Below are recent notable claims of sexual harassment, domestic violence and assault plus defenses. The reports are listed in reverse chronological order beginning in January 2024. They come primarily from U.S.-based claims of scandal within high-level government and business circles, including the media and entertainment sectors.

The #MeToo movement, a major topic in this catalog, became widely known in the fall of 2017. The movement had been founded by Tarana Burke (shown in a file photo at left) a little more than a decade previously. Now senior director for Girls for Gender Equity in Brooklyn, NY, she was honored with the 2018 Ridenhour Prize for courage in a ceremony attended by Justice Integrity Project Editor Andrew Kreig at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Editor's Note: Excerpts below are from the authors' words except for subheads and "Editor's notes."  This near-daily summary of #MeToo and related sexual assault news has been divided up to encompass the below news stories.
For previous periods extending back to 2018, kindly visit these links: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019. 2018

 

2024-25-26

2026

 

October

Oct. 3 

New York Times, Cornell Case Revives Anger About Handling of Campus Sexual Assault Cases, Sephanie Saul and Emma Goldberg, Oct. 3, 2026. A lawsuit alleging rape at Cornell has led to an outpouring of women sharing stories about sexual violence on college campuses.

Campus sexual assault survivors and their supporters have published essays in school newspapers and inundated social media in solidarity with the complainant, known in court records only as Jane Doe.

Some are using the familiar #MeToo hashtag of an earlier movement to combat sexual abuse and harassment. Others have adopted a new one: #IAmJaneDoe.

In one opinion article in the University of Pennsylvania campus newspaper, students wrote that “sexual violence happens far too often on college campuses everywhere.”

“It’s time to face the fact that the ‘Cornell incident’ isn’t just born of Cornell problems, or limited to a Cornell issue,” the students wrote.

The outrage flooding social media and rising up on campuses follows similar waves of disgust about campus sexual violence that emerged more than a decade ago and then reignited after the broader #MeToo reckoning that began with Hollywood sexual assault revelations. Driving the campaign in support of Ms. Doe is a feeling that not enough changed after similar movements.

The Penn students wrote, for example, that past responses have been bureaucratic, and that universities “prioritize bolstering their own image” instead of making deeper changes that protect women from assault.

Celebrities have also joined the outcry. Mariska Hargitay and her Joyful Heart Foundation, which supports domestic violence survivors, posted: “Survivors deserve to be believed and kept informed. Silence protects no one. To her: we support you.”

During an appearance in Ithaca, N.Y., Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the 2024 episode at Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity house part of a “culture of rape” on college campuses.

In the lawsuit, the young woman says she was assaulted at the Chi Phi house on Cornell’s campus, names seven men who were involved and says the university and law enforcement agencies did not do enough to punish or pursue prosecution of the men.

The men involved have denied the allegations, while the university, the fraternity and prosecutors have said they responded appropriately given the information they had at the time.

Lawyers point out the difficulty of prosecuting such cases in court, particularly when many complainants, including Ms. Doe, change their accounts over time. Records obtained by The New York Times present a murky picture of what took place. The woman indicated in one text message to one of the men that “nothing illegal” had happened. But she also told police investigators that “I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped.”

The widespread condemnation of accused men could create an unfair dynamic, according to Andrew T. Miltenberg, a lawyer for one of the Cornell men, Gillio Lopes. He said the “danger in a case like this is that an accusation, amplified often enough, can harden into a verdict before the evidence is ever tested.”

Mr. Miltenberg, known for representing students against sexual misconduct claims, said the attention was compounded by statements of public officials that seemed to side with Ms. Doe.

On Sept. 28, Attorney General Letitia James posted on X: “What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I’m holding her in my heart and prayers.”

Several days later, Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed Ms. James to take over investigating the case.

Mr. Lopes has unequivocally denied the allegations, Mr. Miltenberg said.

The online outpouring in support of Ms. Doe has also led to a backlash, with some right-wing commentators condemning her and others trying to reveal her identity.

Federal data shows that nationally, there were 6,000 to 6,200 reports of rapes on campus a year from 2014 to 2019, or about eight to 11 per 10,000 on-campus students. But reports declined drastically during the pandemic years, when many students took classes remotely. Since then, they have begun to rise again.

The data does not show how many reports resulted in action or were substantiated.

But the available data suggests the problem has been widespread. Over a quarter of undergraduate women reported some form of nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force, or because they were unable to consent, according to a large survey of students conducted by the Association of American Universities in 2019.

That survey also found evidence of a growing awareness about rules and resources, as universities built out new policies and training.

At Cornell, a survey conducted by the university found that roughly one-third of undergraduate women said they had unwanted sexual experiences.

