Mike Johnson Said Trump Was an “FBI Informant” Against Epstein — Then Walked It Back

The House speaker sparked confusion by suggesting Donald Trump had informed for the FBI against Jeffrey Epstein, but later acknowledged he did not know whether that description was accurate.

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson ignited a political controversy after publicly describing President Donald Trump as an “FBI informant” who had attempted to help bring down convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Johnson made the striking statement while speaking with reporters in September 2025, as congressional pressure intensified for the Justice Department to release additional records concerning Epstein and his associates.

Defending Trump’s position on the controversy, Johnson said the president regarded Epstein’s conduct as an “unspeakable evil” and then declared that Trump had been an FBI informant.

The remark immediately generated questions because no publicly established FBI record cited by Johnson demonstrated that Trump had formally served as a bureau informant during investigations into Epstein.

 

 

 

Within days, Johnson’s office significantly narrowed the claim, explaining that the speaker had actually been referring to statements from an attorney representing Epstein victims about Trump providing useful information.

Johnson subsequently acknowledged the problem himself. Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, he said he was uncertain whether “FBI informant” had been the correct terminology to describe Trump’s involvement.

“I don’t know if I used the right word,” Johnson said, adding that he was not personally present and that the details of the Epstein investigation were outside his expertise.

Johnson said the point he intended to communicate was that Trump had not obstructed the Epstein investigation and, according to information available publicly, had attempted to provide assistance.

The White House subsequently went further. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt explicitly rejected the characterization that Trump had served as an FBI informant, saying “I can affirm that is not true.”

That leaves the viral claim in an unusual position: Johnson really did use the words “FBI informant,” but both his subsequent clarification and the White House contradict a literal interpretation.

The origin of Johnson’s assertion appears to involve attorney Brad Edwards, who has represented numerous Epstein victims and has previously described receiving assistance from Trump during his investigation.

Edwards said he spoke with Trump in 2009 and that Trump was cooperative during their conversation, providing information that Edwards considered useful while investigating claims surrounding Epstein.

According to Edwards, Trump got on the telephone and told him things that helped the investigation. Edwards emphasized that his team was not investigating Trump during that conversation.

But Edwards did not say in those comments that Trump was an FBI informant, nor did he describe a formal relationship between Trump and the federal law-enforcement agency.

That distinction is significant because “informant” ordinarily suggests a relationship with law enforcement that goes beyond voluntarily answering questions or supplying information to an attorney conducting a separate investigation.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has pushed for additional Epstein disclosures, highlighted exactly that distinction while responding to Johnson’s remarks on ABC’s “This Week.”

Massie said an informant designation implies some form of formal connection and continuing relationship with the FBI, adding that Johnson needed to clarify precisely what he meant.

PolitiFact also examined the timeline and found another complication: the known timing of Trump’s reported assistance to Edwards does not neatly align with the established chronology of FBI investigations into Epstein.

Trump and Epstein unquestionably moved within some of the same social circles during the 1990s and early 2000s, and photographs and video documented them attending events together during that period.

 

 

 

Their relationship later deteriorated. Public accounts have offered differing explanations for the falling-out, including a Palm Beach property dispute and Trump’s statements about Epstein being barred from Mar-a-Lago.

Johnson’s office specifically cited Trump removing Epstein from Mar-a-Lago while arguing that Trump later demonstrated a willingness to assist efforts aimed at exposing Epstein’s conduct.

The renewed controversy developed amid a broader congressional fight over the Epstein files, with lawmakers from both parties pushing for greater disclosure of government records concerning Epstein and his trafficking operation.

Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna spearheaded a bipartisan effort intended to force additional records into public view, while the House Oversight Committee separately sought documents through its investigative authority.

Several Epstein survivors also appeared publicly on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to release more information and objecting to efforts to frame questions surrounding Epstein primarily through partisan politics.

The controversy was heightened by Trump’s own rhetoric. He had increasingly characterized continued attention to the Epstein matter as a Democratic “hoax,” while insisting substantial amounts of material had already been released.

Edwards publicly contrasted that rhetoric with his experience in 2009, saying Trump had previously been helpful and expressing disappointment over what the attorney characterized as the president’s later change in attitude.

Johnson’s original remark therefore appears to have taken a documented but narrower fact — an Epstein victims’ attorney saying Trump provided helpful information — and described it using a much stronger law-enforcement term.

Nothing in the sources reviewed establishes that Trump held a formal FBI informant role against Epstein, and Johnson ultimately said he did not know whether his terminology had been correct.

The White House’s own denial makes the distinction even clearer: Trump’s administration says he was not an FBI informant, while maintaining that he previously cooperated with people seeking information about Epstein.

So the social-media graphic contains a genuine quote but leaves out the crucial follow-up. Johnson made the claim, then qualified it and acknowledged uncertainty about the term he had used.

The most defensible conclusion from the public record is narrower: an attorney for Epstein victims says Trump provided useful information in 2009, but that does not establish that Trump formally worked as an FBI informant.