White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back sharply this week against a swirl of speculation surrounding the resurfacing of Jeffrey Epstein’s so-called 2003 “birthday book.” In a briefing dominated by questions about newly released documents from the House Oversight Committee, Leavitt dismissed suggestions linking former President Donald Trump to the material, calling the allegations “a hoax designed to distract the public.”
“The idea that President Trump had any involvement with this birthday book is false,” Leavitt said firmly. “This is recycled speculation that has been debunked many times before. We are not going to let baseless conspiracy theories overshadow the real issues facing Americans.”
The Oversight Committee’s release included a series of Epstein-related records, among them the infamous “birthday book”—a handwritten list of names and dates compiled by Epstein and his associates two decades ago. While the book has been circulated in previous investigations, its reappearance has reignited public interest, particularly after social media users began highlighting familiar names within its pages.
Experts stress that the presence of a name in the book does not amount to evidence of misconduct. “Documents like this are often used as references, contacts, or social notes,” explained Benjamin Carter, a legal analyst. “Unless supported by corroborating evidence, they cannot be considered proof of wrongdoing.”
Despite this, the material quickly went viral online. Hashtags related to Epstein trended within hours, with some users speculating about high-profile figures and others sharing memes that exaggerated the book’s significance. The viral conversation prompted the White House to take a more forceful tone than usual in addressing what it considered a distraction.
“This is not the first time we’ve seen old documents resurface and cause unnecessary confusion,” Leavitt told reporters. “The American people deserve clarity: inclusion in a decades-old notebook does not equal misconduct. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.”
Political communications experts noted the unusual bluntness of Leavitt’s remarks. “By calling the allegations a ‘hoax,’ she is signaling that the administration wants to shut down the narrative quickly,” said Dr. Rachel Goodman, a professor at George Washington University. “It’s a high-stakes communication strategy, but one that can be effective in cutting through noise.”
Reactions outside the White House reflected the polarized climate. Supporters of Trump and the administration applauded Leavitt’s direct approach, praising her for confronting rumors head-on. Critics, meanwhile, argued that the ongoing public interest in Epstein’s network points to a broader demand for transparency.
For its part, the Oversight Committee clarified that the release of the “birthday book” was part of a standard document review process and not intended to suggest misconduct by any specific individual. Committee members emphasized that the investigation remains focused on understanding Epstein’s activities and the extent of his connections.
Observers noted that while the document itself is not new, the controversy highlights how Epstein’s name continues to cast a shadow over American politics years after his death. “Every time a file or list tied to Epstein surfaces, it sparks an outsized reaction,” said Goodman. “It’s the combination of mystery, notoriety, and unanswered questions that keeps fueling public fascination.”
Leavitt ended the briefing by reiterating her message. “The White House is not going to be distracted by false claims,” she said. “We remain focused on governing and delivering results for the American people.”
While speculation is likely to continue online, experts caution against conflating public chatter with factual evidence. Legal analysts stress that until investigators produce verified findings, documents like the “birthday book” should be viewed as historical curiosities rather than smoking guns.
In the end, the controversy may say more about America’s appetite for sensational headlines than about any single individual. For now, Leavitt’s fiery response underscores the administration’s determination to move past the episode quickly, framing the allegations as not only unfounded but deliberately misleading.
