GOP senators want nothing to do with Trump-Epstein-MAGA controversy
President Trump is facing what may be the biggest backlash he's ever encountered from usually loyal activists, such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn and prominent conservative activist Laura Loomer.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel are coming under tremendous pressure from MAGA activists to provide more information about the people who may have been involved in Epstein's alleged sex trafficking activities, even though the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI concluded in a memo that there is no 'incriminating 'client list.''
Republican lawmakers don't want to go near the Epstein controversy that divides their base.
They already have their hands full responding to political attacks from Democrats on Trump's tariff policies and on the Medicaid spending cuts they passed into law this month, along with trillions of dollars in tax relief and new spending on border security and defense.
'I'll leave that up to DOJ and to the FBI. I think that's in their purview. I think the president's expressed his views on it and so I'll just leave it at that,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters Monday.
Trump pushed back on some of his most loyal supporters Saturday and defended Bondi after MAGA-aligned activists took shots at her handling of the Epstein case and related files at a student action summit hosted by the activist group Turning Point USA in Tampa, Fla., this weekend.
'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again,' Trump posted on Truth Social, implying Democrats have pushed the clamor of Epstein's files.
'Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden administration,' he wrote, referring to former Presidents Obama and Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Monday that Bondi has done enough to provide transparency on what government investigators know about Epstein and his illicit activities.
Asked if Bondi has been forthcoming enough with information, Grassley told The Hill: 'What I know now, yes.'
'With anything in government, I always urge the greatest of transparency,' he said. 'I'm not saying they're coming up short there but that's just a good principle of government, as far as I'm concerned.'
Asked if the Justice Department needs to provide more information about Epstein-related documents, Grassley said: 'I think I've said all I should say.'
Conservative activists have zeroed in on Bondi's statement in February implying the Epstein files were 'sitting on her desk.'
The joint Justice Department-FBI memo released last week stated that much of the Epstein-related material is 'subject to court-ordered sealing' and 'only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.'
The Justice Department and FBI said there was 'no credible evidence' Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.
And the memo dismissed theories Epstein was murdered in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on Aug. 10, 2019, stating the finding that he died by suicide was supported by video footage.
GOP lawmakers are ready to accept the administration's explanation of its handling of the issue, despite the uproar from the party's base.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, said he's leaving the handling of all Epstein-related matters to Trump.
Cornyn and other Republicans don't seem at all inclined to endorse activists' calls for Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate the alleged Epstein files.
'I trust the president to handle it the way he deems appropriate,' Cornyn said Monday.
Trump has expressed his irritation with the relentless focus of some conservative social media influencers and activists on the possibility of a cover-up to protect wealthy and powerful figures who consorted with Epstein and the underage girls he allegedly trafficked.
The president expressed his disgust with the topic when a reporter asked him about Epstein at a July 8 Cabinet meeting.
'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?' Trump asked, appearing annoyed by the question.
'This guy's been talked about for years,' he said. 'We have [the flooding in] Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable.'
But Republican strategists are starting to acknowledge that dismissing the controversy and moving on to new topics isn't working for Trump, at least at the moment.
'I think this administration is definitely going to have some second thoughts about their strategy. Ultimately, they will have to put out more information. I just don't see how the current strategy is sustainable to say, 'Everything's out there and there are other issues that are more important.' That's not a winning message, and it's not a message that's going to go over well,' said Brian Darling, a Republican strategist and former Senate aide.
'I think the strategy has to change by the administration,' he added.
Loomer, a prominent activist who seems to have Trump's ear on key executive-branch appointments, warned in a Saturday post on the social platform X that the 'lack of results at the DOJ and lack of transparency' could 'cost the GOP House and Senate seats.'
'Don't say I didn't warn you,' she warned.
A Trump-aligned strategist who requested anonymity said Trump's team would likely offer a 'half-measure' concession to prominent conservative influencers and activists in an attempt to tamp down the controversy.
'Various portions of the MAGA base kind of feel like this is a key item. It's really MAGA-specific. It's something that's being battled over more in the conservative media,' the strategist said. 'I think they're going to try to release as little as possible, because there are all sorts of issues with this stuff, legally.'
