Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) ignited a contentious debate with a provocative social media post on July 11, 2025, suggesting former President Donald Trump complicated the release of the Jeffrey Epstein case documents due to his election. Ocasio-Cortez's post on X, a platform formerly known as Twitter, boldly referred to Trump as a "rapist," a claim that has since been met with significant backlash and discussions over possible legal repercussions.
The post read: “Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files.” This is not the first instance of Ocasio-Cortez using such language in reference to Trump. Earlier in the year, she made headlines with a TikTok video stating her refusal to attend Trump’s inauguration, labeling him with the same accusation.
The reaction was swift on X, with multiple users questioning the legality of Ocasio-Cortez's statement, citing concerns of libel. Critics argue that her assertion could meet the threshold for defamation, as Trump has not been criminally convicted of rape. Despite facing numerous sexual assault allegations, none have led to criminal charges or convictions.
A report from The Hill delves into the possibility that Ocasio-Cortez was alluding to a civil court ruling involving E. Jean Carroll, where Trump was found not liable for rape under New York law. Carroll's accusations stem from the 1990s, but her case was handled in civil court, not criminal, highlighting the differing standards of proof and the non-equivalence to a criminal conviction.
Legal analysts are now weighing in on the potential that Ocasio-Cortez's language could open her up to a defamation lawsuit. Given her high public profile and influential platform, the stakes are particularly high. The Trump legal team has yet to respond publicly to the statement, and Ocasio-Cortez has not issued any clarification or retraction.
The situation continues to unfold, with the political and legal implications being closely monitored by both supporters and critics. As the conversation rages on, the legal boundaries of political discourse and the responsibilities of public figures in their commentary remain at the forefront of this ongoing controversy.
