What publicly released forensic analyses, if any, have evaluated the handwriting on the Trump–Epstein birthday page?
Executive summary
Publicly released materials include several media-published expert opinions and private-forensic commentary asserting that the handwriting on the Jeffrey Epstein “birthday book” page matches Donald Trump’s signature, but there is no indication in the reviewed reporting that a formal, court-style forensic report from a government laboratory or peer-reviewed forensic study has been publicly released; most analyses cited are media-commissioned or independent expert commentary [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What analysts have publicly weighed in — and where their views appeared
Within days of the House Oversight Committee’s release of the scanned birthday book, handwriting analysts quoted by news outlets declared the signature consistent with Trump’s known handwriting: Sky News and AFP-cited analyst Emma Bache said the signature was “absolutely” Donald Trump and compared it to samples from the 2000s, a conclusion picked up widely in international coverage [1] [2]. Private forensic firms and forensic-writing explainers also published pieces outlining how such comparisons are done and why they matter, with firms like Bericon Forensics producing public-facing explanations about forensic handwriting methodology in the context of the Trump–Epstein page [3].
2. What mainstream news organizations reported about forensic comparisons
Major outlets documented both the release of the birthday book and the subsequent public comparisons: The Wall Street Journal published a comparative observation noting similarities between the birthday-page signature and later Trump letters — reporting that the signature and letter-forming elements resembled examples from 2000 and 2006 — and other outlets summarized or linked to those comparisons [4] [5]. The New York Times and PBS summarised denials from the White House while noting outside experts had already begun offering visual comparisons in the press [6] [5].
3. How the White House and Trump’s team framed the analyses
The White House publicly denied the note and drawing were Trump’s and said it would welcome an expert review while also asserting that multiple forensic analyses were already circulating in the media; Trump’s legal team signaled litigation against publications that ran the material, framing press analyses as insufficient and biased [5] [4] [7]. That defensive posture has shaped coverage and raised questions about whether analysts quoted in the media were retained by partisan actors or responding to public curiosity rather than producing neutral, detailed forensic reports [5] [7].
4. What kind of forensic work has actually been released publicly
The public record, as reflected in reviewed reporting, consists mainly of visual comparisons and expert statements published in news stories or on forensic-firm blogs rather than a standalone, traceable forensic laboratory report with methodology, data, and a chain of custody; outlets cite experts and firms but none of the reviewed sources point to a formal, publicly posted forensic report from an accredited forensic laboratory or a peer-reviewed study of the page [3] [2] [1] [4]. Reporting does identify specific analysts and comparative claims, but those appear as media interviews or opinion pieces rather than an official forensic dossier made public [1] [3].
5. Competing interpretations, agendas and the evidentiary gap
Coverage shows two competing narratives: independent or media-opinion forensic assessments that say the handwriting matches Trump, and the White House’s categorical denial and threats of litigation — a dynamic that creates partisan incentives for both amplifying quick expert takes and questioning their neutrality [1] [5]. Crucially, the absence in the reviewed reporting of a publicly released, court-style forensic report means that claims rest on analysts’ visual comparisons and commentary rather than a transparent report documenting exemplar provenance, methodology, and error-rate analysis [3] [4].
6. Bottom line and what’s still unknown
Publicly released forensic evaluations to date are limited to expert commentary and media-published comparisons asserting a match and to forensic-practice explainers discussing how such work would be done; none of the reviewed sources provides evidence of a formal, publicly available forensic laboratory report or peer-reviewed study that definitively adjudicates authorship of the signature, and that evidentiary lacuna remains central to the dispute [1] [3] [4].