SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
department of justice
A Timeline of Trump’s Futile Epstein Diversions
For months, US President Trump has tried to divert public attention from the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell files. But he can’t shake the story, and it keeps getting worse.
Aug 27, 2025
Drip, drip, drip…
For months, US President Trump has tried to divert public attention from the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell files. But he can’t shake the story, and it keeps getting worse.
The Reversal
Trump campaigned for the presidency on the promise to release all of the files relating to Epstein’s sex trafficking in minors. To supercharge his MAGA base, he fueled conspiracy theories that the files contained something sinister involving prominent Democrats.
February 2025: Trump’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, told a Fox News interviewer that Epstein’s client list was sitting on her desk, awaiting her review before its release.
May: Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche informed Trump that his name appeared in the Epstein files, the New York Times later reported.
July 7: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel—who had also pushed conspiracy theories about the files during Trump’s campaign—issued a two-page memo stating that there was no Epstein client list and that the Justice Department (DOJ) would not release any additional materials relating to the matter.
July 16: Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Maurene Comey was fired. Comey was a lead prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of Epstein and his coconspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. She was also the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey and chief of the Violent and Organized Crime Unit. The memo gave no reason for Comey’s abrupt termination.
July 17: The Wall Street Journal published Trump’s alleged birthday note to Epstein that included his sketch of a naked woman.
The Blowback
Trump’s MAGA base erupted in anger over his refusal to release the DOJ’s Epstein files. Trying to appease his followers, Trump directed Bondi to ask that the courts release the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts. It was disingenuous because: 1) the courts were not likely to release the material; and 2) even if they did, the transcripts would constitute a small fraction of the Justice Department’s Epstein-Maxwell files.
July 23: A Florida judge denied Bondi’s motion to release the files relating to the Justice Department’s Epstein investigations in 2005 and 2007 that had resulted in a non-prosecution agreement. Trump’s then-Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta had negotiated the agreement with Epstein’s high-powered lawyers while serving as US attorney for the Southern District of Florida during George W. Bush’s presidency.
The Blunder
July 24: Deputy Attorney General (and Trump’s former personal attorney) Todd Blanche flew to Tallahassee and met with Maxwell for two days—an unprecedented visit for a No. 2 official in the Justice Department. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
July 31: Contrary to prison assignment policies for sex offenders, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons transferred Maxwell from a Tallahassee prison to a “Club Fed” camp in Texas.
The Boomerang
August 11: A federal judge in New York denied Bondi’s motion to unseal Maxwell’s grand jury files. The court observed that anyone “who reviewed these materials expecting, based on the Government’s representations, to learn new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes and the investigation into them, would come away feeling disappointed and misled. There is no ‘there’ there.”
The entire exercise was a farce—another Trump con job:
The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at “transparency” but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such.
August 20: A different federal judge in New York blasted Bondi’s motion to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts. Describing the “trove” of materials that the Justice Department had assembled but withheld from the public, the court observed:
The Government’s 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials.
Trump’s directive that Bondi seek the release of the grand jury materials was always a ruse. As the court continued:
The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein files. By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a “diversion” from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession.
The court specifically called out Trump’s about-face on releasing the files:
In February 2025, the Government, as noted, was prepared to release the “Epstein Files” to the public. See DOJ Press Release. But then, on July 6, 2025, the Government announced that it would not make the files available to the public.
And the judge concluded: “The information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.”
The Newest Scam
Meanwhile, on August 5, several Republicans voted with Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to force chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) to subpoena the Justice Department for the Epstein-Maxwell materials. Comer also issued deposition subpoenas to former Attorneys General William Barr, Merrick Garland, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and Alberto Gonzales; former FBI Director James Comey; former special counsel and FBI Director Robert Mueller III; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and former President Bill Clinton.
That’s superficially impressive, but purely performative. Notably missing from the committee’s witness list are the frontline prosecutors and investigators who actually know something meaningful about the Epstein-Maxwell cases.
One is Maurene Comey.
August 22: The FBI’s surprise search of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s home and office dominated the media. Coincidentally, the Justice Department also released a transcript of Blanche’s July interview with Maxwell during which she asserted that no one connected with Epstein’s alleged crimes had done anything wrong—including her and, of course, Trump, upon whom she lavished praise.
Sharing the news cycle was the Justice Department’s production of documents to the House Oversight Committee. It provided a fraction of the DOJ’s Epstein file, and only 3% was new.
August 25: The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed materials from Epstein’s estate and announced that it will depose Alex Acosta on September 19.
