The Jeffrey Epstein saga is causing new problems for President Trump. 

This time, it’s raising questions about the strategy he and his aides have adopted in denying any involvement in a book prepared for the deceased financier and sexual predator’s 50th birthday.

The emphatic strategy was risky from the start — and now looks very flimsy, indeed.

As a consequence, the president has given fresh impetus to a story that has disquieted even parts of his base. It’s a story Trump is eager to move past — yet he keeps doing things that put that goal further out of reach.

This chapter of the Epstein matter began when The Wall Street Journal was first to report, in July, that an Epstein birthday book contained a “letter bearing Trump’s name.” This letter also comprised “several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker.”

The Journal story went on: “A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly ‘Donald’ below her waist, mimicking pubic hair. The letter concludes: ‘Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.’”

Trump blasted the story instantly as “a fake thing,” adding, “I never wrote a picture in my life.”

On Monday, a letter matching up with that description became public, having been passed along to the House Oversight and Government Accountability Committee by Epstein’s estate.

The result was a political firestorm — and one of far fiercer intensity than would have resulted had Trump responded to the original story by reiterating that he had ended his friendship with Epstein many years ago and left it at that.

Instead, the day after the original Journal story appeared, Trump filed a legal suit against the Journal, the story’s authors, the CEO of parent company News Corp., and News Corp.’s driving force and chair emeritus, Rupert Murdoch.

The president sought $10 billion in damages, alleging the story had been published with “actual malice” — the standard bar for defamation of public figures — and that the Journal was “aware at the time of the falsity of the publication.”

The news organization vigorously defended the story at the time and braced to fight the legal action.

Now, the Journal has been vindicated in the eyes of all but the most fervent Trump loyalists. The president’s suit appears to have a vanishingly small chance of success unless there is some very unexpected and dramatic twist.

Adam Steinbaugh, a First Amendment lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, summed up the state of play succinctly, writing on social media that Trump’s suit against the Journal had “alleged that the letter was ‘fake and nonexistent’ and now the WSJ has published it.”

But Trump’s legal action was only the most obvious manifestation of the all-guns-blazing approach the president had taken, with others in his orbit following his lead.

Vice President Vance had responded to the Journal’s initial story with a social media post beginning, “Forgive my language but this story is complete and utter bulls‑‑‑.”

Vance had further contended the Journal “should be ashamed” for publishing the story and asked rhetorically, “Where is this letter? Would you be shocked to learn they never showed it to us before publishing it?”

After the letter emerged Monday, Democrats and other Trump critics took glee in referencing Vance’s earlier claim.

The official account of the Democrats on the social platform X reposted Vance’s original message with an added caption: “Found the letter for you, @JDVance.”

A message from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said, “We got the letter. Does anyone honestly believe your simping for Trump?”

Vance and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt appear undaunted, however.

Vance’s reaction after the publication of the letter had little in the way of specific rebuttal, but he contended, again on X, that “The Democrats don’t care about Epstein. … The only thing they care about is concocting another fake scandal like Russiagate to smear President Trump with lies.”

The vice president again insisted, “No one is falling for this BS.”

Leavitt announced Trump’s legal team would “continue to aggressively pursue litigation” over the Journal story. 

She also claimed the latest piece on the matter published by the Journal, now including the picture, “PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false.”

Leavitt contended it was “very clear” Trump neither drew nor signed the picture.

At the White House media briefing Tuesday, Leavitt contended it was not Trump’s “authentic signature,” adding “the president did not write this letter; he did not sign this letter.”

The White House’s “fake signature” defense seems to rest on the idea the signature in the birthday book looks different from Trump’s signature in more recent years.

However, this line of defense has, in turn, spawned its own subcategory of adverse media coverage, with several outlets noting there are a number of signatures from Trump in the same period whose authenticity is not contested — and which look virtually identical to the signature in the Epstein book.

The upshot is that various Republican members of Congress have had awkward encounters with the media in which they’ve contended they believe Trump’s explanation, while Democratic members argue the whole saga raises yet more questions.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) noted Trump’s efforts to sue the Journal for its original story, adding in a social media post, “Now the evidence tells a different story. And if he went this far to cover up a doodle and a ‘secret’ message, what else is he hiding? It’s time to release the full, unredacted Epstein files.”

The White House has pushed back on those who are seeking such a widespread release via a discharge petition in the House spearheaded by Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

But the bigger question may be how Trump, desperate to escape the Epstein mire, has gotten himself bogged down deeper yet again.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.