For some current Cornell students and recent graduates, reading Ms. Doe’s claims of assault has prompted them to share memories of their own experiences of sexual misconduct. Many said that the allegations weren’t entirely surprising because of how often they had heard about friends who said they had been assaulted at parties.

“To be honest, there are so many during my time there that it almost feels like it all blurs into one,” said Claire Ting, who graduated from Cornell last year and served in student government, referring to conversations with friends about upsetting sexual experiences. “We would see posts and discussions talking about the sexual assaults that happened,” she added. “The buzz would die down and then it would happen again.”

The response, she said, was “hurdle after hurdle of bureaucracy.”

There have been other moments in recent decades when campus sexual assault has dominated the national conversation. When the documentary “The Hunting Ground” was released in 2015, for example, it galvanized a movement.

Lady Gaga sang the film’s theme song at the Oscars, where she was introduced by Joseph R. Biden Jr., then the vice president. At the time, statistics showed that one in four women on campus reported being sexual assault victims. Just months before the film’s release, the launch of a White House campaign to end campus sexual assault — “It’s On Us” — seemed to signal a changing tide.

More than a decade later, though, the allegations at Cornell prompted questions among survivors about whether anything has changed.

Kacey Lee, who graduated from Cornell in 2025, said she was both “shocked and not shocked” in the fall of 2024 when she heard about Ms. Doe’s reported assault.

“Being around frat culture and knowing how people can be there was a level of — not that I was expecting it, but I was not the most surprised,” Ms. Lee said.

While federal data shows that Cornell has reported as many as 28 campus rapes in some recent years, its on-campus undergraduate population is the largest of any Ivy League school. When adjusted for its size, Cornell mirrors many of its peer institutions.

New York Times, D.A. in Cornell Rape Inquiry Declined to Review Additional Evidence, Michael Rothfeld and Hurubie Meko, Updated Oct. 3, 2026. Records show that campus police officers informed Tompkins County prosecutors that they had conducted additional interviews beyond taking a statement from the woman who said she was raped.

The Tompkins County district attorney said recently that the evidence he reviewed in 2024 made it impossible for him to bring charges in the Cornell University rape inquiry.

But records obtained by The New York Times show that the same district attorney’s office declined to review any additional evidence gathered by the campus police department beyond a six-page statement signed by the former student, now known as Jane Doe.

The decision not to review the additional evidence has not been previously reported.

On Nov. 25, 2024, a Cornell police investigator, Jeffrey Northrop, spoke to a member of the district attorney’s staff, Jeff Huddle, about additional interviews the police had done, the records show.

Prosecutors did not express interest, saying they agreed that based on the woman’s statement, “criminal charges would not be pursued in this case,” Mr. Northrop wrote in a note documenting their call.

By that point, the police had conducted numerous interviews, reviewed chat messages, logged anonymous tips, reached out to lawyers for some of the accused men and spoken to at least two others, the records show.

On Friday, Gov. Kathy Hochul, left, harshly criticized the district attorney and the Cornell police for the way they handled the investigation and appointed Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor, giving her power to bring criminal charges.

All of the men named in the lawsuit have denied any wrongdoing, and none has been charged with a crime.

Reached on Thursday, the Tompkins County district attorney, Matthew Van Houten, right, said by email that any additional records gathered by the Cornell police were “not pertinent to our analysis because we had Jane Doe’s comprehensive account of the events.”

Mr. Huddle referred questions to the district attorney.

The interaction between Mr. Northrop and Mr. Van Houten’s office was one example of what experts said appeared to be numerous law enforcement shortcomings in the investigation of Jane Doe’s account.

Mr. Van Houten has said that based on Jane Doe’s lawsuit he would reopen the investigation.

But his office’s decision at the time not to examine additional evidence that had been gathered, or to seek any additional inquiry beyond a single — and as it turns out, incomplete — campus police statement, was a stark departure from how complicated sex crimes investigations should be handled, said former prosecutors and other experts.ImageMatthew Van Houten smiles for the camera. He is wearing a dark blue suit and striped tie.The Tompkins County district attorney Matthew Van Houten has been harshly criticized for his handling of the Cornell rape inquiry.Credit...Tompkins County District Attorney’s Office

Mr. Van Houten has defended his original decision not to prosecute, saying Jane Doe’s account in her police statement “described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious and consensual.”

He said the facts in her initial statement did not constitute a crime under New York law, and that he had never been contacted by Jane Doe or her lawyers before her lawsuit.

The former prosecutors, however, said the district attorney’s approach fell short in multiple ways, including his failure to bring Jane Doe in to be interviewed by his office and his apparent total reliance on a statement recorded — and, more broadly, an investigation conducted — by the university police.

“We would never rely on a campus police investigation,” said Rick Trunfio, a former sex crimes prosecutor in upstate New York and now an adjunct law professor at Syracuse University. “There’s too many problems with that.”

