What did Paolo Zampolli say under oath about his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Paolo Zampolli has consistently denied that Jeffrey Epstein introduced Donald and Melania Trump, saying Zampolli himself arranged their meeting at his Fashion Week party; multiple outlets reporting on the dispute cite Zampolli’s version and the Trumps’ statements while also noting biographer Michael Wolff’s claim that Epstein was part of Melania’s social circle [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and fact checks summarized here show competing claims — Epstein’s own boast reported by others versus Zampolli’s repeated denials — and available sources do not contain a verbatim, sworn transcript of Zampolli’s testimony under oath about Epstein (not found in current reporting).
1. What Zampolli has publicly said: he arranged the introduction
Zampolli and allied reporting have long maintained that he hosted the Fashion Week party where Donald and Melania Trump first met and that he—not Jeffrey Epstein—introduced them; outlets recount Zampolli taking credit and calling Epstein’s later claim “BS,” with multiple fact-checks treating Zampolli’s account as the consistent public record [1] [2]. News outlets and fact-check pieces repeat the timeline that places the meeting at Zampolli’s Kit Kat Club/Fashion Week event in 1998 and present Zampolli as the primary source for that version of events [1].
2. The competing claim: Epstein’s boast and biographer assertions
Some reporting and biographers have relayed claims that Epstein portrayed himself as the link between Melania and the Trumps; Michael Wolff’s recent biography and interviews highlighted Epstein’s proximity to Melania’s social circle and suggested Epstein was a “crucial link” — a claim that reignited debate and led other outlets to examine the differing versions [3] [4]. These accounts do not uniformly present documentary proof that Epstein made the introduction; instead they report Wolff’s interpretation of social ties and Epstein’s reputed boasting [3] [4].
3. How mainstream fact-checkers and contemporaneous statements weigh in
Multiple credible fact-checks and contemporary press accounts side with the Trumps’ and Zampolli’s account that the introduction occurred at Zampolli’s party and not via Epstein; those fact-checks note that Epstein’s later claims appear inconsistent with the timing and public statements made when the couple began dating [1]. News reports cite Donald Trump’s own early public claim that Zampolli introduced him to Melania and note Melania’s legal team threatened action after renewed claims suggesting Epstein’s role [2] [5].
4. What the sources do not show: no cited sworn testimony text
The assembled reporting and fact checks provided do not include a verbatim sworn deposition or court transcript in which Zampolli testifies about his interactions with Epstein; available sources summarize public denials, interviews and biographical claims but do not reproduce under‑oath testimony attributed to Zampolli (not found in current reporting). When discussing “under oath” statements, the current reporting instead references public interviews, denials and recollections rather than authenticated, published sworn testimony (not found in current reporting).
5. Why this dispute matters and what to watch for
The competing narratives matter because they touch on the provenance of a widely repeated anecdote linking prominent figures to Jeffrey Epstein’s network; sources with different agendas amplify different versions — biographer Michael Wolff emphasizes social ties that implicate Epstein [3], while fact-checkers and outlets sympathetic to the Trumps emphasize contemporaneous accounts crediting Zampolli [1] [2]. Future clarity would require release of primary materials: contemporaneous documents, photos with reliable provenance, or an authenticated sworn statement or deposition transcript from Zampolli — none of which are cited in the material provided (not found in current reporting).
6. How to read the coverage critically
Readers should note source agendas: opinion sites and investigative outlets may push theories about hidden networks [6], while mainstream fact-checks and contemporaneous reporting prioritize documented statements and timelines [1] [2]. Where reporting conflicts, emphasize verifiable records: who said what at the time of the events and whether any court‑filed testimony exists; as of the sources assembled, the balance of contemporary reporting credits Zampolli’s party account while biographers highlight Epstein’s broader social proximity to Melania [1] [3].
Limitations: available sources here are secondary accounts and summaries; they do not include a published sworn transcript of Zampolli’s courtroom testimony or a primary document proving Epstein’s role, so definitive adjudication of “who introduced whom under oath” is not possible from the material provided (not found in current reporting).