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
justice department
The Epstein Conspiracy Flames That Trump Fanned Are Now Blowing Back on Him
In 2019, then first-term President Donald Trump jumped aboard the Epstein conspiracy bandwagon. Six years later, he’s now trying desperately to stop it.
Jul 29, 2025
On August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein—accused of sex trafficking in minor girls—committed suicide in his jail cell while awaiting trial, and a new conspiracy theory was born: Powerful forces silenced him. Releasing the Justice Department’s files on Epstein would reveal a “client list” of high-profile individuals, including prominent Democrats, who had a motive to kill him.
Then-President Donald Trump jumped aboard the conspiracy bandwagon. Six years later, he’s now trying desperately to stop it.
Setting the Stage
Hours after Epstein’s death, Trump retweeted a post alleging that former U.S. President Bill Clinton was connected to Epstein’s death. Trump’s supporters dutifully followed his lead:
- When he was a Senate candidate in 2021, JD Vance posted on Twitter: “Remember when we learned that our wealthiest and most powerful people were connected to a guy who ran a literal child sex trafficking ring? And then that guy died mysteriously in a jail? And now we just don’t talk about it.”
- In 2023, before Dan Bongino became Trump’s deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he told his podcast audience, “Listen, that Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal. Please do not let that story go. Keep your eye on this... [W]hat the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein?”—without specifying who “they” were. Shortly before joining the Trump administration, he added, “Who’s on those tapes? Who’s in those black books? Why have they been hiding it?”
- In December 2023, a right-wing podcaster asked Kash Patel—a fierce Trump loyalist who is now FBI director—why the government was blocking the Epstein client list. Patel answered, “Simple, because of who’s on that list—Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.”
- During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he would declassify the Epstein files: “It’d be interesting to find out what happened there, because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn’t happen to be working, etc., etc. But yeah, I’d go a long way toward that one.”
- On a podcast during the 2024 campaign, Vice-Presidential candidate Vance asserted, "We need to release the Epstein list."
- In February 2025, Fox News reporter John Roberts asked Attorney General Pam Bondi whether the Justice Department would release Epstein’s list of clients: “Will that really happen?” Bondi responded: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump. I’m reviewing that.”
- During a podcast in June 2025, Patel said repeatedly that the administration would be forthcoming in its review of documents related to Epstein: “I’ve said it, Bongino has said it. We’ve reviewed all the information, and the American public is going to get as much as we can release… We’re going to give you every single thing we have and can.”
Trump set the stage. With his loyalists now running the FBI and the Justice Department, the public would finally see the Epstein files.
Oops–Nothing to See Here
The conspiracy flames that Trump fanned are now blowing back on him:
- On July 7, the FBI released an unsigned, two-page memo stating that its “systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list’,” “investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell,” and “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”
- Bondi now says that when she said that the client list was sitting on her desk, she wasn’t actually referring to a client list.
- Vance has assumed his familiar role—reversing a fervently held position to defend anything Trump does.
The Blowback
Some of Trump’s most dedicated allies were outraged at Trump’s stonewalling. He lashed out with diversions, distractions, and attacks. He accused former President Barack Obama of treason. He derided followers who “bought into this ‘bullshit’” as “PAST supporters.” And he blamed Democrats for starting the conspiracy theory in the first place:
“It was a hoax. It’s all been a big hoax. It’s perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net. And so they try and do the Democrats work. The Democrats are good for nothing other than these hoaxes.”
But then:
- July 17: The Wall Street Journal published Trump’s alleged birthday note to Epstein that included his sketch of a naked woman. Trump sued the paper and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, for defamation. He asserted that he doesn’t draw pictures, but copies of his earlier sketches soon swamped the internet. Some were auctioned for charity.
- Later that evening, Trump tried to quell the continuing uproar by ordering Bondi to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Epstein. But that was a head fake toward transparency because: 1) grand jury materials are a tiny slice of the Justice Department’s files on Epstein; and 2) the courts might not agree to release anything. In fact, on July 23 a federal judge in Florida denied the DOJ’s request. Another request is pending in New York.
- July 22: To avoid a House vote on a resolution urging the release of the Epstein files, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent lawmakers home early for the August recess.
- July 23: In a surprise show of defiance against Speaker Johnson, a Republican-controlled House Oversight subcommittee voted 8-to-2 to subpoena the Justice Department’s Epstein files.