Mr. Trunfio and other experts said the investigation should have been handed off to a specialized police or prosecution team like the special victims bureau he founded at the Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office. Also problematic, he added, is that the Cornell University Police Department was “beholden” to the school, which would have had to report under federal law if a gang rape on campus was prosecuted by civilian authorities.

“You think Cornell University wants to report something like that?” Mr. Trunfio said.

A Cornell representative who speaks on behalf of the campus police declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

New York Times, Cornell President Calls Rape Inquiry ‘Defining Moment’ for Campus, Claire Fahy, Oct. 3, 2026. Michael I. Kotlikoff, below right, said in a video the university would be more transparent, hold Greek groups accountable and improve sexual assault prevention.

The president of Cornell University assured the campus community that officials would take action in the wake of sexual assault allegations, promising in his first personal statement about the incident that “this will not be a moment that passes.”

In an eight-minute video, the president, Michael I. Kotlikoff, acknowledged the distrust that has gripped his campus since a lawsuit alleging a gang rape at a campus fraternity garnered national attention. He promised that the university, which has been criticized for its handling of the initial allegations, would be more transparent going forward.

Mr. Kotlikoff, who has served in the role for about two years, struck a conciliatory tone, saying the university supported an independent investigation and would work to find ways to hold Greek life accountable.

“This has been one of the most difficult weeks in our history,” Mr. Kotlikoff said.

A woman, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, claimed in a lawsuit filed last month that she was sexually assaulted in October 2024 at a Chi Phi fraternity house on Cornell’s campus by seven men and that the school and local law enforcement failed to punish those involved appropriately. None of the accused men have been charged with a crime, and they have denied wrongdoing, and the university has defended its handling of the allegations.

The claims made in Jane Doe’s lawsuit, along with the release this week of internal school documents that included Jane Doe’s account and testimony from six of the seven men, prompted Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York to appoint Letitia James, the state’s attorney general, to oversee the investigation into Jane Doe’s allegations.

Ms. Hochul held a news conference on Friday in which she strongly criticized Cornell University’s campus police and the county’s district attorney. She had already put pressure on the university to conduct an outside investigation by an independent law firm.

In his video message, Mr. Kotlikoff said that he supported the outside investigation and the governor’s move to appoint the state’s attorney general to oversee the criminal investigation.

“We will not wait for the investigation or the review to be completed before we act,” he promised, adding that the university would look for opportunities to strengthen prevention and student support as well as mental health and substance abuse resources.

Mr. Kotlikoff said that a task force focused on addressing sexual assault that the university established in 2025, in the wake of Jane Doe’s allegations, made recommendations that had “already led to substantial changes in education, prevention, and support.” The task force would continue having “conversations about our campus culture and its future, and to find new ways to do more,” he said.“You have my commitment that this will not be a moment that passes,” Mr. Kotlikoff said, adding: “We are listening, we are learning, we are committed to communicating more openly, and where we can do better, we will.”

He also noted that the response to Jane Doe’s allegations should include “a serious look at the role of fraternities and sororities on campus.” Mr. Kotlikoff said that at their best, these organizations provided community and membership, but that “being part of a group can never diminish individual responsibility.”

He promised to engage students, alumni and community members to discuss ways to preserve what is valuable about Greek life while strengthening accountability. The Chi Phi fraternity was suspended from Cornell’s campus in 2024 and remains barred.

But Michelle Fan, a sophomore at the school, said she watched the address and was “disappointed” that the president had not spoken more forcefully.

“Obviously I’m glad the university is addressing something, but still there was no apology and that was the biggest thing we were looking for,” she said.

In his statement, Mr. Kotlikoff also said the university would lend its support to changing New York sexual assault laws — echoing a priority the governor noted at her news conference on Friday. Currently, the law in New York State makes it difficult to charge people with rape if the accuser willingly became intoxicated.

He said that the university did not have all the answers the community needed but was committed to finding them.

“This is a defining moment in Cornell’s history,” he said in closing. “We owe it to Jane Doe and to survivors of assault to get this right, and we must keep each other safe.”

Oct. 2 

New York Times, Hochul Rebukes Prosecutor’s Handling of Cornell Case, Hurubie Meko and Claire Fahy, Oct. 2, 2026. “In what world would the police” not elevate allegations of a rape to the district attorney, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York asked.

In direct and sometimes furious remarks, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York on Friday questioned how Cornell University’s police department and the local district attorney handled sexual assault allegations made by a student who said she was raped at a fraternity house in 2024.

Ms. Hochul, left, was speaking at a news conference in Manhattan on Friday morning, alongside the state attorney general, Letitia James, whom the governor has appointed to oversee the investigation into the allegations.

