Gwinnett News Report

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he was unaware until recently that Howard Lutnick had visited Jeffrey Epstein’s Little St. James island in December 2012, according to statements made to reporters amid renewed scrutiny following the release of additional court documents.

Trump said he only learned in recent days that Lutnick traveled to the island with his wife, four children, nannies, and another couple during what was described as a brief stop lasting about an hour. The visit reportedly occurred during a family boat trip in the Caribbean.

Lutnick testified this week that the encounter was incidental and not planned as a meeting with Epstein. He stated that the stop was brief, family-oriented, and not connected to Epstein’s criminal conduct. Lutnick has previously said he cut ties with Epstein following Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea in Florida on sex-crime charges.

The newly released records, however, reignited public and political debate over the extent of Epstein’s relationships with prominent figures and whether earlier statements fully reflected those connections. In response, some lawmakers from both parties called for Lutnick’s resignation, citing concerns about transparency and judgment.

Despite those calls, the White House has publicly expressed support for Lutnick, describing him as a key member of the administration’s team. Officials emphasized that no evidence has emerged linking Lutnick to Epstein’s criminal activities.

Trump echoed that position, saying he has no plans to remove Lutnick, and maintained that he was not aware of the 2012 visit at the time it occurred. He reiterated past claims that he distanced himself from Epstein years earlier and said any new revelations should be evaluated carefully and based on verified facts.

The Epstein case continues to draw attention years after Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019, particularly as court documents related to civil litigation are unsealed. While many of the records reference travel, social interactions, or second-hand accounts, legal experts have cautioned that mentions in the files do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing.

“No new allegations or criminal charges have been filed in connection with these disclosures,” legal analysts have noted, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing documented evidence from speculation.

As the documents continue to be reviewed, both supporters and critics of those named have called for clarity and accountability, while others have urged restraint to avoid conflating association with criminal conduct.

The White House has said it will continue monitoring developments but stressed that decisions will be guided by verified information rather than public pressure.