Drip, drip, drip…
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is 'Free' From Custody, En Route to Family in Maryland
He now awaits trial in what his lawyers argue is a "vindictive prosecution" by the Justice Department.
Aug 22, 2025
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man whom the Trump administration wrongfully deported in violation of a judge's order earlier this year, was released from custody in Tennessee on Friday.
"Today, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free," his attorney, Sean Hecker, said. "He is presently en route to his family in Maryland, after being unlawfully arrested and deported, and then imprisoned, all because of the government's vindictive attack on a man who had the courage to fight back against the administration's continuing assault on the rule of law. He is grateful that his access to American courts has provided meaningful due process."
The Trump administration acknowledged that its deportation of Garcia to languish in a prison camp in El Salvador in March was the result of an "administrative error." But it fought to keep him there based on unsubstantiated charges that he was a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, even after the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the administration must facilitate his return.
Abrego Garcia was one of more than 200 people deported to the CECOT prison without trial—the vast majority of whom were found to have never been convicted of or even charged with a crime. While there, he says he endured beatings and psychological torture before being brought back to the United States in June.
The Justice Department hit him with charges for human smuggling, which his lawyer Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg has described as "preposterous" and a way for the Trump administration to save face after an egregious miscarriage of justice. Nearly a month after a judge ordered his release from custody, Abrego Garcia is now heading back to Maryland, where he will await trial.
His lawyers argue that the DOJ "has engaged in a vindictive prosecution, seeking to penalize Abrego Garcia for asserting his rights, rather than accepting an unjust outcome."
In a motion to dismiss the case filed this week, the attorneys argued that "such tactics are inconsistent with principles of fairness and justice, and that the prosecution should be dismissed."
As evidence of this, his lawyers have cited a claim from a former Justice Department lawyer who says he was fired after refusing to file a misleading brief claiming Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.
The Trump administration, which has argued that Abrego Garcia is not entitled to due process because of his immigration status, has threatened to immediately return him to Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) detention and deport him to a third country. However, last month, US District Judge Paula Xinis, who is overseeing his case, barred ICE from immediately rearresting him.
If he is taken into custody, US Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes has ordered that he be given access to his attorneys.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) has said Abrego Garcia's release was "fantastic news!"
"I am thrilled for Kilmar Abrego Garcia!" she wrote on X. "The Trump administration must stop their unfounded investigations and let his family remain together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump 2.0’s Mass Denaturalizations Will Make the US Less Diverse and Less Free
Although denaturalization rates have declined over the past several decades, there is ample historical precedent for the revival U.S. President Donald Trump is planning.
Aug 06, 2025
There are nearly 25 million naturalized citizens in the United States, accounting for 7% of the total population. Each and every one of them should be laser-focused on the Trump administration’s plans to denaturalize and deport as many of them as possible.
Denaturalization is the process by which the federal government revokes the citizenship of persons born outside of the country who became citizens by meeting the standards set by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which include swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States, and demonstrating “good moral character.”
Although denaturalization rates have declined over the past several decades, there is ample historical precedent for the revival U.S. President Donald Trump is planning. Between 1906 and 1967—when the Supreme Court stepped in to tighten the legal requirements—more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Many were left-wing activists who were singled out during the two Red Scares of the 20th century. A common method to denaturalize them was to accuse them of fraud in taking their oaths of allegiance. In 1919, in perhaps the most famous case of all, the government deported Emma Goldman to Russia under the Anarchist Exclusion Act after revoking her naturalized citizenship. In the 1950s, the government tried but failed to denaturalize labor leader Harry Bridges.
On June 11, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote a memorandum that lists denaturalization as one of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) top legal objectives to further Trump’s political goals. The memo was directed to the DOJ’s Civil Division, the department’s largest litigating component, which represents the United States and its executive agencies, members of Congress, cabinet officers, and other federal employees in thousands of legal matters each year. It instructed the division’s attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” focusing on 10 broad categories of enforcement actions:
1. Cases against individuals who pose a potential danger to national security, including those with a nexus to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, or information raising national security concerns;
2. Cases against individuals who engaged in torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations;
3. Cases against individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels;
4. Cases against individuals who committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization process;
5. Cases against individuals who committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;
6. Cases against individuals who engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program [“PPP”] loan fraud and Medicaid or Medicare fraud);
7. Cases against individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations;
8. Cases against individuals who acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations, not otherwise addressed by another priority category;
9. Cases referred by a United States Attorney’s Office or in connection with pending criminal charges, if those charges do not fit within one of the other priorities; and
10. Any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the Division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.