Ms. Hochul said she was concerned to learn that the student, identified as Jane Doe, had given an interview to the campus police about the episode that included an unequivocal statement that she had been raped. That language was missing in the condensed statement that was shared with the district attorney’s office in Tompkins County, N.Y., which decided not to file criminal charges.

“In what world would the police learn from the victim that she had literally been gang-raped” and not elevate those allegations to the district attorney, Ms. Hochul said.

A lawsuit filed by the student two weeks ago has reignited a national conversation about the persistent issue of sexual assault on college campuses. It has also plunged one of the country’s elite universities into crisis. Cornell’s campus newspaper, elected officials and celebrities have questioned how the case was initially handled by the district attorney and the university.

“When the Tompkins County district attorney announced that he was reopening the case, he pointed to Jane Doe’s statement that said it did not establish that a crime had occurred,” Ms. Hochul said. “But new reporting raises serious questions about the information his office relied upon when it made that decision.”

The district attorney, Matthew Van Houten, said in a statement after the news conference that he supported the appointment of Ms. James and that his office would cooperate fully with hers.

“It has become clear that we were not provided the full picture by the university,” he said. “The focus has been and should continue to be on the victims.”

In her lawsuit, Jane Doe, a 20-year-old sophomore at the time of the encounter on Oct. 19, 2024, said that she had been plied with alcohol and drugs and then raped by several men at the Chi Phi fraternity house. She is suing the fraternity, seven men, the university and her sorority.

New York Times, Times Exclusive: How a Cornell Student Went From Shame to Seeking Justice, Debra Kamin, Matt Flegenheimer and Amy Julia Harris, Oct. 1, 2026. The woman known as “Jane Doe” was initially embarrassed about what happened at a fraternity party in 2024, but soon concluded: “I was assaulted.”

In October 2024, about a week after a Chi Phi fraternity party at Cornell University, the sophomore who would come to be known as Jane Doe was milling around an online forum about Greek life when she encountered a post that stopped her cold.

“Are Chi Phi brothers Crips or Bloods because I hear they have been doing hell Gang Banging?” someone had written.

“They do drugs and gang r*ped a sophomore,” another user said. “Report them.”

Since the evening that began on Oct. 19, 2024, Jane Doe had recounted the night’s events to her roommates without identifying herself as a rape victim. She had exchanged friendly text messages with men she would later accuse of assault. She had heard uncharitable appraisals of herself from undergraduate gossips.

Then she read the words.

“That’s the first time I had ever heard the narrative change that I wasn’t a whore and that I was assaulted,” Jane Doe told investigators, according to documents from a university review of the accusations obtained by The New York Times.

Those records, which have not been previously reported, help illuminate a case that has horrified the nation and plunged one of its elite institutions into crisis. They shed light on the crucial three-week period between the fraternity party and Jane Doe’s decision to take her story to the campus police, accusing multiple fraternity brothers of sexual assault and alleging that she was coerced into taking ketamine.

The bare facts of what happened after she made her accusations are by now well known: The Tompkins County, N.Y., district attorney, Matthew Van Houten, reviewed her complaint and declined to bring criminal charges, saying there was not sufficient evidence to do so. Jane Doe filed a complaint that prompted at least a dozen hearings by the school’s Title IX committee, which is supposed to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws.ImageThe exterior of a fraternity house.The Chi Phi fraternity is under scrutiny after a women said that multiple members of the organization sexually assaulted her.Credit...Heather Ainsworth for The New York Times

On Sept. 16, Jane Doe also filed a lawsuit against seven men, accusing them of sexual assault. Lawyers for at least three of the accused men have broadly denied criminal wrongdoing; others have not yet made public statements.

What had not been known publicly, until now, were the detailed filings collected during the private Title IX proceedings — hundreds of pages of emails, text messages, photographs and interviews with Jane Doe, her friends and those she accused.

Taken together, the raw materials sketch Jane Doe’s journey from an unknown sophomore to the embodiment of another searing national dialogue about sexual assault and consent. (Although Jane Doe is identified in the documents, The Times is withholding her name.)

Some women around her, the documents show, were quick to say they viewed the events of the evening of Oct. 19 as sexual assault. But Jane Doe, the interviews and text messages reveal, first appeared to grapple with shame, humiliation and concerns about her reputation before she began to consider herself an assault victim.

“I don’t really remember her ever kind of citing that she had said yes to anything that occurred,” one of her roommates had said of the first hours after Jane Doe returned home the morning of Oct. 20, according to the Title IX files, which were compiled as part of the school’s formal process for investigating allegations of sexual harassment and assault.

On page upon page, the documents make for difficult reading, vacillating between the merry shorthand of college students — asides about the gym, Snapchat, Greek life — and the blunt-force details of an alleged gang assault that the victim appeared to be processing in real time.

