
Universities quietly negotiating with White House aide to try to avoid Harvard's fate, source says
The higher education leaders, who have had granular conversations with senior White House policy strategist May Mailman in recent weeks, are asking what signals they need to send to stay out of the administration's crosshairs, the person said. Mailman works closely with Miller – an architect of the administration's strategy to target colleges over concerns they are not sufficiently policing alleged antisemitism on their campuses.
In turn, a White House official said the administration is relaying to the leaders that 'the money simply cannot and will not flow unabated as it has been – and that the universities are incubators of discrimination and the taxpayer cannot support that.'
These conversations come as the administration is investigating dozens of other schools, and as some school leadership comes to Washington.
The White House is looking to strike a deal with a high-profile school, said the first source, who is involved in the higher education response.
'They want a name-brand university to make a deal like the law firms made a deal that covers not just antisemitism and protests, but DEI and intellectual diversity,' this person said.
'They want Trump to be able to stand up and say he made a deal with so-and-so – an Ivy League school, some sort of name-brand school that gives them cover so they can say, 'We don't want to destroy higher education.''
Asked if any of the schools are inclined to make such a deal, the source said, 'Nobody wants to be the first, but the financial pressures are getting real.'
Many schools have already experienced significant federal funding cuts, and there is mounting uncertainty about the future of visas for international students, who are more likely to pay full tuition compared to their American counterparts.
The conversations, the source said, are continuing.
'The President is always willing to make a deal that benefits America, and this has been true for any higher education institution willing to embrace common sense, stop violating the law, and commit to restoring civil rights and order on their campuses,' the White House official said.
They added, 'The administration is only willing to work with entities that operate in good faith and are not merely paying lip service without tangible actions. Many schools want to make a deal, and the President is willing to work with them.'
Officials at some other schools are waiting for the White House to turn its attention away from Harvard. A board member at a major university targeted by the task force, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, described communications as 'irregular,' but said there have been repeated efforts by the task force to get the school's leadership to come to Washington for a meeting.
'There is very little enthusiasm for that,' the board member said. 'We do not have any interest in being their 'model school' or whatever.'
They added, 'At this point, we feel very comfortable with the steps we've taken, and we don't have any need to fight the administration, per se – unless they decide to mess with our core values. When it comes, we will be ready to fight them. But that doesn't mean we need to provoke them.'
Some universities across the country have hired political consultants and experts to respond to some of the administration's demands, while Harvard has launched an aggressive legal strategy and is organizing its alumni networks.
Efforts to target Harvard began even before President Donald Trump returned to office, with Trump allies arguing they're cracking down on antisemitism on campus amid the Israel-Hamas war. But the administration's actions extend to a broader agenda – setting up a major clash over academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight – and a belief inside the White House that it's a winning political issue for Trump.
The crackdown is led by the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, an interagency group that meets at least weekly, the White House official said, and is in regular communication about where to train its focus. At the helm is former Fox News personality and civil rights lawyer-turned-senior Justice Department official Leo Terrell. Miller and Mailman are also driving forces behind decision making, sources said.
The administration has been happy with steps taken by some schools, praising some of its initial targets for complying with demands, including efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and crack down on campus protests.
And which schools the administration could go after next appears to be a moving target.
But Terrell suggested this week that 'massive lawsuits' are coming and would take aim at the University of California system, among others.
'Expect massive lawsuits against UC system. … On the East Coast, on the West Coast, in the Midwest, expect hate crime charges filed by the federal government. Expect Title VII lawsuits against those individuals who are not being protected simply because they're Jewish,' he told Fox News.
Asked for comment on Terrell's threats, Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, said that the school system is cooperating with the Trump administration.
'The University of California abhors antisemitism and is diligently working to address, counter and eradicate it in all its forms across the system. We have been, and plan to continue, cooperating with the Administration. Antisemitism has no place at UC or anywhere else in society. The University remains entirely focused on strengthening our programs and policies to root out antisemitism and all forms of discrimination,' Zaentz said.