The first nine categories are generally consistent with the government’s existing powers, reflecting Trump’s penchant for exploiting the loopholes and weak links in current law whenever feasible. The 10th category, however, is a wildcard that could expand those powers exponentially and lead to a Red Scare encore.
And as dark and dangerous as that possibility sounds, it may be perfectly legal.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the first naturalization act in 1790, and ratified additional acts well into the late 19th century. But it was not until the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1906 that Congress federalized naturalization procedures. The act incorporated earlier race-based legislation that limited naturalization to white people and those with African origins. It also created the Bureau of Immigration Services, the precursor of the present-day U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, which promulgated uniform application forms, and began the process of moving naturalization jurisdiction to the federal courts. (Prior to 1906, immigrants were able to apply for citizenship before any court of record, including state and municipal courts. In 1990, Congress shifted jurisdiction from the federal courts to the executive branch, where it remains to this day, although naturalization ceremonies are still conducted by federal district court judges.)
The Naturalization Act of 1906 was also the first federal law that provided for denaturalization, centered on individuals who had obtained citizenship by fraud, were racially ineligible, and lacked “good moral character.” The act was amended on several occasions, most notably in 1952 by the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter Act, which added provisions for denaturalization based on activities deemed subversive or connected to communist or communist-front organizations.
Even if Trump’s threats against O’Donnell, Musk, and Mamdani are basically performative, thousands of less affluent naturalized citizens will likely be caught up in the coming denaturalization dragnet.
Today’s denaturalization procedures are set forth in two sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1451 authorizes the Department of Justice to institute civil proceedings, alleging that citizenship was “illegally procured” or obtained “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” The section also mandates denaturalization for individuals who refuse to testify before a congressional committee concerning their alleged subversive activities in cases where they have been convicted of contempt for such refusals.
Section 1425 of Title 8 authorizes criminal prosecutions, making it a felony punishable by 25 years in prison to knowingly procure, “contrary to law, the naturalization of any person.” A conviction results in automatic denaturalization.
Once denaturalized under either section, a person returns to their immigration status before becoming a citizen, rendering them vulnerable to deportation.
It’s easy to see why Trump and his advisers have opted to emphasize civil denaturalization proceedings over criminal prosecutions. In civil cases, there is no right to a jury trial or court appointed counsel, and there is no statute of limitations. The standard of proof is also lower. According to the Supreme Court’s precedent decisions, to prevail, the government must present “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that the targeted individual obtained citizenship illegally or willfully misrepresented a material fact during the naturalization process. That is a rigorous test, but one far lower than the “beyond a reasonable” doubt standard for criminal prosecutions.
The first Trump administration attempted to make denaturalization a priority, launching an initiative dubbed “Second Look,” which built upon a similar Obama administration program called “Operation Janus” to identify alleged terrorists and fraudsters who had naturalized. In the end, however, Trump 1.0 filed a mere 102 denaturalization cases, amounting to an annual rate higher than the 16 cases per year filed under former President Barack Obama, and eclipsing the total of 24 cases filed under former President Joe Biden, but still miniscule. This time around, Trump 2.0 is pledging to bring the resources of the entire DOJ civil division behind the effort, reviving the specter of mass denaturalization.
The Shumate memo had largely flown under the media’s radar until Trump started talking in early July about deporting former best bro Elon Musk and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, and stripping comedian and longtime celebrity nemesis Rosie O’Donnell of her citizenship.
O’Donnell, who is seeking dual citizenship in Ireland, appears safe from Trump’s clutches as she was born in Commack, New York, and enjoys birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Even Trump’s January executive order attacking birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants would leave her unscathed.
Musk and Mamdani are another story, as both are naturalized citizens. Musk, born in South Africa, naturalized in 2002. Mamdani, born in Uganda to Indian parents, naturalized in 1998. Musk allegedly worked illegally in the U.S. in violation of his student visa after leaving Stanford University in 1995. Mamdani has been accused of posting comments on X quoting rap lyrics suggesting support for Hamas.
Even if Trump’s threats against O’Donnell, Musk, and Mamdani are basically performative, thousands of less affluent naturalized citizens will likely be caught up in the coming denaturalization dragnet. Millions more who are not targeted will be intimidated from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and full political engagement. The net result will be a society less diverse and less free for the vast majority, exactly what Donald Trump and his cohorts want.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular