Charlie Kirk says 'I'm done talking about Jeffrey Epstein'
The Independent
The marching orders have been received, and some of Donald Trump's most loyal foot soldiers in the MAGA media ecosystem are already dutifully falling in line. After the right-wing uproar over the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein memo hit a crescendo this weekend after the president's Truth Social post calling for the MAGA base to let it go and leave Attorney General Pam Bondi alone, key Trump ally Charlie Kirk declared on Monday that he was "done talking about Epstein" for the time being. Kirk's announcement comes a day after he spoke to the president on the phone to express his support for Bondi, according to CNN. Bondi has come under extreme fire from MAGA critics, including Kirk, who have blasted the attorney general for releasing an unsigned memo last week concluding that Epstein had no "client list," died by suicide while awaiting trial, and did not blackmail prominent figures who allegedly took part in his underage sex trafficking.
"Members of the president's inner circle have also reached out to some of Bondi's critics to essentially ask them to ramp it down, noting that Trump, at this moment, was not getting rid of his attorney general," CNN added. "Sources cautioned that while Trump was currently still supporting Bondi, things could always change." Trump privately doubling down in his support for Bondi comes after he took to his social media site on Saturday afternoon to complain about his "boys" and "gals" continuing to obsess over the Epstein case, adding that files related to the disgraced financier were "written by Obama" and "Crooked Hillary" and were therefore not worth "caring about." He added that his supporters should cease calling for Bondi to be fired over the memo.
"They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!" Trump blared on Truth Social. "We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein."
Over the weekend, Kirk - the founder of MAGA youth organisation Turning Point USA — hosted the group's Student Action Summit in Florida, which saw many of the attendees raging about the way the Trump administration has handled the Epstein case. While much of the anger was directed at Bondi, who once claimed she had the deceased sex offender's long-fabled "client list" on her desk for review only to now claim it doesn't exist, the president himself also faced pointed accusations of hiding Epstein's supposed co-conspirators.
"In 2016, we trusted the plan with Trump, but now Trump has become the deep state. What is more deep state than covering up for pedophiles?!" one SAS attendee exclaimed before referencing Trump's lengthy past friendship with Epstein.
Kirk, along with other MAGA luminaries, devoted much of their time at the conservative confab to criticizing the White House's handling of the situation while warning the president that he risked alienating many of his most devout supporters by dismissing their concerns of an administration "cover-up" on Epstein.
"Do I think this is the end of MAGA? No. I've never said that," Kirk told the Washington Post over the weekend. "Do I think the extra 10 to 15 per cent of [less inclined to vote] bros that are trading crypto and wake up at 2pm every day ... do I think they're going to be, like, 'Screw it?' Yeah. That's a huge risk."
However, by the time Monday's episode of his podcast came around, Kirk made it known that he was going to heed the president's orders to shut up about the fiasco.
"Plenty was said this last weekend at our event about Epstein," he stated. "Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration, I'm gonna trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done (and) solve it. Ball's in their hands."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
40 minutes ago
- Arabian Post
Trump's 50-Day Ultimatum: Ukraine Ceasefire or a New Trap?
Donald Trump once campaigned on ending the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He promised to bring an end to the proxy war with Russia, leveraging his self-proclaimed 'Dealmaking' skills. Yet, halfway into July, what we see instead is a new escalation dressed up as diplomacy. In a carefully choreographed appearance with NATO Secretary Mark Rutte at the White House, Trump offered Moscow a '50-day window' to agree to a ceasefire or face sweeping 100% tariffs on Russian goods. In the same breath, he confirmed new shipments of Patriot missile systems to Ukraine, financed not by Washington but by Europe. For all the transactional logic Trump likes to project, this move is anything but straightforward. It is a curious blend of carrot and stick, peace and provocation. Trump's message is clear: he wants Russia to halt the war on his terms. Yet it is equally clear that his 'peace offer' is laden with conditions that Moscow has already deemed unacceptable. Russia has long said it would consider a ceasefire only if the West addresses the root causes of the conflict—NATO's eastward expansion, Kyiv's rearmament, and the status of Crimea and the Donbas. A pause simply to rearm Ukraine is a nonstarter for Moscow. And who can say that this is an unreasonable position? History teaches us that ceasefires imposed without resolving the underlying dispute tend only to postpone the inevitable. Consider the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, hailed in the West as a pathway to peace but quietly treated by Ukraine and its allies as an opportunity to buy time, retrain the military, and fortify defenses. From Moscow's perspective, another Western-backed ceasefire would be the same ruse in a different wrapper. So what exactly is Trump offering here? Not a genuine peace, but a temporary truce calculated to preserve Western leverage while handing NATO's military-industrial complex a fresh infusion of profits. The United States will produce the weapons; Europe will pay for them. The result is an arrangement that strengthens Washington's economic position while further crippling Europe's stagnating economies. If Trump truly sought a lasting peace, he would push for direct talks addressing Russia's security concerns, the neutrality of Ukraine, and the future of disputed territories. Instead, he has chosen to threaten punitive tariffs, a move unlikely to sway the Kremlin and more likely to harden its resolve. This duality in Trump's approach, appearing conciliatory while simultaneously escalating has precedent. Recall his administration's handling of Iran. Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal, imposed 'maximum pressure' sanctions, and then offered to negotiate 'a better deal.' The result? Tehran deepened its regional alliances, advanced its missile program, and diversified trade away from the dollar. Far from bending Iran to American will, Trump inadvertently accelerated its pivot toward Moscow and Beijing. The same pattern could now unfold with Russia. By threatening secondary tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil and gas; China, India, Brazil—Trump risks widening the very fractures in the global economy that Washington is trying to contain. This is the law of unintended consequences in action: pressure designed to isolate Moscow instead reinforces its role in a multipolar trading network beyond the reach of Western sanctions. Even markets appear to understand this. Russian stocks rose 2% after Trump's announcement, as investors interpreted the 50-day window not as an imminent escalation but as breathing space for Moscow to consolidate its gains in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Trump's tariffs, scaled down from Lindsey Graham's outrageous 500% proposal, seemed more symbolic than substantive. Yet symbolism has its dangers. By framing the war as a bargaining chip—a way to extract concessions from Europe, bolster the US economy, and placate NATO hawks, Trump risks making Ukraine even more of a pawn than it already is. The promise of Patriots and other advanced systems may temporarily embolden Kyiv, but it also prolongs the suffering on the ground. What's more, by outsourcing the bill for Ukraine's defense to Europe, Trump is effectively weaponizing Europe's dependence on the United States. This is a familiar 'Trumpian tactic'; remind the Europeans of their weakness, force them to pay for their security, and in doing so, deepen their reliance on American manufacturing and political goodwill. It's the art of the deal, but at Europe's expense. And what of Russia? Despite Trump's posturing, he avoided the harsh language his critics expected. There was no direct condemnation of Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, no call for regime change, no talk of confiscating frozen Russian assets. Trump still sees Moscow not as an ideological enemy but as a negotiating partner—one that must be pressured, yes, but not humiliated. This, too, reflects a certain realism. Even in Washington's corridors of power, there is grudging recognition that Russia cannot simply be coerced into submission. It has survived waves of Western sanctions, adapted its economy to wartime conditions, and retained significant support from the Global South. Forcing Russia into a corner risks escalation that neither Europe nor the United States is prepared to handle. The Kremlin knows it has time on its side. The 50-day window Trump has granted conveniently overlaps with rumors of a Russian offensive to cement control over occupied territories. By September, Moscow may be in an even stronger negotiating position. Far from compelling Russia to capitulate, Trump's threat may inadvertently incentivize it to accelerate military operations. History offers another cautionary tale here. In 1939, Britain and France issued ultimatums to Germany, believing that economic and military pressure would deter Hitler from further aggression. Instead, the ultimata stiffened his resolve and plunged Europe into catastrophe. Ultimatums rarely work when they fail to account for the adversary's core strategic interests. Trump's move, then, looks less like a peace initiative and more like a strategic pause designed to serve domestic and economic agendas. He can tell his voters he's tough on Russia. He can tell NATO allies he's committed to their security. And he can tell the military-industrial lobby that their contracts are secure. Everyone wins—except the Ukrainians caught in the crossfire. It is also worth noting the quiet but unmistakable erosion of constitutional norms in Trump's approach. When asked if he needed congressional approval for his tariffs, Trump shrugged: 'I'm not sure we need them.' He said the same about his strikes on Iran years ago. The creeping expansion of executive power in matters of war and peace is now bipartisan orthodoxy in Washington. So where does this leave us? In the same gray zone of uncertainty where this war has resided for two years. Trump's transactional approach may temporarily slow escalation, but it will not bring peace. It is designed to buy time—for NATO, for the US defense industry, and for his own political campaign. It offers Moscow no real incentive to compromise and leaves Kyiv with false hope. For Russia, this is not just a conflict over territory; it is a conflict over the very architecture of European security. Until the West acknowledges this reality, no amount of ultimatums, tariffs, or Patriot batteries will resolve it. In the end, Trump's 50-day gambit is not about ending the war. It is about managing the optics of a war that Washington has no strategy to win and no courage to end. Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
Dubai Eye
6 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Kremlin reacts icily to Trump but some Russian officials are blunter
The Kremlin on Tuesday reacted icily to Donald Trump's warnings to President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine, saying that recent decisions by the US president and the NATO military alliance would be interpreted by Kyiv as a signal to continue the war. Trump, sitting beside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, on Monday, announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days. "The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington." Peskov, though, added that it was already clear that decisions being made in Washington and other NATO capitals were "perceived by the Ukrainian side not as a signal for peace but as a signal to continue the war." Putin, who has spoken to Trump by telephone at least six times this year, has yet to comment publicly on Trump's remarks. But two other senior Russian officials did not hold back. Former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, said Moscow did not care about Trump's "theatrical ultimatum", while a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, suggested that giving ultimatums to Moscow was unacceptable and pointless. Trump, who has said he wants to be seen as a "peacemaker" president, said he wanted to see the end of the war - on which he said the United States had spent $350 billion - but that he had been "disappointed" by Putin. The US President specifically expressed frustration that Putin's "talk" about peace