The White House official told CNN last month that the task force was having discussions with Harvard and Columbia, as well as Northwestern University, Cornell University and the University of Michigan.
A February Justice Department news release also identified George Washington University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California as 'campuses that have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023' that the task force planned to visit.
University leaders have been coming to DC to meet with administration officials, so no campus visits have been necessary, according to a senior administration official.
CNN has reached out to each of the schools named by the Trump administration for comment. Statements from the University of Southern California and the University of Minnesota both denounced antisemitism and said the schools would engage with the task force on efforts to combat it.
Pressed on how the task force is making determinations about funding for Harvard and other schools, the White House official said that their investigations often begin with complaints.
'The relevant agency or department will conduct an investigation into violations to federal law, whether Title IV and Title IX, Title VI, Title XI, Title XII, and, based on those investigations, there can be immediate action to pause funding and wait for a resolution to the investigation, or, in more egregious examples, like Harvard, there could just be a blanket removal of all federal funds because of their lack of cooperation in an investigation or their blatant disregard for their violations to federal law and their unwillingness to change policy,' the official said.
And the senior administration official indicated this week that any school with an open Title VI investigation could be subject to government action. Title VI is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal funding. There are more than 70 colleges and universities currently under active Title VI investigations as of Wednesday, according to a CNN analysis of data provided by the Department of Education. (A vast majority of those investigations were launched during the Biden administration.)
And even as it looks at other schools, the administration hasn't taken its eye off Harvard, with which it's engaged in multiple legal battles.
The administration has also launched an investigation into its foreign funding sources through a provision of the Higher Education Act requiring reporting of foreign gifts and contracts called Section 117. A prior Section 117 investigation into Harvard was recently closed.
'As standard practice, Harvard has filed Section 117 reports for decades as part of its ongoing compliance with the law. As is required, Harvard's reports include information on gifts and contracts from foreign sources exceeding $250K annually. This includes contracts to provide executive education, other training, and academic publications,' Jason Newton, a spokesperson for Harvard University, said in a statement, noting that Harvard's filings reflect 'diverse sources' of support for the school.
And a tax provision in Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill,' which passed the House of Representatives last week but still has to get through the Senate, could have significant impact on Harvard and other institutions with large endowments. In its current form, it would implement a new 'tiered system' of taxes on private colleges and universities' investment income. The endowment tax is currently a flat 1.4% rate but could become as high as 21% for schools like Harvard with large endowments.
The administration believes there's political support for that provision, with Education Secretary Linda McMahon telling Fox News on Wednesday, 'That's something that the American public could wrap its head around.'
Trump administration messengers have offered mixed signals about how the process moves forward.
The source familiar with the higher education response questioned the appetite to proceed at an aggressive pace.
'If you go after Harvard, how hard can you keep going? The universities are being played like a yo-yo for weeks and weeks and weeks. My guess is, at some point, the White House will lose interest in that. Once you've taken down Harvard, where are you going to go – Emory? They're just as conscious of the brands as anybody else,' the source said.
Ultimately, the source added, the market rules: 'What's going to happen to Harvard or Columbia? Record applicants, record yield. I would bet you that if you talked to MAGA voters at Charlotte Country Day School or The Westminster Schools – they may have voted for Trump, but are they turning away from the Ivy League? Hell no. The schools are having record demand.'
Meanwhile, McMahon has suggested there is still hope for negotiations with Harvard, with whom the senior administration official said the administration is not currently in talks.
'We really hope that we will be back at the table, negotiating, talking about the things that are good for Harvard and for the students that are on campus,' McMahon said.
Terrell has struck a different tone.
'We are going to go after them where it hurts them financially, and there's numerous ways – I hope you can read between the lines – there's numerous ways to hurt them financially,' he warned on Fox News.
