Murdoch-Trump rift opens over Epstein – but don't expect a decisive break
Just a few days ago, the 94-year-old mogul was spotted among the president's high-profile guests at the Fifa Club World Cup final. Following the publication of the article, however, Murdoch now finds himself on the president's lengthy list of media opponents threatened with court action.
In an unprecedented environment in which a sitting president regularly takes direct aim at the media, there have been numerous claims of big outlets making decisions that make life easier for their billionaire owners. Yet the Journal published the Epstein allegations even after Trump picked up the phone to its British editor, Emma Tucker, to demand that she ditch the story. Trump also claims Murdoch himself was approached to stop the article, to no avail.
According to some media watchers, it is the latest sign that Murdoch is taking a different approach to Trump's return than some of his fellow billionaire moguls. Even before the Epstein story dropped on Thursday, Murdoch's Journal continued to criticise Trump from the right over some of his early decisions.
In January, its editorial page took aim at his unconditional pardon for many of those who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. It also accused Trump of 'pleasing China's Xi Jinping above a law passed by Congress' with what it described as the 'illegal' suspension of a law forcing TikTok to break from ByteDance, its Chinese owner. It has also criticised Trump for launching new family crypto tokens.
It wasn't that long ago, either, that Murdoch was Trump's guest in the Oval office. Even then, however, tensions were on display. Trump brought up his disagreements with the Journal, which had recently dubbed his tariff battle with Canada and Mexico as 'the dumbest trade war in history'.
It has led some to regard Murdoch's Journal as representing a political band on the right aware of Trump's political draw, but sceptical about his economic effects – particularly around the use of tariffs as a constant weapon in his international dealings.
Yet the Journal's critical stance on aspects of Trump's presidency is far from proof of a decisive break between Murdoch and the president. Murdoch's Fox News – the cash cow of his media businesses and a powerhouse in the Maga world – continues to provide supportive content. The Epstein letter story was relegated to an opinion piece low down on the network's online homepage on Friday morning.
And those who have watched Murdoch's career closely over the decades tend to conclude that, ultimately, his decisions are driven by business. With the Journal appealing to economically hawkish Trump sceptics on the right and Fox News continuing to serve up content for Trump supporters, Murdoch finds himself at the helm of a media empire on the right with all bases covered.
The episode also highlights that, just a few months into Trump's second coming, internal pressures are pulling at the threads of big players in the Maga media. Already, influential pro-Trump personalities – most notably Tucker Carlson and Laura Loomer - have protested at the lack of action around releasing all documentation relating to Epstein. Others stick to Trump's line that the existence of extensive files related to the disgraced financier is a 'hoax'.
The saga appears to confirm Murdoch's status as a different beast from some of the more recent arrivals to media ownership, developing a skin as thick as rhinoceros hide in his decades making and breaking political careers. As the veteran media writer Ben Smith has put it: 'If you want to be a mogul, as the Murdochs have learned over the decades, you can't make yourself quite that easy to bully.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
A Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university's new definition of antisemitism
For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt's book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,' to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas. But after Columbia's recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel's founding. For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. 'A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,' she told The Associated Press. 'I just don't see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.' Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts. Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, such as applying 'double standards' to Israel, comparing the country's policies to Nazism or describing its existence as 'a racist endeavor.' Ahead of a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities. While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack by President Donald Trump. For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel's founding amount to 'clear censorship,' which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits. 'We learn by making analogies,' Hirsch said. 'Now the university is saying that's off-limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?' A spokesperson for Columbia didn't respond to an emailed request for comment. The 'weaponization' of an educational framework When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he 'never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.' At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said. In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its 'weaponization' against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews. ' People who believe they're combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,' he said. 'But when used in this context, it's really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.' Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia's leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university's current interim president. The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for 'training and educational' purposes. Then last week, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing 'discriminatory intent.' 'The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community's understanding of modern antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move 'appalling," predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing pro-Palestinian speech. Already, the university's disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups. 'With this new edict on IHRA, you're going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what's in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,' he said. 'That will undoubtedly harm the university.' Calls to 'self-terminate' Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests and coordinate antisemitism trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Earlier this week, the university suspended or expelled nearly 80 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said Columbia's actions were an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment. He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, which he said would 'provide clarity, transparency and standardization' to the university's effort to root out antisemitism. 'There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,' Marcus said. 'To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.' But Hirsch, the Columbia professor, said she was committed to continuing her long-standing study of genocides and their aftermath. Part of that work, she said, will involve talking to students about Israel's "ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide' in Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have died, over half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. 'With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,' Hirsch said. 'If that's the case, I'll continue my work outside the university's gates.'