The Unraveling
- Also on July 23: The New York Times reported that in May, Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche informed Trump that his name appeared in the Epstein files. The bureau had gone through more than 100,000 pages of materials four times—including once to flag any references to Trump and other prominent figures.
- July 24: Blanche—who was Trump’s personal lawyer in the Stormy Daniels “hush money” trial that culminated in his conviction on 34 felony counts—began a mission that was extraordinary for the Justice Department’s number two official. He went to Tallahassee and interviewed Ghislane Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking as Epstein’s procurer.
- July 25: After questioning Maxwell for two days, Blanche declared that the federal criminal investigation into targets beyond Maxwell and Epstein remained closed.
If the investigation into targets was closed, why was Blanche interviewing Maxwell?
The Next Act
On his way to Europe on July 25, a reporter asked Trump whether he would consider pardoning Maxwell. Trump responded, “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I haven’t thought about.”
After landing in Scotland, he denied that Bondi had briefed him on the Epstein matter in May: “No, I was never, never briefed, no.” He added, “I’m focused on making deals. I’m not focused on conspiracy theories.”
Ghislane Maxwell is focused on making a deal too. Trump is her ticket out of prison. The question is what she can offer that will prompt him to punch it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'All Are Now Vulnerable': Legal Scholars Alarmed as DOJ Begins Push to Denaturalize Citizens
"Anyone could be prioritized," a spokesperson for the ACLU told Common Dreams. "It's really chilling."
Jul 01, 2025
As the Trump administration has begun the push to strip citizenship from foreign-born Americans, legal scholars and advocates are calling it a dangerous step toward using citizenship as a political weapon.
On June 11, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an internal memo written by Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate calling on DOJ attorneys to pursue "civil denaturalization" of foreign-born U.S. citizens.
"The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence," the memo said, adding that it should be among the division's top five priorities.
It suggested a wide variety of citizens who could be targeted for denaturalization. This includes perpetrators of violent offenses like "torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations." But it also targets much broader groups of people such as those "who pose a potential danger to national security" or those who "acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations."
It also calls for "any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue."
Naureen Shah, director of government affairs for the ACLU's Equality Division, told Common Dreams that "it's another devastating attack by the Trump administration on people who they want to cast as not belonging here."
The memo's vague language has Shah and other legal scholars warning that denaturalization could become a tool to deport political opponents, an effort that would be harder for courts to stop following Friday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which hamstrung the ability of lower courts to stop illegal actions by the Trump administration using injunctions.
Joyce Vance, a former United States Attorney, who is now a law professor and a legal analyst for MSNBC and NBC, warned Tuesday about the possible implications on her blog Civil Discourse:
"It could be exercising First Amendment rights or encouraging diversity in hiring, now recast as fraud against the United States. Troublesome journalists who are naturalized citizens? Students? University professors? Infectious disease doctors who try to reveal the truth about epidemics? Lawyers?" Vance wrote. "All are now vulnerable to the vagaries of an administration that has shown a preference for deporting people without due process and dealing with questions that come up after the fact and with a dismissive tone."
"Anyone could be prioritized," Shah said. "It's really chilling."
Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western University, told NPR that it was "especially concerning" that the administration would plan to pursue denaturalization through civil court.
"Civil denaturalization cases provide no right to an attorney, meaning defendants without resources often face the government without representation," she wrote in a 2019 study on the history of denaturalization along with her colleague Irina Manta. "There are no jury trials, with judges making citizenship determinations alone. The burden of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' rather than the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Additionally, there is no statute of limitations, allowing the government to build cases on decades-old evidence that may be incomplete or unreliable."
Robertson said Trump's approach mirrors that undertaken during the McCarthy era, when those deemed "un-American" were stripped of citizenship due to their political views.
"At the height of denaturalization, there were about 22,000 cases a year of denaturalization filed, and this was on a smaller population. It was huge," she said.
The Supreme Court stepped in to reel back denaturalization in 1967, determining that, in Robertson's words, it was "inconsistent with the American form of democracy, because it creates two levels of citizenship." After that, the number of denaturalization cases plummeted to the single digits each year. The Trump administration seems to be hoping to reverse that trend.
Republican politicians have not been shy about calling for their political opponents to be stripped of citizenship. Last week, following Zohran Mamdani's shocking victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) called for the Ugandan-born state assemblyman to be stripped of his U.S. citizenship and "deported," referring to him as an "antisemitic, socialist, communist."
