Jeffrey Epstein is splitting MAGA. Will he sink Trump and Republicans?
For the first time, there is a very real threat to Trump's perceived infallibility among the most devoted.
The fight, which began with a joint FBI-Department of Justice memo declaring that Epstein's sought after 'client list' does not exist and that the disgraced financer did in fact commit suicide in 2019 has escalated in recent days.
Last Wednesday, after previously attempting to put the issue to rest, Trump took aim at those within his own party who want to shine light on the investigation, calling them 'stupid Republicans' and saying they fell for a 'hoax.'
Trump continued, focusing his ire on the MAGA universe, describing them as 'PAST supporters' and 'weaklings' who 'bought into this bullshit.'
However, while Trump's fury has previously been able to coax most hardline Republicans to fall in line — and some like Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have rushed to his defense in the wake of a Wall Street Journal report detailing an alleged letter Trump sent Epstein in 2003 — this time appears different.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), as well as Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have all called for further investigations or transparency into Epstein, something Trump belatedly called for from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
And far-right influencer Laura Loomer, who also pushed back against the Wall Street Journal article, went on record to say she thinks Trump's botched handling of the Epstein issue could 'consume his presidency' and outright rejected Trump's insistence that it is a hoax.
To that end, polling is already reflecting the threat to Republicans' midterm hopes from the administration's mishandling of the Epstein situation.
Indeed, a majority (54 percent) of U.S. adults disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue, while less than one-fifth (17 percent) approve — a number that would look worse if not for 35 percent of Republicans approving, per Reuters-Ipsos polling.
Similarly, clear majorities of adults think the administration is hiding Epstein's client list (69 percent), despite Trump's repeated denials of a list's existence, and hiding information on Epstein's death (60 percent).
Notably, majorities of Republicans agree, with more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) believing the administration is hiding the client list, and 55 percent thinking information on Epstein's death is being covered up.
These findings have also been seen in other recent polls.
According to Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, a majority (56 percent) of likely voters do not believe the FBI and Justice Department are telling the truth about Epstein, just 21 percent believe the government has been honest.
Ironically, this is an entirely self-inflicted wound for the administration.
Having fanned the flames of a government-wide cover up of Epstein and his 'client list' for nearly a decade, Trump and others created the mess they now find themselves in and are struggling to dig out of.
Very few, if any, people outside of Trump's hard-core base were demanding the release of the Epstein files, yet Trump, Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy Dan Bongino spent years feeding conspiracy theories to Trump's base.
And once in power, they continued teasing the release of more information, only to underwhelm, backtrack, or deny their previous statements.
Of course, if there is no list, it would behoove the administration to say so. Yet no one — least of all Trump, Bondi or Patel — seem willing to admit that the conspiracy theories they've pushed for years may be false.
Growing discontent at the administration's handling of the Epstein issue is also taking its toll on Trump personally.
Following the joint FBI-DOJ memo, Trump's approval rating dropped to negative 17 points from negative 11 points, per Economist/YouGov polling conducted both before and after the memo's release.
Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen's head pollster, called their results 'brutal' and said that Republicans could lose both chambers of Congress over the issue.
At this point, Mitchell may be spot on.
A sufficient number of Republican hardliners appear willing to join with Democrats to force a House vote on releasing all available information on Epstein, putting Republicans in a lose-lose situation.
If they go along with the vote, they will anger Trump, but if they do not, they open themselves up to attacks that they're 'protecting' Epstein.
Republican angst was evident last Thursday when Politico ran an article noting that many Republican House members were 'eager' to leave Washington for summer recess ahead of a potential vote that would force them to go on record.
To be sure, Republicans already needed virtually everything to break their way if they wanted to hold onto the House next year.
Historically, the party in control tends to lose seats in midterms, and Democrats currently sit at plus 3 points in the generic congressional ballot per RealClearPolitics polling aggregator, as well as Trump's own pollster Tony Fabrizio according to a memo released by Politico.
But now, the Republicans have to deal with the possibility that Trump voters simply do not come out to vote due to their anger over the Epstein files.
Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether Trump's base will let the Epstein issue die between now and midterms, and Trump's order to Bondi to release pertinent grand jury documents may ensure that it remains in the spotlight.