Asked when it would end, Terrell said, 'We can't speculate. We have to bring these universities to their knees.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Anxious Generation' Author Jonathan Haidt Shares New Worries About Kids — and Why You Should Be Concerned (Exclusive)
His book has been a bestseller for more than a year and has prompted smartphone bans in schools across the country, but in a conversation with PEOPLE, Haidt says kids are still in danger When Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation debuted last year, it immediately became a bestseller — and a must-read for many parents navigating an era of pervasive smartphones and social media. Now, more than half of all states have passed laws banning or limiting phone use in schools — 17 states passed legislation just this year — and a new research poll finds that 74% of adults in the U.S. support classroom phone bans. Australia plans to restrict social media to those aged 16 and up starting in December, and several other European countries are also considering age restrictions. In a conversation with PEOPLE, Haidt, 61, a social psychologist and professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, says he's been encouraged by the rapid changes but warns that some changes are better than others. Haidt, who offers resources for parents at and on his Substack, weighs in on criticism of his book, the fears he has for kids, and the looming danger of Artificial Intelligence. PEOPLE: Are you surprised by the success of your book? HAIDT: I knew the book would be successful because whenever I mentioned I was writing it, parents said, "We need this tomorrow, can I see a draft?" But the the speed with which parents are organizing, the speed with which schools are going phone-free. I can't even keep track of it. PEOPLE: As you note, many schools and districts have opted to go phone-free, or ban phones in classrooms in the past year. What's working – and what isn't? HAIDT: The simplest fix, and it costs no money, is phone-free schools. That means when kids come in, they put their phone in a locked pouch, or a locker, and get it back at the end of the day. But many states and schools are doing something that's not very good: They banned phones only during instructional time. They do that because they're afraid of parents who say, 'I have to reach my student all the time.' But when class ends, kids lunge for their phones. And for the first 15 minutes of the next class, they're thinking about the drama going on. Phone bans during class time do nothing to help kids make friends. They do nothing to reduce the mental illness issue. It has to be bell-to-bell. I've never heard of a school that did it all day and regretted it or went back. PEOPLE: Critics of your book say you ignore the possible benefits of screen I recently found a horrifying statistic, which is that 40% of American 2-year-olds have their own iPad. A touchscreen device is not like television. Humans have always raised their children with stories. This is how culture is passed on. A TV screen is a reasonably good way of presenting stories. If your five-year-old watches a 90-minute movie on TV with an older sibling or with you, there's nothing wrong with that. The opposite is iPad time. The kid learns, "Might there be something more interesting if I swipe?" If this starts at age two, your kids lose the ability to pay attention to anything if it's boring for even a moment. By the time kids get to middle school, if they've been swiping and seeing micro stories that aren't really stories, a lot of damage has been done to their ability to pay attention. Us college professors all say the same thing: Kids can't read books anymore. Some of our students say they can't even watch a movie. It's too long. Our attention is being shattered. Let children's frontal cortex develop before you expose them to this. It's damaging an entire generation. And you should never give a child an iPhone as their first phone. You should work your way up. I stand by my rule, no smartphone before high school. PEOPLE: I'd like to talk age bans. Australia recently banned social media for those under Don't call it a ban. We don't say there's an age ban on driving. Just minimum age. There should be a minimum age. PEOPLE: But isn't there validity to the argument that if you keep kids away from social media completely, they're won't develop tools to learn to use it effectively? HAIDT: I hear this argument a lot, but I don't think it's valid psychologically. Our kids are going to be having sex and drinking alcohol, so it is valuable to have classes on that. We should be telling them about dangers. But have you ever heard anyone say, "We need to start them early because they need to know how to do this.' That's ridiculous. These devices, and especially these apps, were designed to hook your child. They were designed with full knowledge of brain development, dopamine circuits, motivation, insecurity. These are predatory programs that prey on children. PEOPLE: One of the biggest criticisms levied against your book is that it doesn't adequately acknowledge the way in which technology has allowed people, and particularly kids who might be isolated or marginalized, to connect and organize. HAIDT: That argument confuses the internet with social media. The internet solved that problem in the '90s. If you're a gay kid in rural Nebraska, life was really hard until the internet came