#4: Conspiracy facts

CORRECTION: Last week's newsletter contained the wrong link to my story about trans people leaving the USA. The correct link is here. My apologies!

'Conspiracy theory' is kind of a weird term, right? Connotatively, it means a theory that is wild, unfounded, ridiculous, paranoid, unmoored from reality. And sure, most of the ideas that we call 'conspiracy theories' fit this description.

Denotatively, though, it simply means a theory that someone has conspired. And conspiracy, in truth, is everywhere.

We've all done it. Maybe you conspired with your friends to throw your partner a surprise birthday party. Or conspired with another player in a betrayal-based board game. Or even conspired to cover up your illegal burglary of the Watergate Hotel for private political gain.

As a journalist, many conspiracy theories are simple to report on. If it's clearly ridiculous and easily disproven, I have no problem stating that as fact. Some cases, however, are more complicated — like when Trump supporters talk about Jeffrey Epstein.

But first: the headlines!

Lara Trump insists president will release more Epstein files, despite his strenuous denials

The story that prompted this newsletter: a bizarre episode in Trumpworld's ongoing civil war over the so-called 'Epstein files', a term which includes some documents that definitely exist and some which possibly do not. As I tried to write it, I found myself grappling with the questions I tackle in this post.

What we know about ‘Alligator Alcatraz’

I wrote an explainer about Florida’s ghoulishly-named new detention camp, which some experts say fits the definition of a concentration camp. I’ve seen some folks criticise calling it ‘Alligator Alcatraz’, but I'm afraid that is literally the camp's official name now.

This post is an expanded and amended edition of a thread I posted on Bluesky.

So look: Trump and his allies are inveterate conspiracists. They constantly say absurd things that are factually unsupported but politically useful. Unsurprisingly, and probably intentionally, they have earned a fanbase of hypercredulous misinformation junkies who have pickled their own brains with nonsense like QAnon.

With Epstein, though, there really was some kind of conspiracy. It's been proven in criminal court. And it's not unreasonable to ask how far that conspiracy really went. The idea that Epstein trafficked victims for others — eg, for rich and powerful "clients" — has been extensively alleged but never proven. While some specific Trumpist claims on this topic may be just as absurd as QAnon, I wouldn’t put the topic itself outside the frame of plausibility.

Case in point: this bonkers Wall Street Journal story about a birthday message to Epstein allegedly from Donald Trump. The message is so cryptic and suggestive it could be tailor-made to excite conspiracy theorists (and indeed, Donald Trump claims it’s a pure fake). “Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?” the message allegedly read. “May every day be another wonderful secret.” Given the accusations made by Virginia Giuffre, and the numerous sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, I feel like it’s fair to have some pointed questions!

So when I write stories like the one we published on Monday, I'm torn, because there's two wolves inside of me.

Wolf #1 is a journalist of the "go outside and check if it's raining" school. She hates to mince words when politicians and misinformation entrepreneurs peddle obvious nonsense. Her twin blades, Logic and Evidence, were honed and blooded in the Great Online Atheist Wars of 1999-2012.

Wolf #2 has an English degree. She's read critical theory. She's a student of history. She believes journalists don't merely report the pre-existing truth but in some sense manufacture consensus reality out of the unknowable chaos of life. And she knows this process is always shaped by power, ideology, and institutions.

She's not a nihilist. She does believe that truth is a meaningful concept. It's just complicated, okay? Hell, she's trans and autistic, so she knows first hand that it's entirely possible for elites and 'experts' to hold a consensus that's utterly divorced from real life.

So Wolf #2 is like: "Hold up. We don't get to just tell people what's True. We don't have that epistemic authority. We should just present evidence." She is deeply uncomfortable with ruling some ideas outside the circle of reasonable discussion by fiat, and treating them like they're a whole different species of idea rather than merely ideas for which the evidence is lacking.

She even dislikes saying there's "no evidence" for conspiracy theories. "Of course there's evidence!” she fumes. “QAnoners will give you TONS of evidence! It's just STUPID evidence, which fails to prove their claims!" Pedantic? Probably: to many readers, I imagine the phrase "no evidence" implicitly includes "lots of really stupid evidence". Still, she has a point.

When I wrote about Epstein this week, here's how we — that is, Wolf #1 and Wolf #2 — tried to square that circle.

You can see me trying to distinguish between rigorous good faith scepticism and Trumpworld's conspiracist bullshit, without denying the very real questions surrounding Epstein. I also tried to be really specific about what's proven vs unproven. Maybe that's enough, maybe not. Imperfection is inevitable when you're on deadline.

There's no settled answer to this, and probably never will be. Every case will be different. And if you zoom out far enough, there is no conflict here. I believe in questioning received narratives because I care about finding truth. I believe in calling out conspiracist bullshit because I know that's not how we get there.

Both wolves are sides of the same coin, and both need each other, yin and yang. Balancing them at the speed of news isn't easy, but that's the work.

Thanks for reading! As always, you can find me on Bluesky here, on X here, and read my recent stories for The Independent here.