From the beginning, the case has seemed to double as a referendum on so many vexing questions about what it means to be a young woman on a college campus, even a campus as nominally esteemed as Cornell’s: Who is believed, and who is coddled? How much good can Title IX do? Has anything changed, really?

For Jane Doe, the records suggest, the first task was to make sense of what had happened to her.

New York Times, Cornell Rape Investigation: Cornell Police Report Omitted Student’s Claim She Was Raped, Hurubie Meko, Oct. 1, 2026. Documents obtained by The New York Times show that the campus police at Cornell University sent a condensed statement to a prosecutor, who then declined to bring charges.

A person walks across a street.The Cornell Police Department summarized hours of interviews with a woman who said she was raped into a six-page document that excluded key details. A local prosecutor did not pursue criminal charges based on that document.Credit...Heather Ainsworth for The New York TimesHurubie Meko

At a campus police department on Nov. 14, 2024, a Cornell University sophomore detailed how she found herself naked in a fraternity house nearly a month before, with a “ring of men” around her. She was drunk and had been given ketamine, she said. Her phone was across the room.

“There was really no escape,” she said.

The woman spoke for hours with an officer, telling him how what began as a consensual sexual encounter with a man she liked spiraled into a prolonged drug-fueled attack by several men inside the Chi Phi fraternity house.

“I don’t remember the very end of the event where I was raped,” she told them. “I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped.”

The officer then condensed the interview into a six-page “voluntary statement” written from her perspective, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The student, after leaving about 20 handwritten corrections on a draft, signed a final version the next day.

While the shorter statement explained that she felt some of that night’s events were a crime, it omitted some of the more forceful and definitive language she used. And it was missing her unequivocal statement that she had been raped. The omission, which for a time seemed to end the case, instead now appears to have only delayed a case that has roiled the campus and renewed the national debate how colleges handle claims of sexual assault.

That condensed statement was shared with the district attorney, Matthew Van Houten, who decided there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against the seven men. It looked like the case was over.

Mr. Van Houten’s decision in 2024 largely transpired quietly, through a process that is often shielded from public scrutiny. Cornell, though, conducted its own investigation. That investigation, which The Times has reviewed, concluded months after the woman dropped out of Cornell because of the incident.

Then last month the woman, as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Cornell, the seven men, the fraternity and her sorority. The lawsuit ricocheted online, plunging the university into a crisis and landing Mr. Van Houten’s office in a maelstrom of criticism. Many in the public, including politicians and celebrities, began questioning what law enforcement officials knew about the woman’s allegations two years ago and why a criminal case was never pursued.

The men have not been charged criminally, and during the university investigation the men almost universally denied the accusations against them and said any sex that took place was consensual. Several of the men suggested that Jane Doe had not only initiated the sexual encounters, but in some cases, had done so without asking.

Mr. Van Houten has defended his office’s decision, and said he wants to meet with the woman this week as he considers bringing new evidence to a grand jury.How a Cornell Student Went From Shame to Seeking JusticeOct. 1, 2026

In a nine-page public statement on Monday, Mr. Van Houten said that the statement the woman provided at the time did not “allege she was drugged against her will or gang raped.”

“On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual,” he wrote.

But in the documents reviewed by The Times, the Cornell police did not inform Mr. Van Houten’s office that Jane Doe had said she had been raped. It’s unclear what other conversations the police and district attorney’s office had about the case.

In her interview with the police officer, Jane Doe described how Oct. 19, 2024, began with her filing an unrelated police report that her car keys and wallet had been stolen. After discovering one of her credit cards had been used, she said, she canceled all of them.

When members of her sorority heard about the theft, they decided she would no longer be the designated sober sister tasked with keeping an eye on sorority sisters at a bar that evening, she recalled.

She started drinking earlier in the night before heading to the bar, where the sorority was hosting an event, and she was served drinks even though she was underage, she said. She then briefly stopped at another bar before eventually trekking 20 minutes on foot to a fraternity house to meet a guy she was interested in. At around 10:30 p.m. to 11 p.m., she felt she was inebriated, she told the officer.

She spotted the man she was looking for, she said, and they talked, drank and danced. Soon after, she went to a room and had a consensual sexual encounter with the man, and another man she knew from the fraternity, both of whom she thought were her friends, she said.

But as the night progressed, there were more than the two men in the room and she began to feel used, she recalled. She could hear the men talking about taking turns with her, she said.

“I will never know who all touched me,” she told the officer. “I will not know.”ImageA photo shows a fraternity house at night.Jane Doe spoke for hours with a police officer detailing how a consensual encounter with a man quickly spiraled into a prolonged drug-fueled attack inside the Chi Phi fraternity house.Credit...Heather Ainsworth for The New York Times

At one point a group of men walked into the room where she was naked, she said.