along and suddenly you could get information everywhere. You could find organizations to help. I love the internet. Almost everybody loves the internet. Then in the 2000s, we get one application on the internet, which is a way of linking people together, giving them a newsfeed curated by an algorithm — and the algorithm is giving them whatever it can to keep them hooked. So who do you suppose is most harmed by this? Who do you suppose is most likely to be sextorted ? It's LGBTQ kids. Who do you think is most likely to say "This is harming my mental health?" It's LGBTQ kids. I often hear about the benefits [of social media]. I say, what benefits? Creativity? Have you worked with Gen Z? They can't pay attention. They're making little videos, but not much beyond that. Social media has very few benefits for children. For adults, yes, it's useful for business. I don't have anything to say to people over 18, but children have no need to connect with strangers. Children would be more connected if they put the phone down and got together with their friends. PEOPLE: Speaking of , we're in this moment where it was banned, the ban was rescinded and now we're waiting to hear about a . What are your thoughts about TikTok and what should happen? HAIDT: TikTok is the worst of them all. No one should be on TikTok. It damages your attention and exposes our children to garbage. We did a survey of Gen Z, these were in their late teens, early 20s, 50% of them said they wish TikTok had never been invented. They use it because they have to, but they see their life would be better if it didn't exist. I have very little hope Congress will do anything to protect children. So far, they have a perfect record of never protecting children ever on the Internet. But Australia and the UK are acting, and if their plans move ahead, and if the EU joins them and other countries, platforms are going to have to make it global because they don't want a different Instagram in each country. I'm hoping the rest of the world will fix this problem that America created. PEOPLE: What are your thoughts about how education cuts could affect kids and exacerbate what you're already seeing? HAIDT: Educational ability is declining since 2012, and cuts to funding are not going to help. But the biggest driver of the decline of education is the phones in the pockets and the Chromebooks on the desks. We spent billions of dollars putting a Chromebook or iPad on every desk. We thought this was an equity issue. But it turns out anyone with a computer on their desk can't focus. I teach college students, and MBA students at NYU. Three years ago, I had to go to a no-screens policy because even my graduate students cannot pay attention if they have a computer open. They're all multitasking. Adults can't pay attention, so how the hell do we expect 9-year-olds to pay attention when they have an iPad or a Chromebook on their desk? The best thing we can do for education is first, lock the phones away. Second, get devices off the desks. PEOPLE: At our school, kids have laptops with educational games. As a parent, there's a struggle between thinking more screen time isn't great, but games can be good for As soon as we introduce the technology, scores begin to drop. So we should start with the assumption that these things are not healthy, not helping unless they're proven to help. If you gamify math, the kid will be more engaged. So we think, this is good — but it's not. Suppose you gamify a third of your child's school day. What happens? Gamification is specifically targeted at giving kids a pulse of dopamine, which creates motivation to keep going. Okay, you think, that's good, they're motivated. But the brain adjusts, the dopamine circuits adjust and it now takes more dopamine to get up to normal. So the more you give them gamified educational technology, the harder it's going to be to have their attention to anything that's not on a screen. It's the same dilemma of parents who give their kid an iPad to shut them up. Yes, it will work in the short run, but now you always have to do it because they're not capable of sitting at a restaurant while you're eating. To be clear, there may be a role for some educational technology such as Khan Academy, but the one-to-one devices was the colossal mistake. You should try to avoid schools that will put an iPad or Chromebook on your child's desk. PEOPLE: That's most public schools!HAIDT: That's right. We have to change it. PEOPLE: How do you think AI will change the landscape for social media? HAIDT: In a sense, we've already had the first contact with AI, which was the algorithms. The algorithms made social media much more powerful. Early Facebook was not very addictive. It was just, you check out your friends' pages, they check out yours. But the algorithms, driven by AI, were super intelligent at hooking children with content, especially extreme content. We've already encountered AI and we lost. And our kids have been severely damaged by it. Our technology is becoming our master. This is all before the second wave of AI began with ChatGPT in late 2022, and what AI is already doing is showing that technology is going to become 100 times more powerful as our master. Those of us who feel like we're struggling with our phone addictions, it's going to get 10 times worse. Every app is going to get better and better at giving you what keeps you. Every app is going to get better and better at replacing