'It's one of the rare things that I've seen where — at least as of right now — where the president takes a different position and MAGA doesn't fall right into line immediately. There's been a little pushback. Is it going to cost seats? I don't know,' the source added.
'Bondi overpromised and underdelivered. It's an unforced error,' the strategist argued.
Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, told conservative influencer Benny Johnson in an interview Monday that the administration would release more information related to Epstein's alleged crimes.
'There needs to be more transparency. I think that will happen. I know this is important to the president. He is frustrated,' Lara Trump told Johnson.
'He is going to want to set things right. I believe there will be more coming, and anything they are able to release, they will try to get out. They hear it and understand it,' she added.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has been outspoken about shedding more light on Epstein's criminal activities, said last week that she hoped to 'uncover' more information.
'For years, I have fought to expose the business associates of Jeffrey Epstein and those who were bankrolling his trafficking ring,' she wrote in a social media post last week after the Justice Department and FBI released their joint memo.
'Human trafficking generates more than $150 billion a year in profits, and I remain committed to breaking apart the human trafficking rings that ensnare innocent victims in modern-day slavery. I'm hopeful we can still uncover this information from the financial records to assist law enforcement in locking up vile criminals,' she said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Mike Waltz pledges to make UN ‘great again' at Senate confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON — Mike Waltz painted an image for lawmakers Tuesday of what the United Nations would look like as the U.S. — its largest donor — reviews its support, opting to go 'back to basics' under a Trump administration push to 'make the U.N. great again.' During his Senate confirmation hearing to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Waltz echoed the priorities of his bosses — President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — of pursuing major reforms to the 80-year-old world body. It was the first time senators could grill Waltz since he was ousted as Trump's national security adviser in May after he mistakenly added a journalist to a private Signal chat used to discuss sensitive military plans. He denied Tuesday that he was removed from the post, while laying out his plans to bring 'America First' to the U.N. 'We should have one place in the world where everyone can talk — where China, Russia, Europe and the developing world can come together and resolve conflicts,' Waltz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the U.N. 'But after 80 years, it's drifted from its core mission of peacemaking.' The U.N. is pursuing its own reforms while the Republican administration has spent the last six months reshaping American diplomacy and working aggressively to shrink the size of the federal government, including recent mass dismissals at the State Department. On the agenda for Waltz would be combating China's influence, reviewing U.S. funding to U.N. agencies with 'often duplicative and wasteful mandates,' as well as rooting out what Waltz called deep antisemitism within the U.N. system. The U.N. post is the last one to be filled in Trump's Cabinet following months of delay, including the withdrawal of the previous nominee. The Signal episode — in which Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other high-level officials faced intense criticism — didn't come up at the hearing for more than an hour. It was revealed in March that Waltz added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a private text chain on an unclassified messaging app that was used to discuss planning for strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. 'We both know Signal is not an appropriate and secure means of communicating highly sensitive information,' said Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, who was first to raise the issue. He added that Waltz shared 'demonstrably sensitive information' in an improper manner. Fellow Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia called it 'an amateurish move.' Waltz, a former Florida congressman, said the chat met the administration's cybersecurity standards, 'no classified information was shared' and the military was still conducting an ongoing investigation. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey blasted what he called a 'lack of accountability' from Waltz and other administration officials. 'I've watched this hearing, and I've been really disappointed,' Booker said. 'What's been troubling to me about your nomination from the beginning is your failure to just stand up and take accountability for mistakes that you made.' If confirmed, Waltz would arrive at the U.N. at a moment of great change. The world body is reeling from Trump's decision to slash foreign assistance — affecting its humanitarian aid agencies — and it anticipates U.S. funding cuts to the U.N. annual budget. Facing financial instability, the U.N. has spent months shedding jobs and consolidating projects while beginning to tackle long-delayed reforms. The U.N. is also facing growing frustration over what critics describe as a lack of efficiency and power in delivering on its mandate to end conflict. 'With Waltz at the helm, the U.N. will have what I regard as what should be its last chance to demonstrate its actual value to the United States,' said Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. 'Instead of progressive political virtue signaling, the Security Council has the chance to prove its value, and settling disputes and brokering deals.' Waltz said U.N. revenue 'has quadrupled in the last 20 years' but that it hasn't been commensurate with increased peace. 'The U.S. must ensure that every foreign aid dollar and every contribution to an international organization, particularly the U.N., draws a straight and direct line to a compelling U.S. national interest,' Waltz said. He said the administration's diplomatic strategy would be focused on cutting costs to what he called 'waste, fraud, and abuse that are endemic to the U.N. system.' Waltz also accused the U.N. of 'pervasive antisemitism.' He testified that the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, has been promoting 'antisemitic hate' in its schools in Gaza. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appointed a British human rights activist on Tuesday to carry out a strategic review of UNRWA. Israel has alleged that 19 out of UNRWA's roughly 13,000 staffers in Gaza participated in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks that launched the war. UNRWA said it fired nine workers after an internal U.N. investigation. Israel later alleged that about 100 other Palestinians in Gaza were Hamas members but didn't provide evidence to the United Nations. Waltz has spent the last few months on the White House payroll despite departing as national security adviser. The latest list of White House salaries, current as of July 1, includes Waltz as an adviser earning an annual salary of $195,200. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said Waltz stayed on to 'ensure a smooth and successful transition given the extreme importance of the role of NSA.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, questioned why Waltz was still being paid by the administration. 'Throughout this year, you've made (assertions) that, if confirmed, you would root out waste and unnecessary overhead at the U.N. So can you confirm for us whether you've been receiving a salary from the White House since being let go as the NSA?' Waltz denied the fact that he had been fired, saying he was being paid as an adviser 'transitioning a number of important activities.'
Miami Herald
18 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Were Texas flood deaths avoidable? Here's what Americans said in a new poll
Many Americans believe the deaths caused by recent floods in Texas could have been prevented, and most think that the government's response was imperfect, according to new polling. The YouGov/Economist survey — conducted July 11-14 — comes after central Texas was pummeled by flash floods beginning on July 4, when the Guadalupe River surged over its banks, sweeping away homes and leaving at least 134 dead and about 100 missing, ABC News reported. Among the worst affected areas was Camp Mystic, a Christian camp in Kerr County, where NBC News reported 27 campers and counselors lost their lives. President Donald Trump traveled to Texas on July 11 and met with the families of victims. He said he wished to express 'the love and support and the anguish of our entire nation,' CBS News reported. 'I've never seen anything like it,' he added, 'a little narrow river that becomes a monster…' In the aftermath of the devastating disaster, multiple organizations and individuals have faced scrutiny over their preparedness. Among them were Kerr County officials, who did not install a comprehensive flood warning system despite being aware of its necessity, according to the Texas Tribune. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also faced criticism over its response, and the New York Times reported that it failed to answer thousands of calls from Texas flood survivors Here is a breakdown of the findings. Were deaths avoidable? In the survey — which sampled 1,680 U.S. adults — 52% of respondents said that most of the deaths could have been prevented if the government had been more adequately prepared. Twenty-nine percent said the deaths were unavoidable, and 19% said they didn't know. On this question, there was a sizable partisan divide. Most Democrats and independents — 74% and 53%, respectively — called the deaths avoidable, while just 28% of Republicans said the same. Government response The poll — which has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points — also asked respondents to judge the government response to the flooding. A plurality, 38%, labeled the overall government response as poor, while smaller shares described it as fair (14%), good (19%) or excellent (14%). Individual officials received somewhat similar marks. When asked about Trump's response, 42% said it was poor, while fewer said it was fair (11%), good (15%), and excellent (21%). Meanwhile, 36% said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's response was poor. Eight percent said it was fair; 14% said it was good and 13% said it was excellent. Presidents visiting disaster sites Additionally, respondents were asked about presidents visiting disaster sites (the survey began on the day Trump traveled to Texas). A majority, 64%, said presidents should visit locations of disasters because it demonstrates their solidarity. Just 17% said they should not do this 'because it takes resources away from the disaster response.' The results broke along similar lines when respondents were asked specifically about Trump. Sixty-five percent said they believed Trump 'should travel to Texas to survey the damage and meet with people affected by recent flooding.' Meanwhile, 20% said he should not do this, and 15% said they were not sure.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House has a new take on the markets' mild tariff reaction