“I was horrified, and I squealed and ran” and hid under the covers of a bed, she said. She described how she had to swat one man’s hands away throughout the night as he tried to grope her. The men snorted ketamine off her body, she said. It was the most intoxicated she had ever been in her life, she told the officer.

At around 5:45 a.m., she said wanted to go to bed and told two of the men, “I gotta turn in.” They stopped, she said.

She said she woke up at 10 a.m., then was driven home shortly after.

In the days after Jane Doe provided her statement to the police, officers tried to contact the men she accused, with varying degrees of success, according to the administrative documents.

On Nov. 25, the officer who took Jane Doe’s statement filed a document and said he contacted an investigator in the district attorney’s office to talk.

The officer reported that he was told, based on a review of Jane Doe’s statement, that the prosecutor’s office had decided that “criminal charges would not be pursued in this case.”

“Nothing further at this time,” he wrote.  

New York Times, What New York’s Rape Laws Mean for the Cornell Case, Maria Cramer, Oct. 1, 2026 (print ed.). State law makes it harder to prosecute when victims drank willingly. The prosecutor in the Cornell case said that kept him from charging students accused of sexual assault.

A New York prosecutor has blamed the state’s rape laws in part for his decision not to charge Cornell University students who were accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year-old woman in 2024.

Those laws make it much more difficult to charge people with rape if the accuser chose to become intoxicated, according to prosecutors and advocates for sexual assault victims.

For years, legislators have tried to change the law so that prosecutors could bring sexual assault charges in cases where a person had sex with someone who was clearly incapacitated and unable to control or understand their behavior.

The case of the young woman who said she was sexually assaulted by the students at their fraternity in Ithaca, N.Y., has renewed calls for that legislation to pass.

Here is what to know about the state’s rape laws.What does the law say about voluntary intoxication?

In New York, accusers who chose to drink or take drugs have a high burden of proving they were unable to consent, according to prosecutors.

The way the law is written now, people who were voluntarily intoxicated cannot claim they were mentally incapacitated during an assault, unless they can show they were physically helpless. This means that they had to be unconscious or physically unable to communicate consent at the time of the act.

That definition leaves out people who were semiconscious, slurring their words or unable to stand or walk steadily before they were assaulted, according to prosecutors and supporters of sexual assault victims.

Proposed legislation would allow prosecutors to charge third-degree rape in cases where a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol was unable to control their behavior and was assaulted by someone who should have “reasonably” understood the victim’s condition.

At least 23 other states, including California and Virginia, already have similar laws.How did the law affect the Cornell case?

Matthew Van Houten, the district attorney for Tompkins County, has said that when the woman first reported the assault in 2024, her claims did not support a criminal case.

The woman, who was an undergraduate student, took ketamine and drank tequila and beer; at one point, she consumed 10 drinks in a three-hour period, according to the lawsuit she has filed against the students, the fraternity, her sorority and the university.

The students pressured her into taking more ketamine and gave her so much alcohol she became unable to consent, the lawsuit states. They took her to a room and assaulted her for about seven hours. She tried to hide her naked body under the covers and push them away, but “she felt as if there was no way for her to escape this room full of predatory fraternity men,” the lawsuit says.

Since the lawsuit became public, Mr. Van Houten has been criticized for not charging the men when the woman first came forward in November 2024.

In an interview with The New York Times on Tuesday, Mr. Van Houten said that if the woman’s initial report had shown she was unconscious when she was assaulted, “these guys would be in prison right now.”

He said he is reviewing new evidence and will decide whether her case could now be taken to a grand jury.

Mr. Van Houten said if the law had been changed in 2024, it would have been easier to show that the accused students should have known that “the person was incapable of consenting because of their consumption of alcohol or drugs.”

“That’s not the law,” he said.Why hasn’t the law been changed?

Defense lawyers have pushed back hard, saying proposed legislation would make it easier for prosecutors to charge people who had sex with someone they believed had given consent and later claimed they were too intoxicated to know what they were doing.

Some lawyers have described the legislation as “paternalistic” and say it would take away a woman’s agency and ability to stand by a decision to have sex even though she chose to get drunk or take drugs.

Assemblywoman Latrice M. Walker, a Democrat whose district includes the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn and who has opposed changing the statute, has said she is worried about passing laws that would hurt a person’s right to due process.

The New York legislature has failed to pass the bill since 2019, when Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Democrat representing the Bronx, introduced the first version.

In June, Carl Heastie, a Bronx Democrat and the speaker of the State Assembly, declined to bring the latest version of the bill to the floor even though it had broad bipartisan support.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Heastie released a statement saying the Assembly had formed a working group to examine the state’s sexual assault statutes and consider “how best to move forward so that New York’s laws are as strong as possible.”