Ogles accused Mamdani of failing to disclose his political "affiliations or sympathies" during the process that led him to become a citizen in 2018. He singled out Mamdani's support for the Holy Land Foundation, whose leaders were convicted in a widely criticized "terrorism financing" case in 2008. Notably, the leaders of the group were never accused of directly funding terrorist groups or terrorist acts.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked about Ogles' call to deport Mamdani, and she did not shoot down the idea.
"I have not seen those claims, but surely if they are true, it's something that should be investigated," Leavitt said.
It was not the first time Republicans have called to deport leaders in the other party explicitly for their political views.
In June, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier called for the Trump administration to "deport and denaturalize" Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who came to the U.S. as a refugee from Somalia, after she criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of the military to quash protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration has already targeted lawful immigrants with deportation purely for their political views. In March, the administration abducted and attempted to deport pro-Palestine student activist Mahmoud Khalil, explicitly because he was a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States," similar language to what the DOJ now says is justification for denaturalization. The administration has also attempted to deport others, like Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, for as little as co-writing an op-ed calling on her university to divest from Israel.
"The way the memo is written, there is no guarantee DOJ will pursue cases against violent criminals," Vance said. "They could just do easy cases to ratchet up numbers, like we're seeing with deportation. Or they could target people who, they view as troublemakers."
There are more than 25 million people in the United States who are naturalized citizens.
"They should not have to live in fear that they'll lose their rights," Shah said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alcatraz Push 'No More Than a Sensational Distraction' From Trump's Attack on Public Safety
Less than two weeks ago, Trump's DOJ slashed nearly $1 billion from existing public safety grants that experts warn will "imperil public safety, not promote it."
May 05, 2025
Add "distraction" to the list of words being used to describe President Donald Trump's "psychotic," "deluded," and "unbefuckinglievable" talk about reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
In a statement to reporters on the White House lawn Sunday night, Trump said the idea for reopening Alcatraz—which he first floated in a social media post—was "just an idea I had" and that the prison was a "symbol of law and order."
But less than two weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered the cancellation of an estimated $811 million in grants for public safety from the Justice Department that experts and advocates say were proving successful at reducing crime and curbing harm in communities nationwide—all with bipartisan support.
"Alcatraz," said civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger in response to Trump's social media post—which sparked no shortage of headlines across the news media—is "no more than a sensational distraction from this: Trump just cut nearly $1 billion from bipartisan, proven, successful anti-crime, violence prevention programs around the country."
The various programs impacted by the grant cuts—including gun violence prevention and law enforcement trainings—said Hechinger, were designed to prevent crime "before people were ever harmed."
Arguing that Trump has made the country less safe, not more, by his policies, Hechinger added, "now he's stomping and parading around with big words and sensational capital letters about a wasteful reopening of a domestic torture complex that will never actually happen and do nothing to keep America safer. All while claiming to care about violence prevention. What a dangerous joke."
Lamenting the public safety grant cuts in a blog post last week, the Brennan Center for Justice's Rosemary Nidiry, senior counsel in the group's justice program, detailed how the grant funding slashed by Trump "filled critical gaps" in the nation's public safety infrastructure.
The grants, she noted, "supported victims of crime, trained law enforcement, offered treatment to people with behavioral health and substance issues, and helped people reintegrate into society after incarceration. They also promoted research used to create and guide effective policies. Many if not all were ended immediately and without warning, in the middle of a typical 3-year grant period, disrupting programs and creating financial strain for nonprofits."
"The slashed programs have been proven to make communities safer," wrote Nidiry, "and their end will in fact imperil public safety, not promote it."
When Alcatraz was closed by the Bureau of Prisons in 1963, the cost of running the crumbling facility was the primary driver of that decision.
As Newsweek reports, "Operating Alcatraz proved to be significantly more expensive than other federal prisons. In 1959, the daily per capita cost at Alcatraz was $10.10, compared with $3.00 at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, making it nearly three times more costly to operate. This high expense was largely due to the island's isolation, which necessitated that all supplies, including food, water, and fuel, be transported by boat. For instance, nearly one million gallons of fresh water had to be barged to the island each week."
In a letter on Friday, over three dozen Democratic lawmakers called on the Justice Department to reinstate $150 million in grants awarded for gun violence prevention.
"This funding, appropriated by Congress, directly contributes to making communities safer," the lawmakers stated in a letter. "We urge you to honor the grants already awarded and to implement this funding as Congress directed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular