For years, the world has watched as the enigmatic and sordid saga of Jeffrey Epstein's social circle has unfolded, implicating some of the globe's most powerful figures. This week, the controversy erupted anew, centering on a long-speculated document: a sexually suggestive birthday letter allegedly penned by Donald Trump to Epstein in 2003. The release of this letter—alongside an avalanche of late-night commentary, shifting political narratives, and a fresh congressional standoff—has reignited fierce debate over transparency, hypocrisy, and the boundaries of political loyalty.
The drama began on September 9, 2025, when the highly anticipated Epstein "birthday book" was made public. According to NBC News, this 200-plus page volume, first reported by The Wall Street Journal in July, contains a collection of lewd references, suggestive images, and crude jokes about Epstein's notorious lifestyle. Among the most talked-about pages is the infamous birthday greeting, bearing what appears to be Trump's unmistakable signature and a bawdy message. The letter's existence had been denied by Trump for months, so its appearance sent shockwaves through Washington.
Within the "birthday book," contributors made no effort to hide Epstein's predilections. One entry greets Epstein as the "Degenerate One," quipping, "so many girls, so little time." Another poetically notes that, despite his flagrant disregard for public decency, Epstein had "avoided the penitentiary." Particularly disturbing is an illustration depicting Epstein giving candy and balloons to young girls in 1983, then receiving massages—apparently from the same girls—two decades later. This, as NBC News reported, strongly suggests that Epstein's behavior was an open secret among his friends and associates.
Trump's involvement became the story's focal point. Initially, the president responded to the Wall Street Journal’s reporting by launching a defamation lawsuit, flatly denying the letter's existence. But as the birthday book surfaced, with the letter and signature now public, Trump and his allies shifted tactics. The new claim? The letter was real, but the signature was a forgery.
This argument quickly drew skepticism. As NBC News pointed out, there are multiple, nearly identical examples of Trump's signature on other documents, including those he published himself in his book Letters to Trump. The president's assertion that someone faked his signature 22 years ago, when he and Epstein were still friends and before Epstein's crimes were widely known, struck many as implausible. Even Trump seemed to briefly abandon the forgery theory, telling NBC, "I don't comment on something that's a dead issue." But the next day, the president was back to denying any involvement: "It's not my signature and it's not the way I speak. And anybody that's covered me for a long time knows that's not my language. It's nonsense. And frankly, you're wasting your time."
Despite the shifting story, Trump's allies quickly fell in line. Senator John Thune, Representatives Byron Donalds, Tim Burchett, and James Comer all insisted the signature was a forgery. Comer, for his part, said he took the president "at his word." The party line was clear: the letter was a fake, and any suggestion otherwise was a partisan smear.
The late-night comedy world wasted no time in seizing on the controversy. On September 11, Stephen Colbert opened his show by addressing a far grimmer story—the assassination of rightwing activist and Trump adviser Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed at an event in Utah. Colbert expressed condolences, warning, "political violence only leads to more political violence," and hoping the act was an aberration, not a sign of things to come.
Colbert then pivoted to the international stage, referencing Poland's accusation that Russia had invaded its airspace with drones—a move that, as he joked, could trigger NATO's collective defense clause. He lampooned the idea of Trump drawing a "red line" with Russia, quipping that it was more like a "plush red carpet," accompanied by footage of Trump warmly greeting Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile, Seth Meyers on Late Night zeroed in on the Republican response to the Epstein letter. He pointed out the irony: "For years, the conspiracy theories insisted that there was a cover-up to hide the name of powerful elites with ties to Jeffrey Epstein. And it turns out they were right, just not in the way they wanted it to be." Meyers mocked the "mental gymnastics" required to claim the letter's signature was fake, especially since the document came from the Epstein estate, not Democratic operatives. "You can't have it both ways," he concluded. "You can't spend years insisting that the names of powerful elites are all implicated in the Epstein files, and it's all real except for anything with Donald Trump's name on it, which is fake."
Jimmy Kimmel, for his part, recounted Trump's public denial of the letter during a dinner in Washington, DC. Kimmel joked, "Anyone that's covered me for a long time knows that's not my language. That's nonsense," echoing Trump's words before adding, "That's right, his language is nonsense." Kimmel then speculated about what secrets the Epstein files might hold, suggesting, tongue firmly in cheek, that there must be something truly wild hidden within to provoke such vehement denials from Trump and his allies.
Kimmel also highlighted a significant development in Congress. In September 2025, Republican senators blocked a motion to force the Department of Justice to release the full Epstein files, voting 51 to 49 against. This was particularly notable given that Republicans had spent four years demanding the files' release, only to reverse course in recent months. Kimmel mused, "Either Trump's in it, or they are. There's nothing else." He pointed out that, despite the avalanche of tell-all books and relentless media scrutiny, the Epstein files remain one of the few enduring mysteries surrounding Trump.
As the controversy swirled, the Republican Party's response revealed a deep tension between demands for transparency and the instinct to protect their standard-bearer. The spectacle of prominent lawmakers and media figures tying themselves in knots to justify the shifting narrative did not go unnoticed by critics—or by the public, who watched as the story played out across television, social media, and the halls of Congress.
In the end, the release of the Epstein birthday book and the subsequent fallout have only deepened the sense that, when it comes to the intersection of power, scandal, and accountability, there are still more questions than answers. The files may be public, but the truth—whatever it may be—remains stubbornly elusive.
