How to End the Epstein Follies
The House is breaking early for the summer to avoid votes on forcing disclosure. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI director Kash Patel now insist the files contain plenty of child porn that Epstein downloaded, but no 'client list' or predicate for new charges. But Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel previously fueled the idea that more would be coming that might unravel a grand conspiracy, and they also won their offices because of loyalty to Mr. Trump.
President Biden held the keys to the Epstein file cabinet for four years after the man killed himself in his jail cell in 2019. Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. As for the rest of the material, Mr. Biden's appointees apparently came to a similar conclusion that it was unactionable. Democrats indicted Mr. Trump four times in 2023, and if he was implicated in the Epstein files, wouldn't they have acted then?
Yet Democrats today are trolling Mr. Trump for fun and political profit, accusing him of covering up damaging information that the Biden Administration also didn't release. 'The American people have a right to know what happened,' Sen. Chuck Schumer said this week. He suggested the House GOP maybe 'declared the 'Epstein Recess' to give Trump time to prepare papers for the pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell.'
The Trump Administration has tried to placate Epstein theorists. In February a group of MAGA influencers brought to the White House were given binders labeled, 'The Epstein Files: Phase 1.' When this material was found to include little new information, Ms. Bondi blamed the FBI for withholding other documents, and she soon assured the public that another 'truckload' of evidence had just arrived.
In March the Journal reported that federal agents going through the documents were told to redact identifying information of victims, but not other names, meaning 'details of witnesses, victims' relatives and people close to them could become public.' If reviewers came across clothed photographs, they were told 'to only black out the victim's face.'
Ultimately, the Justice Department and FBI determined that no further disclosure is appropriate. 'Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials,' they said. 'This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history.' Much of the evidence is sealed by court order, and 'only a fraction' would have been aired at Epstein's trial.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said this week he stands by that memo, even as he was dispatched to interview Ms. Maxwell. If she 'has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Mr. Blanche said. One presumes the feds asked that question as they put her on trial, convicted her, and sentenced her to prison for 20 years.
The Journal broke the story Wednesday that Mr. Bondi informed Mr. Trump in May that his name appears in the files, along with hundreds of other people. This is news, especially given that Mr. Trump has denied being told any such thing. But it's hardly a shock that Mr. Trump appears in the material, since the two once socialized together. One Epstein victim alleged she was pulled into the abuser's orbit while working at Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Trump later kicked Epstein out of the club.
***
If Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel are now telling the truth about the contents of the Epstein files, then what's needed are officials who will take the responsibility—and then take the heat—for declining to publish documents that could hurt victims and ruin reputations without a criminal case. It's too bad Mr. Trump didn't pick an Attorney General in the mold of Bill Barr, an experienced hand who could offer that kind of straight talk without worrying about the conspiracy-minded podcast attacks.
But perhaps Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel could call a news conference, provide context on the mentions of Mr. Trump, and explain why releasing raw files could do more harm than good. Bring FBI deputy director Dan Bongino, if he'll show up. Then they and Mr. Trump could tell the public that the files didn't live up to the hype, including theirs before they took office, the case is closed, and that's that.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The chatbot culture wars are here
For much of the past decade, America's partisan culture warriors have fought over the contested territory of social media — arguing about whether the rules on Facebook and Twitter were too strict or too lenient, whether YouTube and TikTok censored too much or too little and whether Silicon Valley tech companies were systematically silencing right-wing voices. Those battles aren't over. But a new one has already started. This fight is over artificial intelligence, and whether the outputs of leading AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are politically biased. Conservatives have been taking aim at AI companies for months. In March, House Republicans subpoenaed a group of leading AI developers, probing them for information about whether they colluded with the Biden administration to suppress right-wing speech. And this month, Missouri's Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, opened an investigation into whether Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI are leading a 'new wave of censorship' by training their AI systems to give biased responses to questions about President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, Trump himself joined the fray, issuing an executive order on what he called 'woke AI.' 'Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke,' he said in a speech. 'The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models, and neither do other countries.' The order was announced alongside a new White House AI action plan that will require AI developers that receive federal contracts to ensure that their models' outputs are 'objective and free from top-down ideological bias.' Republicans have been complaining about AI bias since at least early last year, when a version of Google's Gemini AI system generated historically inaccurate images of the American Founding Fathers, depicting them as racially diverse. That incident drew the fury of online conservatives, and led to accusations that leading AI companies were training their models to parrot liberal ideology. Since then, top Republicans have mounted pressure campaigns to try to force AI companies to disclose more information about how their systems are built, and tweak their chatbots' outputs to reflect a broader set of political views. Now, with the White House's executive order, Trump and his allies are using the threat of taking away lucrative federal contracts — OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and xAI were recently awarded Defense Department contracts worth as much as $200 million — to try to force AI companies to address their concerns. The order directs federal agencies to limit their use of AI systems to those that put a priority on 'truth-seeking' and 'ideological neutrality' over disfavored concepts such as diversity, equity and inclusion. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to agencies about which systems meet those criteria. If this playbook sounds familiar, it's because it mirrors the way Republicans have gone after social media companies for years — using legal threats, hostile congressional hearings and cherry-picked examples to pressure companies into changing their policies, or removing content they don't like. Critics of this strategy call it 'jawboning,' and it was the subject of a high-profile Supreme Court case last year. In that case, Murthy v. Missouri, it was Democrats who were accused of pressuring social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to take down posts on topics such as the coronavirus vaccine and election fraud, and Republicans challenging their tactics as unconstitutional. (In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected the challenge, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing.) Now, the parties have switched sides. Republican officials, including several Trump administration officials I spoke to who were involved in the executive order, are arguing that pressuring AI companies through the federal procurement process is necessary to stop AI developers from putting their thumbs on the scale. Is that hypocritical? Sure. But recent history suggests that working the refs this way can be effective. Meta ended its long-standing fact-checking program this year, and YouTube changed its policies in 2023 to allow more election denial content. Critics of both changes viewed them as capitulation to right-wing critics. This time around, the critics cite examples of AI chatbots that seemingly refuse to praise Trump, even when prompted to do so, or Chinese-made chatbots that refuse to answer questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. They believe developers are deliberately baking a left-wing worldview into their models, one that will be dangerously amplified as AI is integrated into fields such as education and health care. There are a few problems with this argument, according to legal and tech policy experts I spoke to. The first, and most glaring, is that pressuring AI companies to change their chatbots' outputs may violate the First Amendment. In recent cases like Moody v. NetChoice, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of social media companies to enforce their own content moderation policies. And courts may reject the Trump administration's argument that it is trying to enforce a neutral standard for government contractors, rather than interfering with protected speech. 'What it seems like they're doing is saying, 'If you're producing outputs we don't like, that we call biased, we're not going to give you federal funding that you would otherwise receive,'' Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said. 'That seems like an unconstitutional act of jawboning.' There is also the problem of defining what, exactly, a 'neutral' or 'unbiased' AI system is. Today's AI chatbots are complex, probability-based systems that are trained to make predictions, not give hard-coded answers. Two ChatGPT users may see wildly different responses to the same prompts, depending on variables like their chat histories and which versions of the model they're using. And testing an AI system for bias isn't as simple as feeding it a list of questions about politics and seeing how it responds. Samir Jain, a vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit civil liberties group, said the Trump administration's executive order would set 'a really vague standard that's going to be impossible for providers to meet.' There is also a technical problem with telling AI systems how to behave. Namely, they don't always listen. Just ask Elon Musk. For years, Musk has been trying to create an AI chatbot, Grok, that embodies his vision of a rebellious, 'anti-woke' truth seeker. But Grok's behavior has been erratic and unpredictable. At times, it adopts an edgy, far-right personality, or spouts antisemitic language in response to user prompts. (For a brief period last week, it referred to itself as 'Mecha-Hitler.') At other times, it acts like a liberal — telling users, for example, that human-made climate change is real, or that the right is responsible for more political violence than the left. Recently, Musk has lamented that AI systems have a liberal bias that is 'tough to remove, because there is so much woke content on the internet.' Nathan Lambert, a research scientist at the Allen Institute for AI, told me that 'controlling the many subtle answers that an AI will give when pressed is a leading-edge technical problem, often governed in practice by messy interactions made between a few earlier decisions.' It's not, in other words, as straightforward as telling an AI chatbot to be less woke. And while there are relatively simple tweaks that developers could make to their chatbots — such as changing the 'model spec,' a set of instructions given to AI models about how they should act — there's no guarantee that these changes will consistently produce the behavior conservatives want. But asking whether the Trump administration's new rules can survive legal challenges, or whether AI developers can actually build chatbots that comply with them, may be beside the point. These campaigns are designed to intimidate. And faced with the potential loss of lucrative government contracts, AI companies, like their social media predecessors, may find it easier to give in than to fight. 'Even if the executive order violates the First Amendment, it may very well be the case that no one challenges it,' Lakier said. 'I'm surprised by how easily these powerful companies have folded.'


Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Who is eligible for US visa interview waiver? Key changes, additional criteria — all you need to know
The US Department of State has unveiled significant changes to its visa interview waiver policy, effective September 2. This would include all non-immigrant visa applicants, including those under the age of 14 and over 79 years, to attend an in-person interview with a consular officer. The non-immigrant visa categories include tourist and business visas (B-1/B-2), student visas (F and M), work visas (H-1B), and exchange visas (J). Diplomatic visas fall under categories A and G. The latest update on July 25, which aims to enhance security, has raised concerns among H-1B visa holders and other nonimmigrant visa categories about increased waiting time and processing delays. All nonimmigrant visa applicants, including applicants under the age of 14 and over the age of 79, will generally require an in-person interview with a consular officer, except for the following categories: To qualify for an interview waiver, applicants must: The US Citizenship and Immigration Services emphasised that even with potential interview waivers, consular officers retained the discretion to interview the applicant on a case-by-case basis for any reason. This supersedes the Interview Waiver Update of February 18, 2025. 'Consular officers may still require in-person interviews on a case-by-case basis for any reason. Applicants should check embassy and consulate websites for more detailed information about visa application requirements and procedures, and to learn more about the embassy or consulate's operating status and services,' the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said in its release. Earlier this month, the US also introduced a new $250 Visa Integrity Fee, which takes effect in 2026. Designed as a form of security deposit, the fee is pegged to inflation and may be refunded if visa holders meet specific compliance criteria. This is part of Trump's sweeping immigration overhaul, under the recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4.


Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US commerce secretary says Trump really likes TikTok, but app has to move to US ownership
U.S. President Donald Trump likes TikTok but the Chinese-owned short video app, used by some 170 million Americans, has to move to U.S. ownership, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said on Sunday. 'The President really likes TikTok, and he said it over and over again, because, you know, it was a good way to communicate with young people,' Lutnick said in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Shannon Bream. 'But let's face it, you can't have the Chinese have an app on 100 million American phones, that is just not okay. So, it's got to move to American ownership, it's got to move to American technology, American algorithms,' he said. 'I know the President is positive towards TikTok, if it can move into American hands.'