Donald Trump Is in a Tailspin
'We want maximum transparency,' Johnson claimed. But then, in a lengthy, mealy-mouthed statement, he instead insisted he was delaying the release of the Epstein files to 'protect victims' and pledged that he would not 'play politics' over the issue, as his Democratic colleagues were. This is more than a bit rich. For years, Johnson's Republican colleagues have been ignoring the humanity of those victims as they have spun elaborate, fanciful conspiracy theories about Epstein and his clients—many of whom were rumored to be powerful Democrats, including Bill Clinton, and Democrat-aligned figures. Now that the leader of the GOP was implicated, Johnson himself was playing politics by trying to shut down a story that in two short weeks has upended the ruling party.
The Epstein story is now bigger than the files—at least until we know everything that's in them. It's grinding Republican governance on Capitol Hill to a halt, and it's dragging down the Trump administration. His approval rating is tanking, which is due to a combination of factors—including the backlash to the big budget bill, ICE's immigration crackdown, and Trump's tariff chaos—but the Epstein affair is playing a key role. There are signs, in opinion polls but also in the MAGA swamps online, that Trump's hold on his base is slipping, which could have disastrous consequences for the GOP in the midterm elections. Trump could well be in a moment analogous to the one Joe Biden faced after the disastrous military withdrawal from Afghanistan—the start of a tailspin that he may never recover from.
The fault for Trump's precipitous decline is his alone. It is Trump who ordered masked thugs into American cities and towns to hunt for any undocumented immigrant they could lay their hands on. It was Trump who forced Johnson to push through a flawed, deeply damaging bill that will have a catastrophic impact on health care and the economy. It was Trump whose moronic belief in the power of tariffs is currently causing the dollar to collapse and prices to skyrocket. And it was Trump who forced Johnson to shut down Congress so that Republicans wouldn't have to vote on any more Democratic amendments that put them on the spot about releasing the Epstein files.
As I argued last week, there's no way out for Trump now that he has declared the story a 'hoax' and a witch hunt on par with 'Russiagate.' He can continue to stonewall the release of the files, making himself look guiltier by the second—which is the approach that he has taken. Or he can release the files and cross his fingers. Even if the files reveal the bare minimum—i.e., what we already know, which is that Trump had a decade-plus friendship with Epstein, which included the period of time that Epstein was allegedly trafficking and raping dozens of young girls—there would be questions that Trump has refused to answer. Most importantly: What did he know about his good friend's activities? The result is a cancer of a scandal, one that will continue to metastasize throughout his administration, the Republican Congress, and even his MAGA base.
It is also a gift to the Democrats, who are powerless in the minority and abject at messaging. They have thus far struggled to harness popular anger over the administration's immigration policies, ruinous legislation, gutting of the federal government, and more. But the party has effectively weaponized Epstein, aided by popular interest and the fact that, well, the president certainly seems to be up to something shady.
House Democrats' push to release the files was so successful that it caused Johnson to literally run away. He will presumably spend the summer recess thinking about how to respond to Democratic efforts to divide his caucus and push for the full release of the files, but it's not clear that there is anything short of 'full transparency' that can do that. He's caught in a bind. At the same time, investigative efforts—particularly the House's plan to subpoena the Department of Justice for its Epstein documents, and perhaps Senator Ron Wyden's suggestion that the DOJ 'follow the money' with Epstein—may very well be fruitful. The House Oversight Committee's subpoena of Epstein's former girlfriend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell may or may not be as fruitful, depending on what deals she makes before her testimony. (Regardless, it will continue to fuel interest in the story, even if it's a dud—because if she doesn't reveal anything it will be assumed that Trump's allies at the DOJ got to her.) In any case, this is a huge story that will likely ensnare several powerful people and hold the public's attention—and, in doing so, will serve as a continual reminder that the president of the United States was close friends with the twenty-first century's most notorious pedophile.
For Democrats, the Epstein story does pose risks, as well, many of which should be familiar to anyone who remembers the long investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Here, as was true then, the most likely result is something that is damning but far less salacious than what is rumored. In 2016, it turned out that Trump was openly encouraging and attempting to benefit from Russian efforts to interfere in the election—but not that he was a compromised, blackmailed puppet of Vladimir Putin (or, for that matter, that he had paid Russian sex workers to pee on a bed Barack Obama had slept in). What we know about Trump is damning enough—being friends with Epstein is bad, and reporting suggests that he and others in Epstein's orbit had a good enough understanding of what he was up to—even if no evidence emerges that he was one of his 'clients,' which is not a revelation that Democrats should hold their breath for.