Spectator
a minute ago
- Spectator
Why one US diplomat thinks Ireland has ‘fallen into a vat of Guinness'
US diplomat Mike Huckabee was dead right to question whether Ireland had 'fallen into a vat of Guinness.' Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, played into stereotypical tropes on the Irish and alcohol when he made that comment last week. But it is, he reckoned, the only possible explanation for Ireland's looming ban on Israeli settlement goods, despite ominous soundings from the US over the potentially ruinous consequences. This bill is so stupid it amounts to 'diplomatic intoxication', he concluded. To answer his question, Ireland is not drunk. More's the pity. It is preparing to commit economic suicide while cold stone sober, just to tighten the screws on Israel. Huckabee's remarks, which point to a deepening rift between Dublin and Washington, have certainly focused minds in the US. Twelve prominent US politicians and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have now warned Ireland of the economic and diplomatic fallout of the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill (PIGS). This row is gaining traction on Capitol Hill and ensuring Ireland is making global headlines – for all the wrong reasons. International law expert Eugene Kontorovich explained in the Wall Street Journal how banning trade with Israeli settlements could force American companies operating in Ireland to violate US federal law on illegal Israeli boycotts. 'Dublin seeks to take the place of Damascus as the centre of Israeli boycotts. But Syria was an economic backwater. Ireland has a lot more to lose,' he said. When it was first introduced in 2018, what was then the 'Occupied Territories Bill,' quickly sparked a backlash. Former US Ambassador to Ireland, Dan Mulhall, said he was deluged with calls asking, 'What is Ireland at?' Riddled with legal problems from the start, it was left to wither on the vine. That was until October 2023, when pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli groups thought it the perfect time to resurrect it and ramp up the pressure. They were pushing against an open door with foreign affairs minister Simon Harris. Instead of sending them packing, he caved in and re-introduced the ban on trading with settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank under a new name. It isn't clear that this is what Irish voters actually want. The general nervousness about the blowback from Ireland's largest export market, the US, was reflected in a recent national opinion poll in Ireland: 48 per cent want the bill dropped altogether or paused until the economic consequences are fully examined, with a further 17 per cent undecided. Harris and Taoiseach Micheal Martin face a stark choice; drop the bill and be crucified by the hard left and hostile anti-Israeli NGOs. Or continue to push it and hope Ireland's economy doesn't sink if US multinationals quit, leaving 370,000 job losses in their wake. Martin must know all too well that the Irish economy is artificially propped up by billions in revenue from US tech giants. Last November, Martin said Ireland could lose €10 billion (£8.7 billion) in corporation tax if just three US multinationals were repatriated under a hostile Donald Trump administration. The context then was Trump's tariffs, but it underlined the scale of Ireland's dependency on US multinationals. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council reported that foreign-owned multinationals – the majority US-owned – contributed 84 per cent of the total corporation tax revenue in 2023. This swelled Ireland's coffers by €20 billion (£17.36 billion), roughly equating to the combined spending on hospitals and schools in that year. As one US senator put it: 'If Ireland wanted to end foreign direct investment into Ireland, it could not have chosen a better way to do it.' Former justice minister Alan Shatter labelled the bill a 'Father Ted' measure reminiscent of the comedy set on a craggy island off Ireland's west coast – something Ireland's Taoiseach took great umbrage at. The Taoiseach was asked directly if the government had sought legal opinion on the position of US multinationals if this bill is enacted. We are none the wiser. Irish business leaders are not so coy; they say the consequences for Ireland are real and significant. Ireland is not up against the might of Israel on this, but that of the US. And that is before we get to the added risk of infringing EU law by imposing a unilateral trade ban, as UK international law expert Natasha Hausdorff told the Dail pre legislative hearings in painstaking detail earlier this month. The glazed eyes of the assembled politicians and the blustering, emotive, responses made for depressing viewing. Whatever one thinks about the moral argument, this bill is a massive overreach that will not save a single life in Gaza. Yet the entire Irish political establishment is ideologically wedded to it. Junior foreign affairs minister Thomas Byrne let the cat out of the bag last week when asked by Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, if he was concerned about the potential cost to Ireland. 'Of course,' he replied, but I am more concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.' Martin also offered some insight into the government's mindset by saying he wanted the bill passed while ensuring Ireland's economy did not suffer 'unduly.' Which presupposes there will be some suffering, it's just a question of degree. Should the worst happen, and tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Irish workers lose their jobs if US multinationals shut up shop, well, they can take comfort knowing Ireland 'did the right thing' as they make their way to the dole queue. Unless, as Ambassador Huckabee suggests, Ireland 'sobers up' before it is too late.