Markets (^GSPC, ^IXIC, ^DJI) have been brushing off President Trump's daily tariff threats. Yahoo Finance Washington Correspondent Ben Werschkul joins Market Domination host Josh Lipton to explain how the White House's read on market reactions sharply contrasts with Wall Street's view. He also discusses the president's new deal with Indonesia and what it could signal. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. markets growing less responsive to ongoing trade talks and there's different views on why that may be. For more, let's get to Yahoo Finance's Washington correspondent. That would be, of course, Ben Worskol. Ben. Hey, Josh. Yes. So this is the question, kind of one of the big questions of the month for markets is sort of why are markets shrugging off this, these tariff threats that I'm on with you pretty much every day to outline, they come kind of every day from Trump. It's a nuanced question for sure. Our colleague Josh Shafer has a smart look at the kind of China aspect of this. But what I'm looking at for a story tomorrow in Yahoo Finance is the White House view of this. And this is important for traders to know because it's essentially 180 degrees away from most of what you're going to hear on Wall Street. The White House case, which has, we've seen in evidence in recent days, and it's gotten sharper, kind of as markets continue to rise, is essentially that the signal we're getting here is that traders are okay with tariffs now. That the traders are saying that they understand what Trump is trying to do with tariffs and that the market reaction is, is, is, is, is, is reflecting that. You see a lot of skepticism from that on Wall Street, who kind of give the opposite view that traders, it's not like traders like tariffs now. They just don't believe Trump is going to follow through. But we're seeing this again and again. Treasury Secretary Scott Beson offered this morning that the markets understand what, what Trump is doing now, which is a clear contrast to April. Somebody's going to be wrong here. These are two sides, and this is, the question is kind of whether this question gets tested. The way it doesn't get tested is if Trump can follow through on different trade deals and lower rates via that route for him. We saw, we saw one pact with Indonesia today. But it does get tested if some of these, these trade deals don't go through, and then Trump is essentially empowered by this view that he, that, that, by not, by, by the market's not rising so far, maybe he can stand firm on tariffs and go forward. Put another way, does the market looking at the Taco trade essentially lessen the chance of Trump, of Trump chickening out? We're seeing some concerns on that front that maybe the markets are underpricing. You were talking about Jamie Diamond earlier. He's offered commentary on this. The markets are complacent in this. This is, this is going to be a big theme of the next few weeks as we get to this August 1st deadline. Ben, just quickly, you mentioned Indonesia there. I want your take because Trump did say he reached this deal with Indonesia. It does sound like we have, have some specifics there. Ben, what are the details? Yeah. So we have some specifics from the White House side on what this Indonesia pact brings forward today. Trump sketched it out to reporters and also on a truth social, two social posts. The headline here is a 19% tariff on Indonesian goods and from, and according to Trump, a 0% tariff on US companies trying to do business. As, as Trump put it, quote, full access to Indonesia. He added in true social that there's other aspects here, $15 billion in Indonesian purchases of US energy, four, four and a half billion dollars in American agriculture, and 50 Boeing jets. The key caveat here is that we do not have confirmation on this from the Indonesian side. This is a trend we've seen where Trump will announce a deal, and then the question is whether the other side has agreed to all the terms here. We saw a little bit of that with Vietnam. But either way, this is a clear indication that this is the sort of model he even, Trump even had a comment about this today, that this is the sort of outline of what he wants with these other deals. Essentially, somewhere around a 20% tariff on coming in, on product coming in, and then a 0% tariff on products going out. It's the sort of same parameters of what he laid out with Vietnam. So, so he's, it comes with sort of Trump is promising other trade deals again ahead of this August 1st deadline, in his view hoping to be kind of this be the, be the model going forward. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
