Brad Pitt did not get an unnamed woman in her twenties pregnant and now she's having his love child, despite a report riddled with inaccuracies. Gossip Cop can exclusively correct this falsehood. We're told by Pitt's rep that it's entirely untrue and the tabloid which published it didn't even fact-check the explosive allegation with his camp.
The unsubstantiated claim comes from the magazine NW, whose cover exclaims, "Brad's Secret Lover Is Pregnant!" Alongside a photo of the actor looking concerned and a separate image of a headless pregnant woman are pictures of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie looking on in horror. This "love child shock," maintains the tabloid, has "rocked" Jolie and Aniston.
Inside the publication, the magazine declares Pitt is "becoming a dad for the seventh time" and quotes the alleged mother-to-be as saying, "I'm having Brad's baby." Oddly, that's the only purported quotation from the woman, while the rest is attributed to a so-called "insider." So, who is Pitt's alleged Baby Mama? The outlet maintains she's an "LA-based woman in her late twenties," but the tabloid won't name her for what it terms "legal reasons." Among the legal reasons, suspects Gossip Cop, is the tabloid probably doesn't want to get sued since we're told on the record by Pitt's rep that he has not impregnated this unnamed, untraceable and probably nonexistent woman.
Even the quotes from the magazine's alleged "insider" point to the fact that this may all be a giant lie, since every phrase is qualified with terms like "she's claiming" and "she's saying." The purported source tells the publication, "She's claiming that she hooked up with Brad after she met him at a private art viewing." The same supposed "insider" adds, "Apparently, she's saying they didn't use protection."
Glaringly, the outlet doesn't mention when the art viewing was. Nor does it also say where it was held. The tabloid also doesn't share any other specifics that one would need to verify its claims. Instead, it just vaguely says some woman is "claiming" that she and Pitt "hooked up." Additionally, there's no explanation why this was all related (thirdhand) to an Australian publication when the woman is allegedly "LA-based" and could have approached any of the American magazines, which run the gamut from People to supermarket tabloids like the National Enquirer that pay for stories.
Equally suspicious is that the supposed "insider" adds there's a "possibility that the woman is telling the truth." But the threshold for outlets to publish stories, particularly provocatives ones, shouldn't be that there's a "possibility" the subject is "telling the truth." There needs to be evidence and proof. It appears there's a stronger probability here is that NW either got duped or this nameless woman doesn't actually exist.
The outlet then cuts off it own knees when it then maintains that upon hearing the pregnancy news, Aniston became "completely devastated." Why? Well, the tabloid pushes forth the false narrative that the ex-spouses are now romantically involved. "This just makes her question their future more," says the seemingly fake tipster, before adding, "She honestly thought Brad was invested in giving their love another shot... She doesn't know what to believe anymore." A good starting point of what not to believe would be NW because its article is filled with lies, including that Pitt and Aniston are a couple again.
From there, the story segues to Jolie, who it contends "100 percent believes this woman is telling the truth." It then states, "The family insider says it's lucky that the former spouses recently reached a settlement in their long drawn-out custody case," because the questionable source asserts, "You can bet Ange would have used this against him to get full custody." Once more, the tabloid exposes that it's not only willing to publish falsehoods, but that it doesn't even bother fact-checking. As widely reported, Pitt and Jolie have not yet settled their custody agreement or divorce.
While the tabloid hides behind an anonymous source, who's simply "claiming" an untraceable woman is allegedly having Pitt's "love child," and notes (at best) there's a "possibility she's telling the truth," the magazine appears to have not made an effort to find out Pitt's side of the story. There's no mention whatsoever in the article that the magazine reached out to the actor's camp. On the other side of journalism's spectrum, Gossip Cop did, and we're assured by his spokesman that the tabloid's tale is untrue.
As noted above, despite the magazine's contention, Aniston and Pitt are not involved. Not only did People report that they haven't even seen one another in a long time, but both their reps have repeatedly confirmed to Gossip Cop that they have not reunited. We mention this because NW spins so many lies it can't even keep track of them. Just three weeks ago, for example, the same magazine wrongly maintained on another cover that Aniston and Pitt had gotten married in Paris. Based on all the factual errors in the article, the rep's comment on the record, and the tabloid's track record, there's more than a "possibility" the publication's story is a fabrication.
Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.