“The allegations being reported out of Cornell University are truly horrifying,” Mr. Heastie said. “We want to do everything we can to ensure victims of sexual assault see justice served.” 

September

Sept. 22

 

Kevin Maxwell and Isabel Maxwell arriving at federal court during Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial in New York, Dec. 3, 2021 (Photo: Carlo Allegri/Reuters). 

Last Page First, Investigative Commentary: Who Introduced Ghislaine Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein? Jana, right, Sept. 22, 2026. A 2020 FBI interview with British telecom executive James Hatt challenges the usual story of how Epstein entered the Maxwell family orbit, placing Kevin Maxwell there first.

Part One: Ghislaine Maxwell: The Daughter of a Spy. For years, the beginning of the Epstein-Maxwell relationship has been treated like settled history. Ghislaine Maxwell met Jeffrey Epstein in New York after her father died, they became close, and she entered his world.

But one federal interview in the Epstein files tells a different story.

In 2020, British telecommunications executive James Hatt went to federal investigators with his account of how Jeffrey Epstein first became connected to the Maxwell family. Hatt told the FBI that Kevin Maxwell had known Epstein around 1988 to 1990 and had been instructed to meet him by his father, Robert Maxwell.Ghislaine Maxwell sentencing: Victim 'Kate' delivers powerful impact statement | Daily TelegraphKevin Maxwell and Isabel Maxwell arriving at federal court during Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial in New York, Dec. 3, 2021. Photo: Carlo Allegri/Reuters.

Later in the same interview, Hatt gave investigators an even more direct version: according to Kevin, Kevin introduced Ghislaine Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein.

That is Hatt’s account of what Kevin allegedly told him, not an FBI finding. But Hatt was not a random caller with no connection to the world he was describing. SEC records show he spent years at the top of international telecommunications, including as chairman, president and CEO of PLD Telekom, which operated across Russia and the former Soviet sphere.

And what he told investigators went far beyond an introduction. His account moves through the Maxwell family, telecommunications privatization, Russia and Latvia, alleged international money movement and what he called the “Epstein network.”

Then it gets darker.

Hatt told investigators that Ghislaine once offered to procure men, women, boys and girls for him. That allegation was never tested at trial, but it remains in a federal interview file alongside the rest of his account.

Almost nobody is talking about the man who gave it.FBI record of James Hatt’s Nov. 30, 2020 interview, entered Sept. 14, 2021. EFTA01246381James Hatt Went to the Government Himself

Hatt was not someone investigators happened to find. His lawyers contacted federal prosecutors because he wanted to help with the Ghislaine Maxwell investigation. A November 11, 2020 attorney proffer says Hatt had pushed his lawyers to make contact with the government.

The notes describe him as a British businessman with a long career in telecommunications across Europe, especially Eastern Europe. Hatt said he knew both Kevin and Ghislaine Maxwell and had information about when, how and why members of the Maxwell family came to know Epstein.Attorney proffer concerning James Hatt, November 11, 2020. EFTA01246379.

Hatt also said he knew about Epstein’s role in Maxwell family financial affairs, Kevin Maxwell’s business dealings in Eastern Europe and money being moved through accounts tied to Latvian individuals.

He also alleged that Ghislaine procured, or helped Kevin Maxwell and another man procure, young men and women to entertain Russian and Latvian businessmen.

These were Hatt’s allegations, relayed to prosecutors through his lawyers. They were not established findings.Hatt Was Deep in the Telecom World

The corporate record matters because it shows Hatt was not describing some world he only knew from the outside. SEC filings identify James R.S. Hatt as chairman, president and CEO of PLD Telekom, and a 1997 filing has him personally certifying the company’s move into Delaware in that role. PLD was heavily involved in telecommunications across Russia and the former Soviet Union, with interests in long-distance, satellite, cellular and fiber-optic businesses. Its structure ran through companies including Baltic Communications Limited, NWE Capital in Cyprus and Russian telecom subsidiaries, backed by more than $100 million in senior notes and tens of millions more in convertible debt.

Hatt later told the FBI that he had worked for Cable & Wireless and was sent to Moscow in 1988 to look for business opportunities as the Soviet system was changing. That lines up with the corporate record of his career across Eastern Europe, the CIS and the Baltic states. Hatt was talking about a business world he had actually spent years inside.Metromedia International Group filing listing James R.S. Hatt as president and chief executive officer of Metromedia International Telecommunications, Inc., 2000.Hatt Says Kevin Knew Epstein First

Hatt told investigators he came into the Maxwell world through telecommunications. According to the FBI summary, a Canadian Alcatel agent named John William Mancony introduced him to Kevin and Ghislaine Maxwell in London in 1993.The Maxwell family, photographed together before Robert Maxwell’s death in 1991.

