The alleged Epstein “birthday letter” attributed to President Donald Trump is unraveling—and not just in the court of public opinion. A trio of leading AI-driven forensic linguistic analyses have independently concluded what many suspected from the start: the letter, with its bizarre sketch of a naked woman and its oddly poetic musings, is almost certainly not the work of Donald J. Trump.
This is no small matter. The note, first floated by The Wall Street Journal and recently spotlighted by House Democrats, was presented as another piece of damning context in the ever-toxic Epstein saga. Its theatrical language—complete with third-person dialogue and stage directions like “Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything”—was already raising eyebrows. But now, the deeper linguistic scrutiny has delivered a devastating verdict: the letter is fundamentally at odds with Trump’s authentic written voice.
🚨🚨HERE IT IS: We got Trump’s birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein that the President said doesn’t exist.
Trump talks about a “wonderful secret” the two of them shared. What is he hiding? Release the files! pic.twitter.com/k2Mq8Hu3LY
— Oversight Dems (@OversightDems) September 8, 2025
Three heavyweight AI models—Claude 4.0 Opus (Anthropic), Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google), and Perplexity Sonar—were tasked with one clear objective: compare this letter to the known writing patterns of Donald Trump across decades. The results were strikingly unanimous.
Claude Opus, leveraging over 250 samples of Trump’s public and private correspondence dating from the 1980s through 2025, found “profound and pervasive deviations” in syntax, tone, narrative structure, and even metaphor usage. Gemini labeled the contrast a “complete inversion,” noting that where Trump’s writing is simple, blunt, and self-referential, this letter is abstract, suggestive, and tightly structured. Perplexity’s analysis was even more categorical, stating flatly: “The linguistic fingerprint analysis supports Trump’s denial of authorship.”
Here’s the heart of the matter: forensic linguistics is not guesswork. It’s a data-rich discipline built on stylometry—the statistical analysis of linguistic patterns. Think of it as DNA for language. And the linguistic DNA in this note doesn’t match Trump’s.
Yes, Trump has used certain vocabulary in ghostwritten books. Yes, he had social ties with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s, just as many in elite circles did. But word frequency, syntax, narrative structure, and consistent idiolect are what matter in authorship attribution—and by every forensic metric, this letter fails to align.
The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire “Birthday Card” story is false.
As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.
President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively…
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) September 8, 2025
Even more telling is what happened when the AI systems were prompted to argue the opposite position—to prove Trump did write the letter. None could do it. Gemini could only point to circumstantial connections. Perplexity outright refused, stating that to do so would be to fabricate misinformation. That’s the machine-learning equivalent of a witness taking the Fifth rather than lie under oath.
The implications are far-reaching. If The Wall Street Journal ran this story without independently verifying authorship, and in fact published it despite direct warnings from Trump that the letter was a fake, the libel lawsuit he’s filed isn’t just posturing—it’s anchored in a substantive factual dispute. A federal libel claim against Rupert Murdoch and Dow Jones, built on AI forensic findings and the absence of authentication, could become a landmark case in the age of digital misinformation and media overreach.
Trump’s legal team is already seizing the moment, framing this as both a media ethics failure and a political hit job. And with the White House inexplicably celebrating the release of a clearly dubious document, the political motivations seem hard to ignore.