Put another way, if Trump cannot satisfy his most ardent supporters and assure them that there is no cover up, which currently seems unlikely, Republicans may pay a considerable political price for the administration's missteps.
Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, 'America: Unite or Die.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Hit By Legal Roadblock
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered a legal blow on Friday when a New York district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its move to cut National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants from Authors Guild members on First Amendment grounds. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the injunction which is expected to remain in place until the case is heard in full. Newsweek contacted the NEH and President Trump, via the White House press office, for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours. The Context With Republicans enjoying slim majorities in both the Senate and House in addition to their control over the White House, the courts have emerged as one of the chief impediments to Trump administration policy. In recent months, courts have struck down punitive measures introduced by President Trump against legal firms previously involved in cases against him, blocked a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and struck down sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees. What To Know Judge McMahon's preliminary injunction prevents funds previously awarded to Authors Guild members, and subsequently removed by the Trump administration, from being reallocated until a trial is held on the merits of the case itself. The money was allocated by the NEH, a federal agency that funds research and education across the humanities, before some was stripped back by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump speaking to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. President Donald Trump speaking to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. Andrew Harnik/GETTY McMahon ruled much of this was politically motivated, with Termination Notices handed to intended recipients making reference to Trump Executive Orders targeting "DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs" and "Radical Indoctrination." She said a grant to one academic working on a book about the history of the Ku Klux Klan was flagged by the administration as being connected to DEI, while other intended recipients had grants withdrawn because they were issued under the Biden administration. A class-action lawsuit was filed by the Authors Guild against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), formerly led by Elon Musk. What People Are Saying In her judgment McMahon said: "Defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical' … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'" She continued: "Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches. "Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history." What Happens Next A trial on whether the Trump administration has the authority to strip NEH grants from Authors Guild members as it did is expected to take place in due course.
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Peter Thiel's political hiatus is over. Here's where his money's flowing now.
Peter Thiel's vacation from politics is over. The conservative tech billionaire made his first publicly disclosed political contribution in two and a half years in February, giving $852,200 to House Speaker Mike Johnson's joint fundraising committee. That group, called "Grow the Majority," then distributed almost 90% of that money to other campaigns. All told, Thiel's money has now made its way into the coffers of the Republican National Committee, House Republicans' main campaign arm, over a dozen state parties, and nearly 30 GOP House members. It's a significant shift for Thiel. After spending tens of millions of dollars to support Blake Masters and now-Vice President JD Vance during the 2022 midterms, the PayPal and Palantir cofounder came away from the experience apparently disillusioned with politics. In 2024, he even gave an interview to The Atlantic in part to lock himself into not donating to any candidate that year. "By talking to you, it makes it hard for me to change my mind," he told the interviewer. "My husband doesn't want me to give them any more money, and he's right." Vance even publicly urged Thiel to "get off the sidelines" and spend money to back Trump in the 2024 race, but no public donations ever emerged, despite his past financial support for Trump. Thiel also said last year that he would support Trump, and he predicted that the election wouldn't be close. "I've decided not to donate any money politically, but I'm supporting them in every other way possible," he said at the time. A spokesperson for Thiel did not respond to a request for comment about why the tech billionaire changed his mind. During a recent interview with The New York Times' Ross Douthat, Thiel said that he was "schizophrenic" about political giving. "I think it's incredibly important, and it's incredibly toxic," Thiel said. "So I go back and forth." Here's where Thiel's money went: $310,100 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the main campaign arm for House Republicans; $54,600 to the Republican National Committee; $10,000 apiece to GOP state parties in 14 states, including Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin; $7,000 apiece to 29 House Republicans, most of whom represent competitive districts; $7,000 apiece to committees set up for the eventual GOP nominee in 12 other competitive House districts.
