What forensic handwriting evidence, if any, has been made public regarding the alleged Trump entry in Epstein’s 2003 birthday book?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Publicly available forensic handwriting evidence about the alleged Donald Trump entry in Jeffrey Epstein’s 2003 “birthday book” is limited to media-published comparisons, commentary from a small number of handwriting analysts (including a graphologist who said the handwriting is “absolutely” Trump’s), and preliminary, non‑courtroom‑grade reviews; no fully documented, peer‑reviewed forensic report based on the original physical page and contemporaneous exemplar sets has been released to the public as of these reports [1] [2] [3].
1. What has been released: images and media comparisons
House Democrats publicly released scanned images from the 2003 bound album, including a sexually suggestive drawing and accompanying inscription bearing a “Donald” signature and variants such as “DJTRUMP,” and news organizations posted those images for independent viewing and comparison [3] [4] [1]. Major news outlets — The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, PBS and others — ran visual comparisons showing that the multi‑peaked signatures in the scrapbook resemble samples of Trump’s informal first‑name signatures from the 1980s–2000s, and journalists pointed out shared features such as a long tail on the lowercase “d” in some historical letters [5] [6] [7].
2. Experts who have spoken publicly and what they said
A number of analysts have been quoted in the press: graphologist Emma Bache told Sky News she could “absolutely” identify the signature as Trump’s after comparing the image to verified samples from the early 2000s [1] [8]. Media outlets also cited other forensic observers and collectors who said the published signatures “could be” Trump’s and that the style matched several known handwritten notes from the 1990s and 2000s [9] [7]. At the same time, outlets emphasize that these public statements varied in professional standing and methodology — some speakers are graphologists or commercial autograph experts rather than formal forensic document examiners [10] [9].
3. Limits of what's been done publicly: originals, exemplars, and methodology
Multiple reporting outlets stress the critical caveats for any conclusive forensic determination: a reliable forensic document examination requires access to the original inked page and a robust set of genuine exemplars from the same time period to control for signature variation, and those conditions have not been publicly satisfied or documented in a formal report released to the public [2] [10]. Al Jazeera’s coverage noted that the informal reviews conducted for journalists used digital images and a limited set of samples and were offered “for informational purposes only,” explicitly stopping short of claiming conclusive expert findings [2]. Forensic practitioners cited in coverage say that digital images and headline declarations are not the same as admissible forensic conclusions [2] [10].
4. Official posture and offers for formal analysis
The White House has denied the president drew or signed the page while publicly saying it would “support” a professional handwriting analysis to prove inauthenticity and that Trump’s legal team was pursuing litigation against outlets reporting the letter [11] [12]. News organizations and some independent analysts have urged that a formal, documented examination by qualified forensic document examiners — using the original scrapbook page and period exemplars — is the only way to resolve competing public claims [6] [2].
5. Conclusions, conflicts and next steps for verification
In short, the public record contains multiple persuasive visual comparisons and at least one outspoken analyst asserting the signature is Trump’s, alongside denials and offers to undertake formal testing; however, no public, fully documented forensic report examining the original physical document and a validated exemplar set has been produced or released, meaning the question remains open pending a proper forensic document examination that meets evidentiary standards [1] [2] [3].