This story may resemble Russiagate in another way: It likely won't end Trump's presidency, and Democrats would be foolish to suggest that it will. But a precious gift has fallen in their lap: a scandal that's very easy for voters to understand and extremely hard for Trump and the Republicans to make go away. May it undermine this fascist administration for years to come.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations" and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. "Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry," said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, "the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet," said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy," Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank. 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
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton
On Saturday, Donald Trump repeated false claims that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to endorse Kamala Harris on the campaign trail in October of last year. The Truth Social post comes as the president faces scrutiny from his own base over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Taking to his social media platform yesterday, the GOP leader wrote, 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing, absolutely NOTHING! These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' More from Deadline Beyoncé Reunites Destiny's Child For Final 'Cowboy Carter' Tour Stop In Vegas Stephen Colbert Praises 'South Park's Naked AI Trump PSA: "An Important Message Of Hope" Donald Trump Denies Being Briefed That His Name Appeared In Jeffrey Epstein Files, Despite Wall Street Journal Report That He Was Informed Trump is referring to the 35-time Grammy-winning artist's appearance at a rally in Houston, where the singer took to the stage to endorse the vice president and call for unity. 'It's time to sing a new song, a song that began 248 years ago. The old notes of downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling, an anthem. Our moment right now — it's time for America to sing a new song. Our voices sing a chorus of unity. They sing a song of dignity and opportunity,' she said to the crowd. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment made from the Democratic presidential candidate's organization to Beyoncé's production company, per CNN, with 'campaign event production' listed as the reasoning for the expenditure. Last year, senior spokesperson for the Harris campaign Adrienne Elrod told Deadline that the campaign did not pay any celebrity endorsers but was required by campaign finance law to cover costs associated with holding such events, per Federal Election Commission rules. This accounts for the $1 million the Harris campaign spent on Oprah's Harpo Productions, as the famed TV personality endorsed her at a Michigan-held 'Unite for America' event in September 2024. The baseless allegation was fact-checked by websites and PolitiFact last year, though Trump repeated his sentiments about Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton back in February. Trump has also previously harped on the matter in a post made back in May, where he named other influential Harris endorsers like Bruce Springsteen and Bono, calling for a 'major investigation.' There's also no evidence to suggest such expenses were incorrectly categorized, and though Trump maintained payment for endorsement is illegal, there's actually no FEC law that prohibits such campaigns for paying for endorsements, though they must disclose such expenditures. Best of Deadline Celebs Supporting Zohran Mamdani In New York's Mayoral Race: From Ramy Youssef To Cynthia Nixon The Fox News To White House Pipeline: TV Personalities Who Joined The Trump Administration Celebrities Voting And Encouraging Voting In The 2024 Election


New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
NYC's ‘We're With Colbert' rally for late-night host is a bust with just 20 protesters
What a joke. A Big Apple rally in support of on-his-way-out 'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert drew fewer than two dozen people Sunday — with even the NYPD cops on scene quickly calling it a day since most of the demonstrators left after just a few minutes. Organizers said the 'We're With Colbert' gathering outside the CBS Broadcast Center on Manhattan's West Side said it was meant to be part of a nationwide call for 'integrity.' Advertisement 4 Demonstrators gather outside CBS' offices in Manhattan on Sunday to protest the end of the 'Late Show' with Stephen Colbert. REUTERS 4 Colbert was told this was his last season on CBS, sparking controversy on both sides. CBS 'Our country is not perfect, never has been,' said the event's organizer, who would only identify himself as Matt and said his nickname is 'Slim.' Advertisement 'But we've always had the First Amendment, and now Mango Mussolini is trying to take that from us,' he said, referring to a derogatory nickname for President Trump. CBS said declining viewership and diminishing profits led to its decision to end the show in May 2026, effectively firing the 61-year-old talk-show host Colbert — but critics claim the network bowed to pressure from Trump. 4 CBS officials said the decision to fire Colbert was the result of growing costs and diminishing viewership. Luiz C. Ribeiro for New York Post 4 The number of protesters at Sunday's 'We're With Colbert' rally topped off at about 20 at its peak. REUTERS Advertisement CBS's parent company finalized an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media shortly after Colbert was told he was on his last season. The merger required federal approval. Colbert has also been among the top talk-show hosts who routinely roast Trump. 'This is a First Amendment attack,' a protester who refused to give her name said of the closing-down of the show. 'We can't stand for that.' Advertisement Still, Colbert has also come under fire for featuring predominantly lefty-leaning guests. According to the right-leaning group MRC NewsBusters, Colbert has had 176 liberal guests and only one Republican on his show since 2022.