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Under Trump, Uncle Sam is becoming an active investor at a scale not seen outside war or major crises
The Trump administration has taken direct stakes in companies on a scale rarely seen in the U.S. outside wartime or economic crisis, pushing a Republican Party that traditionally championed free-market capitalism to embrace state intervention in industries viewed as important for national security. Japan's Nippon Steel agreed to give President Donald Trump a "golden share" in U.S. Steel as a condition for the two companies' controversial merger. Trump now personally wields sweeping veto power over major business decisions made by the nation's third-largest steel producer. "You know who has the golden share? I do," Trump said at a summit on artificial intelligence and energy in Pittsburgh on July 15. The president's golden share in U.S. Steel is similar to nationalizing a company but without any of the benefits that a company normally receives, such as direct investment by the government, said Sarah Bauerle Danzman, an expert on foreign investment and national security at the Atlantic Council, a think tank focused on international affairs. But the Trump administration demonstrated earlier this month that it is also willing to buy directly into publicly traded corporations. The Department of Defense agreed to purchase a $400 million equity stake in rare-earth miner MP Materials, making the Pentagon the company's largest shareholder. This level of support by the federal government for a mining company is unprecedented, said Gracelin Baskaran, an expert on critical minerals at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is the biggest public-private cooperation that the mining industry has ever had here in the United States," Baskaran said. "Historically, DOD has never done equity in a mining company or a mining project." Trump's unique hold over the Republican Party gives him the ability to intervene in companies on a scale that would be difficult politically for a Democratic president, Danzman said. "The Democrat would have been accused of being a communist and a lot of other Republicans probably would not have felt comfortable moving in this particular direction because of their greater commitment to market principles," Danzman said. Trump is expanding the range of what is possible in the U.S. in terms of state intervention in markets, she said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More interventions could be on the horizon as the Trump administration develops a policy to support U.S. companies in strategic industries against state-backed competition from China. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in April that the U.S. government might need to make an "equity investment in each of these companies that's taking on China in critical minerals." The Pentagon's investment in MP Materials is a model for future public-private partnerships, CEO James Litinsky said. "It's a new way forward to accelerate free markets, to get the supply chain on shore that we want," Litinsky told CNBC. The U.S. government is helping the mining industry fight "Chinese mercantilism," the CEO said. Meanwhile, the golden share in U.S. Steel is a potential model for foreign direct investment "transactions that really affect our national security but where it's going to be great for our economic growth," Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., said in a May interview with CNBC. "Having taken a stake in US Steel and MP, we're now left to wonder where this administration will find its next investment," Don Bilson, an analyst at Gordon Haskett, wrote in a note to clients earlier this month. Trump proposed in January that the U.S. should take a 50% stake in social media app TikTok as part of a joint venture. China's ByteDance is required under a recently passed law to divest TikTok or the platform will be banned in the U.S. Trump extended ByteDance's compliance deadline until Sept. 17. The U.S. has a long history of intervening in industries, particularly where national defense is concerned, said Mark Wilson, a historian at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who studies the military-industrial complex. But past interventions were often temporary and typically happened during war, economic crisis or took the form of bailouts to prevent a major player in a critical industry from going bankrupt. The U.S. government bought a majority stake in General Motors to prevent the automaker from collapsing in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, ultimately selling off its shares at a loss to the taxpayer. In the 1970s, defense giant Lockheed and automaker Chrysler received government bailouts. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson nationalized the railroads, but he returned them to private ownership after the conflict. The Roosevelt administration made sweeping interventions during the Great Depression and World War II, from establishing the Tennessee Valley Authority to making big investments in the nation's manufacturing capacity. The U.S. is not fighting an economic crisis or war today, but the return of great power competition with Russia and China and the supply chain disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic have led to more nationalistic economic policies, said UNC's Wilson. The U.S. has increasingly recognized that China's economic model is based on manufacturing overcapacity that dumps products "onto global markets in ways that make it hard for other markets to compete," Danzman said. The threat posed by China's dominance of the rare-earth supply chain became apparent in April when Beijing imposed export restrictions against the U.S., Baskaran said. Within weeks, automakers warned they would have to halt production due to a rare-earth shortage, forcing the U.S. back to the negotiating table with Beijing, she said. "The historical moment we're in does seem to be one where there is this reassessment of assumptions of the previous generation about the efficacy of markets and free trade to solve all our problems in national security," Wilson said. The question is whether state intervention can solve the failure of the free market to address national security concerns in industries like rare earths, Danzman said. "When you step in to try to address one of these market failures with this kind of government intervention, you can have a cascade of new market failures," she said. "You're distorting the market more."