was often followed by Russian strikes on major Ukrainian cities, and indicated Washington wanted to press Moscow into ending the war by sending more arms to Ukraine. "I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy," Trump said of Putin, a reference to former US President Joe Biden calling the Russian leader "a killer" in a 2021 interview. The Financial Times reported that Trump had privately encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep in Russian territory, even asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could hit Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons. Trump told the BBC that he was "not done" with Putin and that he thought a Ukraine peace deal was on the cards. Putin ordered Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces. The United States says 1.2 million people have been injured or killed in the war. In Moscow, state television broadcasts led with advances by Russian troops in Ukraine, of which Russian forces control just under a fifth, and an attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones which injured 18 people. Kommersant, one of Russia's most respected newspapers, invoked William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in its front page headline to suggest betrayal: "Et tu, Trump - the main peacekeeper of Ukrainian conflict joined the 'party of war'". Putin has repeatedly said he is ready to make peace - but on his terms - and that there is no point discussing a ceasefire until the details of what a peace would look like are nailed down. In Washington, a White House official said Trump's intention is to impose "100% tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on other countries that buy oil from Russia if a peace deal is not struck in 50 days. "We can do secondary," Trump said. "We're probably talking about 100 percent or something like that. We can do secondary tariffs without the Senate, without the House, but what they're crafting also could be very good." Eighty-five of the 100 US senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would give Trump the authority to impose 500 per cent tariffs on any country that helps Russia. China, India and Turkey are the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, the world's second largest exporter of oil.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Before a rethink of special educational needs, lessons must be learnt
Whatever else may be said about the government's plans for the education of children with special needs, they cannot be handled in the same, calamitous way as were the reforms to personal independence payments (PIP). As has been said with enormous force during the low-key commemoration of Labour's first year in office, lessons must be learnt. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is the lead minister in preparing the schools white paper in October, which will include proposals for changes to the special needs framework. She has already caused some concern by refusing to rule out changing the system of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), and the rights groups and backbench MPs in her party have mobilised in response, according to The Independent. In fairness, Ms Phillipson and her colleagues have talked about changes to EHCPs in the past. However, the recent welfare reform bill fiasco has both sharpened anxieties and bolstered the confidence of Labour backbenchers that they can defy the party leadership and block reform. The Labour general election manifesto was also oblique on this point. An element of fear, if not paranoia, has entered the debate, and Ms Phillipson's task has been much more difficult because of the mistakes made by her colleagues – Rachel Reeves as chancellor, Liz Kendall as work and pensions secretary, and the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Ms Phillipson is one of the brighter stars in the Labour firmament, but she will be fortunate if she emerges from this process with an improved EHCP regime or her reputation enhanced. Trust has been eroded. For any government of any party, reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision for children and young people presents particular challenges, and rightly so. These are among the most vulnerable of people, and they cannot be subject to discriminatory treatment, both as a matter of law and of morality. As a society, there is a duty to provide for children and young people with physical and learning disabilities, and to offer them the best start in life, maximising their independence and life chances. Their parents need and deserve support, and any failure to do so is unconscionable. In contrast to the PIP reforms, there must be no feeling that reform is solely or even primarily driven by the Treasury and the need for savings, though there is no escaping the financial realities. As Ms Reeves and Ms Kendall discovered to their cost, there are red lines that this generation of Labour MPs will not cross solely for the sake of meeting fiscal rules. Ms Phillipson, therefore, must win the arguments – and, as far as possible, carry all those concerned with her as she reshapes the regime and improves it. Therefore, the various groups representing SEND children and parents need to be closely involved in each stage of policy development. This is something she is now well placed to do, given recent events. In any case, because of what happened with PIP entitlements, she has no alternative. The parliamentary Labour Party, emboldened as it now is, will insist on being consulted. When the time comes to publish the white paper, there should be no nasty surprises. If there are, it will be just as doomed as the welfare reform bill. Secondly, this process cannot be rushed, or perceived to be rushed. The deadline of October for the schools white paper is a reasonable one but it should not take precedence over good policy. If the sections on SEND are not ready to be published, then they should be postponed. Indeed, there is a strong case for giving SEND policy a comprehensive study and white paper of its own, given the sensitivities and complexities involved. Again, the lesson of recent events is that a late policy is preferable to a bad policy. There is also a real need for a better understanding – entirely separate from the cost – of the merits of special schools or children's inclusion in the general school system, which will, of course, vary by individual cases. It is also wrong, as seems to be the case now, that variations in provision across different local authorities can be so stark – a postcode lottery.
