How did Trump's Mar-a-Lago club respond to allegations of Epstein's presence there?

1. Trump’s stated response: ban, blame and “stole”

When questioned in 2025 about Epstein’s presence tied to Mar‑a‑Lago, President Trump repeatedly said he fell out with Epstein after Epstein “stole” people who worked at his club’s spa and that he had banned or “kicked” Epstein out of Mar‑a‑Lago decades earlier, including citing Virginia Giuffre as one of the attendants Epstein recruited ^{[1] [2] [6]}. White House spokespeople have echoed that position, with Karoline Leavitt and others saying Trump cut ties because Epstein was “a creep” and that any emails released “prove absolutely nothing” of wrongdoing by Trump ^[7].

2. Epstein’s contemporaneous emails: a direct contradiction

Documents Democrats released from Epstein’s estate include emails in which Epstein says he was “never a member ever” at Mar‑a‑Lago and in which he also wrote that Trump “knew about the girls,” statements that, if read literally, undercut the narrative that Trump formally expelled or severed membership and raise questions about what each man knew and when ^{[3] [4] [5]}. News organizations including The New York Times, NBC News and The Guardian reported on those emails, noting the tension between Epstein’s phrasing and Trump’s public account ^{[8] [4] [9]}.

3. What the dispute actually concerns — membership, access, and recruitment

Reporting shows the disagreement is not only whether Epstein was formally a Mar‑a‑Lago member but also about whether he was asked to stop recruiting spa employees and whether he had ongoing access. Trump’s public explanation emphasizes that Epstein was “taking people who worked for me,” while Epstein’s messages focus on denying formal membership and asserting different facts about Trump’s knowledge and interactions ^{[2] [10] [11]}. Journalists note the difference between “never a member” and whether Epstein was welcomed as a guest at events or had informal ties ^{[5] [11]}.

4. Independent reporting and released documents: corroboration and limits

House Democrats released a tranche of 23,000+ documents that media outlets are mining; those snapshots include photos and emails referencing Mar‑a‑Lago, Virginia Giuffre’s work there, and exchanges suggesting Epstein tracked Trump’s movements and communications ^{[10] [9]}. However, outlets caution about what the emails do and do not prove: NBC News said it had not independently verified every email, and reporting frames the documents as raising questions rather than delivering conclusive proof of specific criminal conduct by others ^{[8] [4]}.

5. Competing narratives and political framing

Republicans and the White House characterize the email releases as selective leaks intended to smear the president; Democrats and some reporters say the emails raise “glaring questions” about what the administration may be hiding and the true nature of the Trump‑Epstein ties ^{[8] [4]}. Conservative outlets tend to emphasize Trump’s distancing and denials, while other outlets highlight Epstein’s contradictory statements and the implications of his phrase “knew about the girls” ^{[7] [5]}.

6. What remains unclear and what the sources do not say

Available sources document the public statements and the released emails but do not establish a judicial finding about who was telling the truth on those specific points; they do not supply definitive proof that Epstein was or was not formally expelled as a member at a given date, nor do they prove the full extent of Trump’s knowledge beyond the content of the emails and his own statements ^{[3] [4]}. In other words, reporting highlights a factual contradiction without adjudicating it ^[5].

7. Bottom line for readers

There are two sharply conflicting primary claims in current reporting: Trump and aides say Epstein was banned from Mar‑a‑Lago for recruiting staff and was a “creep,” while emails from Epstein suggest he was “never a member” and imply Trump knew about Epstein’s victims; released documents raise questions but do not, in the reporting cited, settle the contradiction ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Readers should treat both narratives as contested, note the political stakes in how documents were released, and follow further reporting that attempts to corroborate dates, membership records, and witness accounts ^{[10] [11]}.