In a statement sure to spark new controversy, House Speaker Mike Johnson asserted Friday that President Donald Trump had once served as an informant for the FBI in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal activities, as the Daily Mail reports.

Johnson’s unverified claim, made during an impromptu conversation with reporters at the Capitol, has revived concerns about Trump’s history with Epstein and ignited public calls for transparency surrounding long-sealed government documents tied to the notorious sex offender’s network.

Standing in the halls of Congress, Johnson made the allegation after being asked by CNN’s Manu Raju about Trump’s recent remarks downplaying the Epstein file controversy. Johnson explained that Trump views the political focus on the scandal as a partisan distraction but does not believe the crimes themselves were fabricated.

“He is horrified,” Johnson said about Trump’s reaction to Epstein’s actions. “It’s been misrepresented,” he added, clarifying that Trump considers the political treatment of the case a “hoax,” not Epstein’s documented crimes. Johnson went further, stating that Trump removed Epstein from Mar-a-Lago upon learning of allegations against him and “was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.”

Questions swirl around new claim

Johnson did not provide any documentation or timeline to support his assertion that Trump cooperated with federal investigators as an informant. With no additional evidence offered, the statement has prompted skepticism from journalists and lawmakers alike, as well as interest from Trump’s political base, who continue to demand details about the Epstein case.

Trump is known to have associated with Epstein in the 1980s and 1990s. A widely circulated photograph dated Feb. 12, 2000, shows Trump and then-girlfriend Melania alongside Epstein and his aide Ghislaine Maxwell during a party at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida resort. However, Trump has claimed he severed ties years before Epstein’s first indictment.

Speaking to reporters earlier in the week, Trump called the lingering Epstein controversy a “Democrat hoax,” arguing that it was intended to deflect public attention from his policymaking and campaign agenda. “Thousands of pages” have already been released, Trump insisted, suggesting the issue holds little relevance in the current political climate.

Trump, MAGA strife persists

Despite Trump’s attempts to minimize the case’s public importance, members of his conservative base remain intensely focused on unsealing any surviving government records related to Epstein. Many supporters feel Trump has yet to fulfill past promises to expose Epstein’s client network and hold powerful figures accountable.

Earlier this summer, the Department of Justice announced the conclusion of its internal investigation into Epstein’s activities with a finding that “no credible evidence” exists of blackmail schemes involving prominent individuals. The DOJ also confirmed that no list of clients had ever been compiled, fueling disbelief among voters and conspiracy theorists across the political spectrum.

Attorney General Pam Bondi previously added to speculation when she admitted to the presence of Epstein-related records on her desk, though she failed to provide further clarity. That statement, combined with Trump’s own shifting position, caused ripples of discontent within pro-Trump political factions in recent months.

Bipartisan push for release intensifies

Amid rising tension, both Republicans and Democrats have joined legislative efforts demanding greater transparency. Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, introduced a bill instructing the DOJ to release all Epstein-related files within 30 days—an action aimed at removing doubts and speculation clouding the case.

Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie support Khanna’s initiative. Greene and Massie have publicly stated intentions to read aloud any alleged names from unreleased Epstein files under the protection of Congressional speech immunity if necessary. To escalate the process, Massie has filed a discharge petition to force the bill to a floor vote. As of Friday, the petition has gathered 214 signatures -- just four short of the 218 required to bring the issue before the entire House for debate.

Trump’s social media comments spark divide

As criticism mounted, Trump turned to his Truth Social account to address frustrations within the MAGA movement. He appeared dismissive of ongoing public concern over Epstein, calling the matter a “waste” being used by “selfish people” to undermine his administration.

Expressing that the matter distracted from his achievements, Trump wrote that “Team MAGA” should stay united and that America should not “waste Time and Energy” on Epstein, “somebody nobody cares about.” Those comments stood in stark contrast to Speaker Johnson’s statement describing Trump as someone who once worked behind the scenes to aid the FBI.

Observers note that Johnson’s characterization could be an effort to reframe Trump’s image in response to eroding support on the far-right, particularly among those expecting Trump to lead the charge in revealing unseen details of Epstein’s crimes and associations.

Lessons to learn

1. Unfounded rumors can do lasting damage. The Epstein case continues to be mired in speculation, rumors, and political upheaval. This underscores the importance of demanding verified evidence and resisting the urge to conclude unproven claims -- particularly when national leaders are involved.

2. Transparency builds trust. As seen in the bipartisan push to release Epstein documents, public access to truthful information is critical for democracy. When high-profile stories remain shrouded in secrecy, it fosters distrust and divides communities, making transparency more important than ever.

3. Public scrutiny matters -- but must be fair. While it’s essential to hold powerful individuals accountable, it’s equally important to ensure that accusations are not politically manipulated or weaponized. Victims deserve justice rooted in facts, not in partisan agendas. No one should ever blame victims, regardless of circumstances or outcomes.

Why this story matters

This story demonstrates how the legacy of a convicted sex offender continues to influence modern political dialogue and public trust.  It highlights how political figures may be scrutinized for their past associations, especially when transparency is lacking.

The issue also reflects broader concerns about institutional accountability and the expectations held by the public for justice system oversight.