A left-leaning podcast leveled shocking, unproven accusations tying First Lady Melania Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, leaning on Lev Parnas and a contentious former model’s claims, and those hosts could face legal trouble given Melania’s past defamation victories.
On the I’ve Had It podcast, hosts Angie Sullivan and Jennifer Welch launched into an explicitly anti‑Republican rant before landing on a grave allegation about the first lady. One post summarized their posture this way: “Jennifer Welch says Republicans are ‘pathological liars’ as well as ‘morally inferior and morally depraved human beings’.” From there, the show repeated a claim that Melania had ties to Jeffrey Epstein and even referenced a charge that she had been a “hooker.”
The hosts pointed to Lev Parnas as their sourcing for the explosive claim, treating his accusations as if they carried weight. Parnas, a Russian‑born figure who once had ties to the first Trump administration and later turned on it, has spent years promoting conspiracy theories about the president and his circle. In a 2024 interview he went so far as to say, “It’s a contract marriage. Most oligarchs, they have the same thing.”
Parnas’s arc is part of why his allegations deserve scrutiny: once an ally, he became a loud, adversarial figure who courted media attention and documentaries, including one titled “From Russia With Lev.” He has used that platform to escalate claims about the Trumps, and he is now an independent candidate for Congress in Florida’s 22nd district. Political conversions like his should prompt more questions about motive than proof.
The podcast also leaned on a messy personal spat tied to former modeling agent Paolo Zampolli and Amanda Ungaro. Ungaro’s online posts after the friendship with Mrs. Trump reportedly soured were dramatic and threatening, and they have fueled speculation far beyond what documentation supports. In one post she wrote: “I will tear down your corrupt system, even if it’s the last thing I do in my life. I will go all the way — I am not afraid. Maybe you should be afraid of what I know …” She later added, “[B]e careful with me b****.”
Jennifer Welch amplified Ungaro’s deleted posts on air, framing Ungaro as an eyewitness whose word should settle the matter. Welch said, “Of course, Paolo Zampolli’s ex-wife (sic) Amanda Ungaro said that they met because Melania was a hooker and Epstein assigned and/or passed on Melania to Donald Trump.” She followed with, “I tend to believe the ex-wife (sic) and let me tell you why. Because Melania did that bat-s*** crazy press conference out of the clear blue sky when nobody was asking what her interactions were with Jeffrey Epstein. She just volunteers all of this crazy as s***.” Those are striking accusations to make without corroborating evidence.
Melania Trump has repeatedly pushed back against any suggestion she was involved with Epstein, and her public denials are specific and comprehensive. In April she issued a statement addressing the release of files and allegations connected to Epstein, leaving no room for ambiguity about her position. Her declaration reads:
“I am not a witness or a named witness in connection with any of Epstein’s crimes. My name has never appeared in court documents, depositions, victim statements or FBI interviews surrounding the Epstein matter. I have never had any knowledge of Epstein’s abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity — I was not a participant, was never on Epstein’s plane, and never visited his private island.”
The first lady also explicitly denied that Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump, pushing back on the specific narrative the podcast advanced. That denial is bolstered by her prior legal activity: she successfully pursued a defamation action against a national tabloid that ended with a $2.9 million settlement. Her legal team has also extracted public apologies from other outlets and personalities in the past.
Given that track record, suggesting baseless, defamatory claims on a public podcast is not without consequence. The combination of a high‑profile target, charged language, and a source with a reputation for dramatic reversals makes this story as much about media responsibility as it is about rumor. If history is any guide, those who publish serious allegations without proof may end up answering to lawyers rather than the court of social media outrage.
Republican readers will note the pattern: left‑leaning commentators can weaponize accusations while treating sourcing loosely, but when the target fights back the courtroom, not the timeline, becomes the final arbiter. The hosts have put a lot on the record, and the record can be tested in civil court if Mrs. Trump chooses to pursue it. For now, the episode stands as an example of how rumor and grievance can be repackaged as reporting, and how the consequences of that choice are rarely limited to hot takes and applause.
