Michael Wolff Stands By Epstein Emails, Rejects Ethics Criticism — What the Messages Suggest About Trump

Michael Wolff Defends His Epstein Emails and Reporting

Michael Wolff says he has no regrets about the hundreds of emails he exchanged with Jeffrey Epstein and stands by his interpretation of several messages that have renewed scrutiny of Donald Trump’s ties to the convicted sex offender. The newly released threads, published by members of the House Oversight Committee, mention Trump in multiple places and have focused public attention on three particularly suggestive notes — one between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and two involving Wolff.

What the emails say (and what they don’t)

One widely cited 2011 note from Epstein to Maxwell calls Trump "the dog that hasn't barked," referencing a redacted victim and saying the person "spent hours at my house with him… he has never once been mentioned." Some read that as an implication that Trump knew more about Epstein’s activities than he acknowledged. Wolff told me he believes Trump was both a witness to and, at times, a participant in conduct at Epstein's properties — an allegation Trump denies.

Two exchanges between Wolff and Epstein, from 2015, relate to a Republican primary debate question that Wolff expected CNN would pose to Trump about Epstein. Epstein asked Wolff, "If we were to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?" Wolff’s emailed reply advised that Epstein could "let him hang himself" — meaning a public denial by Trump could become leverage — or, alternately, that Epstein could later "save" Trump to create a debt if the campaign gained traction. Wolff says he was prompting Epstein to discuss his relationship with Trump and attempting to elicit useful testimony, not serving as a publicist.

Wolff’s defense: access, context and the magazine-writer tradition

Wolff told the interviewer he spent more than 100 hours with Epstein while reporting books about the Trump White House. He argued that this time gave him context to interpret the often-cryptic messages and that institutional standards (such as those of the New York Times) are not universally applicable to all writers. Wolff described his practice as part of a long tradition of magazine writers who cultivate social relationships with powerful people to gain rare access and insight.

Wolff: "Getting emails from Jeffrey Epstein was always like: What is he talking about? What do all these commas mean? It was a real job to decipher them."

Ethics questions and critics’ objections

Critics — including an editor at The New York Times — have argued that Wolff’s apparent willingness to "coach" Epstein, or to suggest messaging, violates widely accepted journalistic norms that treat sources as sources, not clients. Wolff rejects this critique as applying an institutional code of conduct too broadly; he insists his approach was intended to keep Epstein talking and to collect information that mainstream outlets had missed or muted.

Wolff acknowledges that working close to powerful figures requires navigating "gray areas," but says there are bright-line limits: he would not commit crimes or violate basic moral boundaries to stay in a room. He likened his access strategy to courteous engagement with other influential figures he has covered — conduct he says produced reporting others could not obtain.

Context and caution

Important caveats remain. Many of the claims discussed in the emails are allegations and interpretations; Trump has strongly denied wrongdoing. Epstein died in 2019, and there was no public trial that would have produced formal discovery revealing all witnesses. As Wolff and others note, Epstein’s writing is often ambiguous, and his messages can reflect a mix of real connections, wishful thinking, and deliberate obfuscation.

Why it matters

The coverage has two threads: the possible factual implications of the emails for Donald Trump, and a broader debate about journalistic methods. Wolff argues the latter is less important than the former: even if Epstein was a "monster," Wolff says, his records may contain evidence or leads relevant to understanding the private dealings of powerful people — and journalists should examine them.

Selected excerpts from the interview

On Trump and Epstein: "I think that that is accurate: Trump knew what was going on at Epstein's house. He was a witness to it and, at some level, a participant in it."

On ethics: "There is no book of ethics. These ethics don't exist anywhere except within the New York Times or within an institutional framework."

Bottom line

Wolff defends his methods as necessary to gain access to people and documents that mainstream outlets have often overlooked. He urges readers to weigh both the content of the emails and the context in which they were produced. At the same time, the exchanges have intensified debate about the boundaries between cultivating sources and crossing ethical lines — a conversation likely to continue as reporting and congressional review proceed.

Note: Many statements discussed here are allegations and remain contested. Trump has denied the accusations referenced in the email threads.