A birthday party guest list compiled by Jeffrey Epstein’s former household manager has become the unlikely centerpiece of a defamation lawsuit now entangling some of the most powerful names in American media and politics. The document — a handwritten roster of people to be invited to Epstein’s birthday celebration — includes entries for Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch, among dozens of other prominent figures. And a lawsuit filed in New York is forcing uncomfortable questions about what proximity to Epstein actually meant, and what it didn’t.
The so-called “birthday book” is distinct from Epstein’s more infamous “black book” of contacts, though both have become objects of intense public fascination. According to Business Insider, the birthday book was maintained by Epstein’s former houseman, Juan Alessi, who testified that he kept the list at Epstein’s direction to track who should receive invitations to the financier’s birthday gatherings. The names in it read like a who’s who of late-1990s and early-2000s elite society: billionaires, media moguls, politicians, and socialites.
Trump’s name appears in the book. So does Murdoch’s.
Neither man has been accused of any criminal wrongdoing related to Epstein. But the mere presence of their names has created legal and reputational exposure that both camps have been forced to address — in court filings, in public statements, and through aggressive legal strategy.
The defamation lawsuit at the center of this story was brought by a woman who claims she was trafficked by Epstein and that certain media figures and public personalities have made false statements about her credibility and experiences. The litigation has pried open sealed documents, compelled depositions, and introduced evidence that parties on all sides would have preferred to keep private. Court records reviewed by Business Insider show that attorneys for the plaintiff have sought to use the birthday book as evidence of the social networks Epstein cultivated — not necessarily as proof of complicity, but as a map of access and influence.
That distinction matters enormously. Legally and otherwise.
Epstein, who died in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, was for decades embedded in the upper echelons of New York and Palm Beach society. His connections weren’t secret. He attended dinners, hosted parties, and moved through circles that included scientists, politicians, financiers, and royalty. The question that has haunted public discourse since his arrest — and especially since his death — is where the line falls between social acquaintance and something darker.
Trump has addressed his Epstein connection multiple times over the years, acknowledging that they were friendly in the 1990s but insisting the relationship soured well before Epstein’s legal troubles became public. “I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” Trump told reporters in 2019. “I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.” Trump has pointed to a reported falling-out between the two men, allegedly over a real estate deal, and has noted that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago at some point, though the exact timeline of that ban has been disputed by various accounts.
Murdoch’s connection is less frequently discussed but no less interesting. The media baron, who controls a vast empire spanning Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other properties, was part of the same rarefied social world Epstein inhabited. His name in the birthday book places him in Epstein’s orbit during a specific period — one that predates the first public allegations against Epstein but coincides with what investigators later determined was an active period of abuse.
Again: being on a party list is not evidence of wrongdoing. Defense attorneys for both Trump and Murdoch have made this point forcefully in court filings, arguing that the birthday book is being weaponized to create guilt by association. They’re not wrong to raise the concern. The Epstein case has generated a kind of gravitational pull that threatens to collapse the distinction between “knew him socially” and “participated in his crimes.” Courts have generally been careful about this line, but public opinion is far less precise.
The defamation suit has taken on additional significance because of its timing. With Trump currently serving as President of the United States, any litigation that touches on his pre-political life carries heightened stakes. The White House has not commented specifically on the birthday book revelations, though Trump’s personal attorneys have filed motions to limit the scope of discovery related to his Epstein connections, arguing that the material is irrelevant to the defamation claims at issue.
For Murdoch, now 94 and recently remarried, the lawsuit represents a different kind of risk. His media properties have covered the Epstein saga extensively — Fox News in particular devoted significant airtime to the story, often with an emphasis on Epstein’s connections to Democrats like Bill Clinton. The revelation that Murdoch himself appeared in Epstein’s social records introduces an uncomfortable irony that competitors have not been shy about highlighting.
The birthday book itself is a fascinating artifact. According to testimony from Alessi, who worked for Epstein at his Palm Beach estate for roughly a decade, the list was updated periodically and reflected Epstein’s evolving social priorities. Some names appeared and then disappeared. Others remained constant. Alessi described a household operation that was both lavish and tightly controlled — Epstein was particular about who entered his world and under what circumstances. The book, in Alessi’s telling, was one mechanism of that control.
Court documents filed in the defamation case and reviewed by multiple outlets show that the plaintiff’s attorneys have subpoenaed additional records from Epstein’s estate, including financial documents, flight logs, and communications. The flight logs for Epstein’s private jet — sometimes referred to in tabloid shorthand as the “Lolita Express” — have been a source of controversy for years, with various public figures confirmed as passengers. Trump flew on the plane at least once, according to records previously made public, though he has said it was a short trip from Palm Beach to New York and nothing more.