real life. PEOPLE: What's your big fear with AI for kids? HAIDT: The most frightening thing to me is the AI companions. Our children already are socially deprived. They have poor social skills and they're lonely. This makes them even more likely as targets, as marketing targets for AI friends. But the more AI companions enter their lives, the less room and ability there will be for real friendships. PEOPLE: You talk about the value of giving kids independence. But for letting their kids walk to the store. How can parents foster independence in a world that's wary of it? HAIDT: The first thing is to look at the real world versus the virtual world. In the '90s we thought if our kids were on computers, they were safe, but if they went outside, they'd be abducted. It turns out both of those were not true. Crime rates have dropped tremendously since the '90s. Kidnapping is almost unheard of in the U.S. by strangers. The outside world is much safer than we realized. At the same time, if you let your kids on the Internet and social media, they're going to encounter pornography and strangers who want sex or money from them. We have to change our priorities. Our children have to learn to handle risk. They don't learn that online. Talking with a sex predator online doesn't toughen or benefit them. Going outside and getting lost and finding your way back is a powerful way to strengthen kids. We have to stop fearing the real world and be more afraid of the virtual world. You might be scared to send your eight-year-old six blocks to a grocery store, but what if he does it with his best friend? It's going to be a lot more fun. Everyone's going to be more secure. The more you do this with multiple families working together, the easier it is. Our goal isn't to snatch phones and iPads and screens. Our goal is to restore the fun, healthy, human childhood that most of us had. That's been taken from our kids. It is urgent that we restore it. Our kids are coming up broken. PEOPLE: The book emphasizes the importance of play, especially outdoor free play for kids mental health and development. What options do parents have if their kids are in public schools where the structure of the day, including play time, is limited? HAIDT: Two things that are easy and cost no money. Go to and download the kit for the Let Grow Experience. It gives kids more independence and fun and growth and it's free. So suppose your school has all the third graders do it. They go home, they decide something they can do by themselves. The best ones are where they go out of the house, to a neighbor's house to borrow a cup of sugar or go to a store. Imagine a town in which all third graders do that. Suddenly no one's afraid because, well, this is homework and the school told us to do it, and everyone else is doing it. Then what happens? Everyone sees eight year olds walking on the sidewalk. Nobody has seen that since 1997. The second program is called Play Club. Many parents are afraid to let their kids out, but they do trust the school playground. So a powerful thing to do is open the playground 30 minutes before class. You need an adult nearby, so that would be a small expense. But kids are desperate for free play and they get so little recess, so if you open the playground at 7:30, a lot of the kids are going to want to come and play soccer, play games, run around. It adds more free play to their day for very little money and it doesn't take away anything else from the school day. And it reduces truancy and lateness —since COVID, a lot of kids just aren't coming to school or they're coming late. PEOPLE: That's one of the things our school does, morning runs for the Wait, what do they do? They go on runs? PEOPLE: It's a track thing. On Monday mornings they can run around the track before Wait, they literally run around? That's it? That's what they do? That's an adult thing. We're so afraid to let go and let them play. They have to have free play. They're desperate for it. It's like if we raised our kids with no vitamin C whatsoever, and they all develop rickets, and then we say, "Well, we'll give you some lotion to put on the scars." No, just give them vitamin C. PEOPLE: Finally, one of your suggestions is connect with other parents with similar mindsets on phones/social media before your kids get to middle school. But you can't always choose who your kid hangs out with. Your phone-free kid may want to hang out with a kid who has a phone. What do you say to parents who feel like they're fighting a losing battle?HAIDT: Encourage your child to bring friends to the house, but there should be a rule that they put phones in a basket by the door. My children experience this. They go to a friend's house and the friend is on the phone all day long. What's the point? But your kid's not going to be damaged by occasionally seeing a smartphone or watching some TikTok videos. Half of American kids are online almost all the basically take themselves out of the game of life. When you give your child a phone, there's a 50% risk that your kid will be in that half. It's not so bad if he spends 10 minutes here and there on his friend's phone, that's not going to destroy his brain. But if he becomes one of the half that is addicted, it will probably cause permanent brain changes. The main thing is to shift from a mindset of threat to a mindset of discovery. Childhood should be about discovery, not fear. When kids are online, it becomes much more about fear. They're anxious. There's constant drama. But if we put them out in the world with other kids, they have fun. And we need to keep our eye on giving our kids fun. Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Money Moves the Middle Class Should Make After the Passing of Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' finally cleared the House and the Senate and was signed by the president on July 4. The bill has several policies that could impact the middle class. Making some money moves and preparing for the new changes can help you save money and grow your portfolio. Read Next: Check Out: Here are some of the top money moves the middle class should make. Also see how much the definition of middle class has changed in every state. Capitalize on Clean Energy Credits Now The bill is cycling out of energy credits, which affect electric vehicles, solar panels and other clean energy sources. Chad Gammon, CFP, owner of Custom Fit Financial, suggested making clean energy purchases before the deadline if you've been holding out. 'If you are considering any upgrades, now would be the time to do it. Some credits, such as electric vehicles, are available until September 30, 2025. Other credits, like the residential clean energy credit, will end on December 31, 2025. This can help if you anticipate higher energy bills in the years to come, and reputable installers can assist with an estimated payback period,' he said. Be Aware: Open a 'Trump Account' A 'Trump account' can give your child a head start with investing money and accumulating wealth. Gammon highlighted the promising opportunity while encouraging people to monitor how it will work before investing additional money. 'If you have a child in 2025, I'd look into opening a 'Trump account.' The federal government will give $1,000 as a starter contribution. There are options to contribute further. I'd wait for more details on that, but would set it up for the initial $1,000,' he said. Children who are born between 2025 and 2028 are eligible for a $1,000 deposit, per CNBC. The money in the account will be invested in a fund that tracks the U.S. stock market, the outlet reported. Plan Your Taxes The bill can reduce your tax burden, especially if you use the standard deduction. Gammon explained how the new bill can add more money to your wallet. 'I would also look at your estimated 2025 taxes and adjust withholdings, if needed. The standard deductions moved for [couples who are married and filing jointly] from $30,000 to $31,500, or if you are single, it went from $15,000 to $15,750. This could lower your tax liability, where you can adjust your withholdings on your W-4 and free up extra monthly cash,' he said. Seniors can also get a boosted tax deduction thanks to the bill. Seniors who are 65 or older can get an additional $6,000 tax deduction if their modified adjusted gross income is below $75,000. Married couples filing jointly can capitalize on the additional tax deduction if their combined modified adjusted gross income is below $150,000. This additional tax deduction for seniors currently applies for the tax years 2025 to 2028. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement This article originally appeared on 3 Money Moves the Middle Class Should Make After the Passing of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice Department wants to interview Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Department of Justice wants to interview Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, who was convicted of helping the financier sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a lengthy prison sentence, a senior official said Tuesday. If Ghislaine Maxwell 'has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a post on X, adding that President Donald Trump 'has told us to release all credible evidence." A lawyer for Maxwell confirmed there were discussions with the government. The overture to attorneys for Maxwell, who in 2022 was sentenced to 20 years in prison, is part of an ongoing Justice Department effort to cast itself as transparent following fierce backlash from parts of Trump's base over an earlier refusal to release additional records in the Epstein investigation. As part of that effort, the Justice Department, acting at the direction of the Republican president, last week asked a judge to unseal grand jury transcripts from the case. That decision is ultimately up to the judge. Epstein, who killed himself in his New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial, sexually abused children hundreds of times over more than a decade, exploiting vulnerable girls as young as 14, authorities say. He couldn't have done so without the help of Maxwell, his longtime companion, prosecutors say. The Justice Department had said in a two-page memo this month that it had not uncovered evidence to charge anyone else in connection with Epstein's abuse. But Blanche said in his social media post that the Justice Department 'does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.' He said in his post that, at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, he has 'communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department." He said he anticipated meeting with Maxwell in the coming days. A lawyer for Maxwell, David Oscar Markus, said Tuesday in a statement: 'I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein case at Solve the daily Crossword