How have media outlets and social platforms labeled or removed the Hawaiian tragic model photo of Trump?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Major outlets published a photo of then-businessman Donald Trump standing with women wearing Hawaiian-style leis after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released images from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate; several outlets noted that the faces of the women in the “Hawaiian Tropic” group were redacted in the release (see NBC, News18, AOL) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows mainstream cable and national newspapers ran the image with explanatory captions; social platforms and cable outlets have varied in how they presented or obscured the women’s faces, and fringe websites amplified claims that redaction proved a hoax — a claim not supported by the mainstream reporting in the available sources [4] [1] [2].
1. How mainstream outlets presented the image — still a news photograph with redactions
Major news organizations ran the image from the Democratic release while noting the redactions: NBC described a photo of a younger Trump flanked by women “wearing what appear to be artificial Hawaiian leis” and explicitly noted that the faces of the women were redacted [1]. CNN and News18 published versions of the photo with reporting that the women were identified as Hawaiian Tropic models and that faces had been obscured in the batch released by House Democrats [5] [2]. AOL likewise reported the faces of five Hawaiian Tropic models had been blacked out in the trove released by the committee [3]. These outlets framed the image as part of a larger document release and explained the redaction rather than simply presenting an uncontextualized viral graphic [1] [5] [3].
2. What redaction meant in reporting — not uniform, but repeatedly noted
News reporting repeatedly described the same factual element: several outlets pointed out that the women’s faces were covered in the released files, prompting discussion and speculation [1] [2] [3]. Coverage identified the women as adult models representing Hawaiian Tropic at an event at Mar‑a‑Lago in the 1990s, citing people familiar with the images and the release [2] [6]. Coverage did not uniformly state why the redactions were made; reporting focused on the fact of redaction and left the explanation to congressional practice and subsequent reporting [1] [5]. Available sources do not mention a definitive, uniform official explanation for every redaction decision in the packet.
3. Cable shows, social platforms, and a wave of contention
Cable outlets and social platforms treated the photograph in divergent ways. An item flagged by a fringe site claimed MSNBC continued to show the image with the women’s faces redacted and framed the outlet as “desperate to keep the latest hoax alive,” a partisan framing not echoed by the mainstream outlets cited here [4]. Mainstream cable reporting (NBC, CNN) used the image to report the facts of the release and highlighted the redactions without adopting conspiratorial language [1] [5]. This split reflects an ecosystem where the same image can be straight news for national outlets and fuel for partisan takes on other sites [4] [1].
4. How outlets labeled the subjects — “Hawaiian Tropic models” and “adult models”
Several outlets described the women as models associated with Hawaiian Tropic. News18 and the Telegraph explicitly identify them as Hawaiian Tropic models or representatives at a Mar‑a‑Lago event [2] [6]. Other outlets used the term “adult models,” a phrasing that clarifies they were not characterized in the reporting as minors [2] [7]. Where outlets used “adult models” or “Hawaiian Tropic,” they connected the identification to eyewitness accounts, brand affiliation, or the clothing/leis visible in the photos [2] [6].
5. Claims of hoax and missing context — what reporting does and does not say
Some partisan sites and social posts interpreted the redaction as proof of manipulation or a hoax; the fringe article cited here explicitly accused mainstream media of perpetuating a hoax by showing a redacted image [4]. Mainstream reports included in these results did not endorse that interpretation; they reported the redaction as a fact and identified the women as adult models or Hawaiian Tropic representatives [1] [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention any authoritative finding that the image is fabricated or that redaction equates to fraudulent reporting.
6. Why the presentation matters — legal, ethical and public‑information angles
Journalists and officials often redact sensitive faces in document releases for privacy or legal reasons; mainstream outlets noted the redactions while still treating the image as part of the public record released by Democrats on the committee [1] [5]. The political environment turned the photograph into both a news artifact and a political weapon: outlets framed it as evidence of social ties in Epstein’s orbit, while partisan platforms framed the redactions as proof of concealment [1] [4]. The public record and mainstream coverage focus on who is pictured and the circumstance of the release; the precise rationale for every redaction is not detailed in the available reporting [1] [5].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided sources and therefore cannot account for reports or platform actions not contained in those pieces. If you want, I can review additional outlets or specific platform content-moderation statements to map how X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or YouTube labeled or removed the photograph.