The legal mechanics of the defamation case are worth understanding. The plaintiff alleges that specific statements made about her — questioning her account of abuse, suggesting she fabricated her story, or implying she was motivated by financial gain — constitute defamation. The defendants in the case have raised First Amendment defenses and argued that their statements were either true, constituted protected opinion, or were made without actual malice. The birthday book enters the picture as contextual evidence: the plaintiff’s team argues it helps establish the breadth and nature of Epstein’s network, which in turn supports the plausibility of her account.
It’s a strategic play. Whether it survives judicial scrutiny is another matter.
Legal experts following the case have offered mixed assessments. Some argue that the birthday book is marginally relevant at best — a document that proves only that Epstein wanted to invite certain people to a party, not that those people were aware of or involved in his criminal conduct. Others contend that in a defamation case, where credibility is the central issue, evidence that establishes the defendant’s social world and the plaintiff’s proximity to powerful figures is legitimately probative.
“The question isn’t whether Trump or Murdoch did anything wrong,” said one attorney familiar with the litigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. “The question is whether the document helps the jury understand the environment in which the plaintiff says she was victimized. That’s a lower bar.”
The broader Epstein story continues to generate new developments years after his death. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate, was convicted in December 2021 on five federal charges related to sex trafficking and is serving a 20-year prison sentence. Her trial produced extensive testimony about Epstein’s methods of recruitment and abuse, and several witnesses described a pattern in which Epstein used his social connections and wealth to both attract and silence victims.
Since Maxwell’s conviction, civil litigation has proliferated. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by alleged victims against Epstein’s estate, his associates, and institutions that allegedly enabled his conduct, including JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank. JPMorgan settled a class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein victims for $290 million in 2023, while Deutsche Bank settled a similar case for $75 million. Neither bank admitted wrongdoing.
The defamation case involving the birthday book is part of this broader wave of litigation, but it’s distinct in that it targets individuals rather than institutions and centers on speech rather than direct facilitation. That makes it both narrower in scope and potentially more explosive in its implications, because it puts specific public figures on the witness stand — or at least in the crosshairs of discovery.
Trump’s legal team has been particularly aggressive in seeking to contain the fallout. In recent filings, his attorneys argued that any connection between Trump and Epstein is “ancient history” that has been “exhaustively explored” by media outlets and investigators without producing evidence of wrongdoing. They have also argued that the plaintiff’s attorneys are engaged in a fishing expedition designed to embarrass the president rather than advance legitimate legal claims.
The plaintiff’s attorneys have pushed back, arguing that Trump’s public statements about Epstein — including his 2002 comment to New York Magazine that Epstein was “a terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side” — are directly relevant to the case. That quote, which Trump has since tried to distance himself from, has become one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence in Epstein-related litigation.
Murdoch’s involvement in the lawsuit has received less public attention, in part because his legal team has been effective at keeping his name out of headlines. But the birthday book listing has complicated that strategy. Media outlets that compete with Murdoch’s properties have covered the revelation with evident interest, and legal analysts have noted that Murdoch’s dual role as a media owner and a figure in Epstein’s social records creates a unique set of conflicts.
So where does this go? The defamation case is currently in the discovery phase, with depositions scheduled for the coming months. The judge overseeing the matter has signaled a willingness to allow broad discovery, though she has also imposed certain limits on the use of sealed materials. A trial date has not yet been set, and legal observers expect significant motion practice before the case reaches a jury — if it ever does. Settlement remains a possibility, particularly if discovery produces material that either side would prefer not to see aired publicly.
The birthday book, for all the attention it has received, is ultimately a piece of a much larger puzzle. It tells us that Jeffrey Epstein wanted Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch at his birthday party. It does not tell us whether they attended, what they knew, or what they did. But in the context of a legal system that operates on evidence and inference, and a public discourse that often collapses those into a single narrative, even a party invitation can carry enormous weight.
The Epstein case has always been about the gap between what powerful people knew and what they chose to see. The birthday book is a reminder that for years, proximity to Epstein was not a liability but a credential — a sign that you had arrived in a certain stratum of society. The reckoning over what that proximity meant, and who bears responsibility for what happened in Epstein’s homes and on his planes and on his island, is far from over.
And the guest list keeps getting longer.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication