Mike Johnson Walks Back Claim That Trump Was an FBI Informant in Epstein Case

 

 

 

5

Johnson made the statement on September 5, 2025, while discussing Trump’s response to renewed demands for the release of records connected to Epstein’s criminal activities.

“He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down,” Johnson told reporters, according to multiple news organizations covering his remarks at the Capitol.

The statement immediately raised questions because Johnson did not provide documentation showing that Trump had formally served as an FBI informant during an investigation involving Epstein.

Johnson’s comments came as lawmakers from both parties were pressing for greater disclosure of government records concerning Epstein, who was accused of sexually abusing underage girls.

Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor and later faced federal sex-trafficking charges before his death in a New York jail in 2019.

Trump and Epstein had known each other socially for years before their relationship deteriorated. Trump has said he eventually barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.

The circumstances surrounding Trump’s interactions with Epstein have remained politically controversial, particularly as lawmakers and survivors have demanded additional transparency surrounding government records.

Brad Edwards, an attorney who represented several Epstein victims, said in 2025 that Trump had provided information that helped his investigation into Epstein more than a decade earlier.

Edwards said Trump spoke with him in 2009 and provided information that was useful to the investigation, but Edwards did not describe Trump as an FBI informant.

That distinction became central after Johnson used the term “FBI informant,” which generally suggests a formal relationship with federal law enforcement rather than simply providing information to an attorney.

Johnson’s office subsequently sought to clarify the statement, saying the speaker was referring to Edwards’ comments about Trump helping efforts to expose Epstein.

Johnson later acknowledged that he might not have used the correct terminology, saying he was not present during the events and could not personally establish whether Trump had been an FBI informant.

“I don’t know if I used the right word,” Johnson said while explaining his earlier comments, according to reporting from CNN and other outlets.

PolitiFact examined the timeline and reported that available evidence did not establish that Trump had a formal FBI informant relationship in connection with Epstein.

The distinction between assisting an investigation and serving as an FBI informant is significant, because the latter implies a formal or ongoing relationship with federal investigators.

The Washington Post similarly reported that Johnson backed away from his original characterization, while noting that Edwards had described Trump as helpful to his own investigation.

The White House has maintained that Trump has supported justice and transparency for Epstein’s victims, while also criticizing what it describes as politically motivated efforts surrounding the case.

Meanwhile, lawmakers continued debating legislation designed to compel the release of additional Epstein-related records, with members of both parties demanding greater access to government information.

The episode illustrates how a single statement about Trump’s historical relationship with Epstein quickly became part of a broader congressional dispute over transparency and the handling of Epstein-related records.

Based on the available reporting, Johnson did make the FBI-informant statement, but he subsequently qualified it rather than providing evidence establishing that Trump formally worked as an FBI informant.

The documented record therefore distinguishes between Trump reportedly providing information to an attorney investigating Epstein and the much stronger claim that he formally served as an FBI informant.