U.S. first lady Melania Trump gave a speech from the White House concerning her relationship — or, in her view, nonrelationship — with late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The move caused bafflement as its purpose was unclear. Was it to get ahead of a negative story? Or was it simply a crisis comms blunder?

Trump and her husband have been dogged by Epstein and his convicted longtime co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, because pictures exist of the couples together. In her statement broadcast live April 9, Melania Trump (pictured) denied having been friends with Epstein, having been introduced to her husband by him and having had a relationship with Maxwell.

The pictures exist because the couples were on the same party circuits in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, she said. Trump also said there were “fake images and statements” about her and Epstein that people should ignore. She had no knowledge of his alleged crimes, such as the accusations that he trafficked and abused teenage girls, she said.

Get Ahead

As far as we can tell, most people assume Melania Trump was trying to get ahead of an imminent bad story. That’s a common and often-effective crisis technique. It gives you more control over the story and allows you to get out your side before the negative information is released.

To our mind, that’s the only good reason to do what Trump did. But it’s a week later already and no such negative story has dropped. If this was the purpose, and such a story is forthcoming, the first lady acted too soon.

All she did otherwise was remind everyone of the Epstein fury, which had quieted down due to the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. Also notable is that the Trump administration has been urging people to move on from Epstein. Responses to the speech have brought invocations of the “Streisand effect,” the notion — stemming from a 2003 lawsuit filed by super-duper star Barbra Streisand — that an attempt to silence an issue can sometimes bring more attention to it.

Unwanted Scrutiny

That’s another lesson. When a crisis arises, organizations must decide whether it’s big enough to require a public response. Or will speaking out just draw more unwanted scrutiny? It’s an important consideration.

In this case, the public is being reminded of a friendly 2002 email exchange between Melania Trump and Maxwell that was part of the cache of Epstein files the federal government released. In it, Trump called Maxwell “G” and signed off with “Love, Melania.” Maxwell responded by calling Melania “Sweet Pea.” In her speech, the first lady deemed her email “a trivial note.” A lot of people aren’t buying that, and that goes to the question of being truthful and factual in a crisis.

It’s hard to say whether the speech was a good or bad move because we don’t know what the true purpose was, and knowing what your goals are is essential to crisis comms. The only official statement we have comes from first lady senior advisor Marc Beckman, who said Trump “spoke out now because enough is enough,” according to the New York Post. But again, all was quiet on the Epstein front.

Photo Credit: The White House

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter on crisis communications. Each week we highlight a crisis story in the news or a survey or study with an eye toward the type of best practices and strategies you can put to work each day. Click here to subscribe.