The National
24 minutes ago
- The National
It's long past time to probe Donald Trump's dealings
Despite the strong appetite for land reform, and the widely held view that Scotland should not be a country where the super-rich can buy any land they want to turn it into their own personal playground, this is exactly what he's been allowed to do. His golf development caused direct environmental harm, but also gave profile to his climate denial conspiracies and his effort to derail our renewable energy industry. READ MORE: If I was John Swinney, here's what I would say to Donald Trump Scotland should not be a country where we allow billionaires and their business interests to go unchecked, especially when they have been cited by courts in felony charges against the individual. But that is exactly how the Scottish Government plans on treating Trump, a convicted criminal, who is here in a personal capacity but will be back for his second state visit as president of the United States. Five years ago, I first called for an investigation of Trump's finances in Scotland through an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO). This power enables the Scottish Government to investigate the finances of individuals who are politically active and have acquired wealth through suspicious means. Given that the criminal charges brought against Trump in New York cited his Menie golf estate in Aberdeenshire, getting answers from the Trump Organisation as to the valuation of his property and where he got the money from is the responsible thing for our own government to do. Otherwise, we are sending a global message that wealthy individuals in positions of power like Trump are above the law. That sets a dangerous precedent, one that cannot become Scotland's legacy. This is a critical time to hold the super-rich to account. The billionaire class has been getting ever richer, while international aid programmes and investment in public services are cut, causing untold suffering. READ MORE: What's your message to Donald Trump as he arrives in Scotland? We asked Glaswegians Big polluters keep raking in the profits, while governments claim they don't have the power or money to achieve a just transition. Trump is just one very high-profile example, but his political power and his long history should make him top of the list for accountability. Before we consider the dangerous far-right agenda he's pursuing as US president, he is first and foremost a man with decades of scandal behind him. During that time, he has sold everything from property to ties – but most notably sold his own name to other enterprises. He has faced many losses with business ventures going bust and claiming bankruptcy. And yet he continues to keep a foothold in Scotland, with his golf estates barely turning profits until after he was charged and scrutinised in court. Scotland is not in short supply of golf courses, but it seems that we are in short supply of moral fibre. That was demonstrated when the Scottish planning system was overturned to allow him to build his golf course in the first place, trashing a piece of coastline which, at least on paper, had the highest level of environmental protection possible. But that same lack of courage in holding the super-rich to account is still being demonstrated today, with every day that passes without the Government using its power to find out where the money for Trump's business dealings in Scotland actually came from. Trump is a politically active individual who has purposely shielded his tax information to avoid public scrutiny, the first US president who is a convicted criminal, and an individual with dozens of allegations of sexual assault spanning back to the 1970s. READ MORE: Timings of Donald Trump visit to Scotland revealed as flight restrictions in place But the title of president does not make him immune to following laws in his own country or ours. If anything, it should make our Government duty-bound to enforce those laws and hold him to account, to set an example for the world to follow. Self-proclaimed elites like Trump do not get a free pass just because they are powerful. He must face the same scrutiny and legal challenges as our own politicians and citizens do. We cannot continue to have a 'special relationship' with someone who flouts our rules and treats our country like his personal playground, while trashing our environment and undermining our energy transition. It is time for the Scottish Government to take heed of our long-standing call and investigate Trump with a UWO, instead of cosying up to him and trying to win his favour.
