What did Wall Street Journal reporting find about Mar‑a‑Lago staff sending masseuses to Jeffrey Epstein’s residences?
Executive summary
The Wall Street Journal reported that Mar‑a‑Lago’s spa routinely dispatched masseuses, manicurists and other spa staff — “usually young women,” including teenage employees according to former staff — to Jeffrey Epstein’s nearby Palm Beach residence for house calls over a period of years, even as employees warned one another about Epstein’s sexually suggestive conduct during those visits [1][2][3]. The Journal’s account is based on interviews with former Mar‑a‑Lago and Epstein employees and contemporaneous records; the White House has strongly denied the implications and called the reporting a smear [1][4].
1. What the Wall Street Journal said the club did
The Journal described a pattern in which Mar‑a‑Lago spa employees were sent to Epstein’s mansion for massages, manicures and other services, with managers treating Epstein “like” a member despite him not being a dues‑paying member, and with Maxwell allegedly arranging or booking some appointments on his behalf, according to former employees and records cited by the paper [1][5]. The reporting characterizes these as repeated, organized “house calls” that continued even after staff developed an awareness that Epstein sometimes behaved inappropriately during appointments [6][7].
2. Who the Journal says was involved and what workers reported
The Journal relied on unnamed former Mar‑a‑Lago and Epstein employees who told investigators that the spa typically sent “usually young women” and in some cases teenage workers to Epstein’s house, and that spa staff warned each other that Epstein was sexually suggestive and had exposed himself during some visits [1][2][8]. The reporting also recounts that Ghislaine Maxwell used the resort as a recruiting ground, approaching spa workers about unauthorized “side jobs” and steering some into Epstein’s orbit, a pattern the Journal links to broader allegations in the Epstein case [1][9].
3. How the arrangement reportedly ended and the conflicting narratives
According to the Journal, the arrangement at Mar‑a‑Lago ended after an 18‑year‑old employee returned from a house call alleging Epstein pressured her for sex; a manager reportedly faxed the allegation to Trump and urged a ban, which Trump then imposed, though the incident was not referred to Palm Beach police at the time, per former employees and contemporaneous records cited by the paper [7][9]. The White House rejects the narrative and framed the reporting as innuendo, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying Trump “kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar‑a‑Lago for being a creep” and accusing the Journal of smearing the president [10][11]. The Journal does not allege that Trump committed a crime, and other accounts emphasize inconsistencies in Trump’s public explanations of the breakup with Epstein [12][6].
4. The evidence the Journal presented and its limitations
The Journal’s story is built on interviews with former employees and contemporaneous records, and it identifies specific patterns (house calls, staff warnings, Maxwell’s recruitment activity) that align with other depositions and reporting about Epstein’s methods, but much of the reporting depends on anonymous accounts rather than on prosecutions or direct documentary proof made public in full by the Journal excerpts available here [1][5]. Reporting outlets summarizing the Journal note the paper’s sourcing and contemporaneous records, yet public summaries do not reproduce those primary documents in full in the linked pieces, so readers must rely on the Journal’s vetting and sourcing as described by those summaries [6][9].
5. Reactions, stakes, and why the story matters
News outlets and commentators quickly framed the Journal’s revelations as adding new detail to the institutional context that allowed Epstein and Maxwell to find and recruit young women; advocates and critics see the account as important for understanding how access and workplace practices facilitated abuse, while the White House frames it as politically motivated and insists the president acted to ban Epstein [5][4][7]. The Journal’s reporting does not itself assert criminal liability for Trump, but it raises questions about institutional oversight at an elite club, the handling of staff complaints, and how social and business networks supplied Epstein his access — questions that the Journal’s evidence invites others to probe further [1][3].