Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did anonymous sources or tabloid reports ever claim a romantic relationship between Trump and Clinton—and how were those claims vetted?
Executive summary
Reporting and viral items have circulated suggesting sexual contact or a romantic relationship between Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, most prominently an email in the Jeffrey Epstein archive that joked “Ask him if Putin has photos of Trump blowing Bubba,” which media outlets reproduced and commented on [1] [2]. Major outlets and investigative reporting about Epstein’s papers note that the released emails mention many public figures, that none of the emails themselves provide confirmed evidence tying Epstein’s known crimes to Trump or Clinton, and that public vetting has ranged from treating the items as unverified innuendo to using them to prompt official probes [3] [4] [5].
1. How the rumor appeared — a viral Epstein email and tabloid amplification
An email from Mark Epstein (in files associated with Jeffrey Epstein) that asked “Ask him if Putin has photos of Trump blowing Bubba” circulated online and was picked up by outlets and social media; commentary and tabloids amplified the sexual insinuation while acknowledging the source’s dubiousness [1] [2]. The Canary and Hindustan Times pieces noted the line’s salacious wording and warned readers to treat it “with a grain of salt,” while social media memes and jokey coinages like “Donica Lewinsky” spread the idea beyond straight reporting [1] [2].
2. What mainstream outlets said — mention, not proof
Established news organizations covering the newly released Epstein emails reported names appearing in correspondence but emphasized that the emails themselves do not constitute evidence of criminal acts by the people named; NBC News explicitly said “there’s nothing in the emails linking the Republicans to Epstein’s crimes,” while reporting that Trump’s posts singled out Democrats even though the cache referenced figures on both sides [3]. Reuters and other outlets documented political fallout — including Trump’s call for DOJ probes — but noted that the emails didn’t amount to proven wrongdoing [4] [6].
3. Official responses and political uses of the material
President Trump used the email revelations politically, asking the Justice Department to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Bill Clinton and others; the DOJ agreed to open an inquiry at Trump’s request, which commentators and former prosecutors criticized as inappropriate politicization [4] [5]. Media coverage stressed that the administration framed the email as justification to probe Clinton and other Democrats even as reporting showed the archive mentioned people across the political spectrum [3] [7].
4. How journalists vetted (and did not vet) the claims
Newsrooms treated the Epstein email as an item of interest rather than a standalone proof: outlets published the line and contextualized it within the broader archive while flagging its unverified nature and the absurdity of taking a jokey or salacious line as an evidentiary claim [1] [3]. Where clear vetting occurred, reporters compared the email text to known facts about Epstein’s connections, sought comment from named parties, and highlighted that the archives did not link those named to Epstein’s crimes [3] [8].
5. Competing perspectives and limitations in the record
Some commentators and substack writers framed the rumor more broadly as an allegory for elite sociability — arguing the story is “true” sociologically even if not literally evidenced — but those are interpretive takes rather than journalistic corroboration [9]. Meanwhile, victims’ accounts and investigations into Epstein noted interactions with many public figures but, as Newsweek noted, did not contain allegations against Trump or Clinton in some published memoir material [8]. Available sources do not mention any authenticated photographs or first‑hand evidence proving a sexual relationship between Trump and Clinton.
6. What this means for readers — how to weigh innuendo versus evidence
The archive produced sensational lines that are newsworthy for what they reveal about interlocutors and rumor cycles, but current reporting treats such lines as allegations or innuendo, not proven facts; outlets have repeatedly cautioned against equating email mentions with criminal proof [3]. Where the material has prompted action — notably Trump’s demand for probes — coverage also highlights the political utility of such claims and the need to separate investigatory steps from established guilt [4] [5].
Conclusion: The claim that Trump and Clinton had a romantic or sexual relationship appears in leaked Epstein emails and tabloid-journalist and online commentary, but mainstream reporting and vetting described in the available coverage treat those lines as unverified innuendo and stress that the archives do not provide confirmed evidence linking either man to Epstein’s crimes [1] [3] [8].