frame, dismissing questions about his relationship with Mr. Epstein as a ‘Democrat hoax’ and imploring his supporters to ignore the matter entirely. An examination of their history by The New York Times has found no evidence implicating Mr. Trump in Mr. Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of minors.”
There it is. Case closed.
Notably, the paper waited until the fourth paragraph to concede the central fact its months-long narrative had failed to establish. The article opened with criticism of President Trump, briefly acknowledged the results of its own investigation, and then quickly pivoted back to speculative framing.
That pattern has become familiar. For years, the Times and much of the legacy press appeared fixated on uncovering some elusive “smoking gun” that would place President Trump alongside Epstein. Yet despite vast resources, deep access, and an openly adversarial posture toward the administration, no such evidence has surfaced.
If anything damning existed, it would have been found by now.
Instead, the Times was forced to confront another inconvenient reality: Epstein’s documented proximity to figures on the political left—most notably former Democratic President Bill Clinton.
In a section titled “More on the Jeffrey Epstein Case,” the newspaper wrote: “President Trump’s name is rarely mentioned in the batch of Jeffrey Epstein files that his Justice Department released. But the documents appear to focus significantly on material connected to former President Clinton, at a moment when Republicans have fought to shift public attention away from Epstein’s friendship with Trump.”
Following the release, images of Clinton—now 79—swimming with Ghislaine Maxwell and socializing with women whose faces were redacted circulated publicly. In a separate Saturday report, the Times described the photos as “a powerful reminder of Mr. Clinton’s long-scrutinized ties to the disgraced financier as well as some of the former president’s less statesmanlike traits — his womanizing, reckless judgment and impulsivity.”
Even before the latest document disclosures, the House Oversight Committee had sought interviews with Clinton and his wife, Hillary, regarding their relationship with Epstein. To date, both have avoided interviews or testimony, despite subpoenas and warnings of potential contempt.
The broader dynamic is hard to miss. Liberal politicians and their allies in the legacy media continue to strain for equivalence, pointing at President Trump not because the evidence supports it, but because ideological loyalty demands it. For them, no amount of factual clarity will ever be sufficient—so long as protecting their own remains the priority.