The Trump family won’t put up with slander. Especially not Melania.
That’s why Melania Trump’s personal lawyer sent a bombshell letter to a fake news outlet.
The Daily Beast withdrew a report published on Wednesday that claimed First Lady Melania Trump had significant ties to convicted s*x offender Jeffrey Epstein. The article relied on statements from biographer Michael Wolff, who, during a podcast interview with Joanna Coles on Saturday, suggested Melania was deeply connected to Epstein’s social circle.
Wolff claimed she met President Donald Trump in 1998 through Paolo Zampolli, the founder of ID Models, who was linked to both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Following the article’s publication, Melania’s legal team sent a letter contesting the article’s headline and narrative, prompting The Daily Beast to remove the story, as noted in an editor’s statement.
“After this story was published, The Beast received a letter from First Lady Melania Trump’s attorney challenging the headline and framing of the article. After reviewing the matter, the Beast has taken down the article and apologizes for any confusion or misunderstanding,” the editor’s note stated.
According to The Wrap, which referenced Apple News, the original headline was, “Melania Trump Was ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author.” The podcast interview containing Wolff’s claims remains accessible on The Daily Beast’s YouTube channel. In the interview, Wolff alleged that Melania was closely acquainted with Epstein and suggested that her initial romantic encounter with Trump occurred on Epstein’s private plane.
“She was very involved in this Epstein relationship. I mean, there was this model thing … She’s introduced by a model agent, both of whom Trump and Epstein are involved with. She’s introduced to Trump that way. Epstein knows her well. Epstein says the first time Donald Trump and Melania have s*x is on his airplane. So this is a, you know, another complicated dimension in this. Where does she fit into the Epstein story? Where does she fit into this whole culture of models of indeterminate age?” Wolff stated.
The article also touched on President Trump’s past association with Epstein, which has faced renewed scrutiny following the Department of Justice and FBI’s July 6 conclusion that Epstein took his own life in August 2019 and did not maintain a client list. On July 29, Trump told the press he had expelled Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after discovering that Epstein was employing female spa staff, including then-17-year-old Virginia Giuffre, who later claimed she was recruited to perform s*xual acts for Epstein.
Additionally, Trump initiated legal action against The Wall Street Journal, its owner Rupert Murdoch, and two of its reporters on July 18. The lawsuit stemmed from a report alleging that Trump sent Epstein a drawing of a naked stick figure woman in 2003. Trump refuted the claim, asserting that he does not create such drawings.
Media Treatment of the Trump Family Is A History of Unfair Coverage
The retracted Daily Beast article is just one instance in a long pattern of media outlets publishing unverified or misleading claims about the Trump family, often amplifying sensational narratives without sufficient evidence. This trend has persisted across Donald Trump’s political career, affecting not only him but also his wife, Melania, and their children. The following examples highlight how media coverage has, at times, unfairly targeted the Trump family, relying on speculation, selective framing, or outright falsehoods to shape public perception.
One prominent example occurred during the 2016 presidential campaign when BuzzFeed published a piece questioning Melania Trump’s immigration history. The article suggested she may have worked illegally in the United States before obtaining proper documentation, citing a single, unverified source and grainy modeling photos. The story gained traction but lacked corroborating evidence, leading to a lawsuit from Melania against BuzzFeed and other outlets. The case was settled, with some publications issuing retractions, but the narrative lingered, casting doubt on her character without substantiation.
In 2018, several outlets, including Vanity Fair and The New York Times, speculated about Melania’s personal life, particularly her marriage to Donald Trump. Articles often portrayed her as unhappy or detached, relying on body language “experts” or anonymous sources to fuel stories about marital discord. These reports frequently ignored Melania’s own statements about her commitment to her family and role as First Lady, instead prioritizing sensationalism over fact-based reporting. Such coverage often overshadowed her initiatives, like the Be Best campaign, which focused on children’s well-being.
The Trump children have also faced intense scrutiny. In 2017, The Daily Mail published an article criticizing Ivanka Trump’s fashion choices during a state visit, framing her wardrobe as inappropriate. The piece diverted attention from her diplomatic efforts and policy discussions, reducing her role to superficial commentary. Similarly, outlets like CNN and The Washington Post have been criticized for disproportionate coverage of Ivanka’s business dealings compared to other political figures’ children, often implying conflicts of interest without concrete evidence.
Donald Trump Jr. has been another frequent target. In 2019, multiple news organizations, including MSNBC, ran stories amplifying a baseless claim that he was involved in a Russian collusion scandal beyond what was outlined in the Mueller report. These reports often leaned on innuendo rather than verified facts, contributing to a narrative of guilt by association. Such coverage persisted despite the Mueller investigation finding no evidence of criminal conspiracy involving Trump Jr.
Teenage Barron Trump has not been spared either. In 2017, a writer for The Daily Caller made inappropriate comments about Barron’s appearance during a White House event, prompting widespread backlash. Although the outlet later apologized, the incident follows a pattern of a willingness by some media figures to target even the youngest members of the Trump family, who are not public figures in their own right.
Another notable case involved Eric Trump and his charitable activities. In 2017, Forbes and other outlets reported allegations that the Eric Trump Foundation misused funds intended for cancer research. The stories relied heavily on unverified claims and omitted context about the foundation’s overall financial transparency. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing, but the initial coverage caused significant reputational damage.
The media’s handling of Donald Trump’s past relationships has also been a recurring theme. In 2020, The Atlantic published a story claiming Trump made disparaging remarks about fallen soldiers, citing anonymous sources. While the story gained widespread attention, several named sources, including former aides, disputed its accuracy. The Trump family, particularly Melania, publicly condemned the report as fabricated, yet it continued to shape narratives about Trump’s character.
This pattern of sensationalism extends to legal and financial reporting. In 2021, The New York Times and other outlets reported on investigations into the Trump Organization’s tax practices, often framing the inquiries as evidence of criminality. While investigations are newsworthy, the coverage frequently omitted that such probes are common for high-profile businesses and do not inherently indicate guilt. The Trump family has argued that these stories were designed to imply wrongdoing without evidence, a claim echoed by their supporters.
The cumulative effect of these examples suggests a media environment that, at times, prioritizes narrative over accuracy when covering the Trump family. While public figures naturally face scrutiny, the reliance on unverified sources, selective framing, and sensational headlines has often crossed into unfair territory. The retracted Daily Beast story about Melania Trump is a case in point, demonstrating how quickly unverified claims can spread before corrections are made, if they are made at all.