But Hatt said Kevin already knew Epstein by then. He told investigators Kevin had known him while living in New York around 1988 to 1990 and that Kevin had been instructed to meet Epstein by his father, Robert Maxwell. In the same passage, Hatt says Robert never actually met Epstein, but still trusted him “in his realm.”FBI interview of James Hatt, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246382

The file never explains how Robert Maxwell could have trusted Epstein without meeting him, and Hatt’s account does not prove Robert actually gave Kevin that instruction. But if Hatt was right, Epstein was connected to the Maxwell family before Robert died in 1991, with Kevin there before Ghislaine. Later in the interview, Hatt says that even more directly.“According to Kevin, Kevin Introduced Maxwell to Epstein”

On page four of the FBI interview, Hatt gets much more direct. The summary records: “According to KEVIN, KEVIN introduced MAXWELL to EPSTEIN.”James Hatt FBI interview, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246384

That is the clearest statement in the file about who Hatt believed introduced Ghislaine to Epstein. His version is simple: Robert Maxwell knew of Epstein and told Kevin to meet him, Kevin knew Epstein around 1988 to 1990, and Kevin later introduced Ghislaine.

Ghislaine has described the beginning differently. That does not tell us which version is right, but it does mean the origin story is not as settled as it has often been presented.Then the Story Turns to Money

Hatt’s account did not stop at introductions. He described a telecommunications privatization deal involving Latvia, Alcatel and businessman Grigory Luchansky, with money moving through several channels. According to the FBI summary, the participants planned to use Epstein’s services in New York because Kevin had known him for years.

Hatt described it this way:

“There was a bifurcation of funds to Latvia. It would move through the EPSTEIN network then back to New York then to the accounts in Latvia.”

James Hatt FBI interview, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246383

The same page says Ghislaine sometimes carried instructions between meetings because Kevin believed phones were bugged, and Hatt said he was present for some of the money discussions. The FBI summary does not tell us whether investigators verified any of this. But Hatt’s version is clear: Epstein was not just a friend. He was part of the financial setup.The New York Daily News Appears in the Story

Hatt told investigators that after Robert Maxwell’s death, Kevin and Ian Maxwell were bankrupt and facing freezing orders, and that the family needed ways to access money Epstein had held. Then the interview drops a line that is hard to ignore: “So much money with EPSTEIN came from the New York Daily News.”James Hatt FBI interview, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246382

The FBI summary does not explain exactly what Hatt meant by that, and there is not enough here to turn it into a proven money-laundering scheme. But it is part of why his account deserves a closer look. The American Prospect revisited the Hatt material in February 2026, focusing on his claim that Epstein was involved in Maxwell family financial dealings around the collapse of Robert Maxwell’s empire.

That money trail still needs to be independently rebuilt. What is clear is that Hatt was describing something much deeper than the familiar story of Epstein simply becoming close to Ghislaine after her father died.Ghislaine Was Part of the Financial Side Too

Hatt did not describe Ghislaine as standing on the edge of the financial activity. He said she attended meetings, carried instructions and spent significant time with Kevin around telecommunications business.James Hatt FBI interview, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246385

On the final page, Hatt described the money relationship more directly: “MAXWELL and EPSTEIN’s relationship about money was overseen by KEVIN with oversight by MAXWELL.” The wording is awkward, but the picture he was giving investigators was not. He was describing Kevin, Ghislaine and Epstein as part of the same financial dealings.Ghislaine Maxwell outside 10 Downing Street. EFTA00003333Then Comes the Most Disturbing Allegation

Hatt said that in September 1995, he had lunch on the Upper East Side with Kevin Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell and another woman. According to the FBI summary, Ghislaine told him she could arrange “men, women, boys and girls” for him, “whatever or however many he wanted.” Hatt said she recited it “as though it was a menu.” He told investigators he laughed it off and declined.James Hatt FBI interview, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246384

This allegation was never tested at Maxwell’s criminal trial, and I have not found evidence that Hatt testified before the jury. But the date matters: 1995, years before Epstein’s Palm Beach investigation became public and long before the scale of his abuse was widely known.Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. EFTA00003289Hatt Named Other People Too

Hatt also gave prosecutors a wider set of names, including Malcolm Gumbridge, John Manton, Anthony McFarland and Gerald Ronson, along with Russian and Latvian businessmen and a figure identified as General Ivanov. Their names appearing here does not mean they did anything wrong. It does show how wide Hatt’s account went.Attorney proffer concerning James Hatt, Nov. 11, 2020. EFTA01246379

Those names are worth going through one by one against company records, travel, financial records and the rest of the Epstein files.Leah Saffian Appears at the End

Near the end of the interview, Hatt said Kevin mentioned attorney Leah Saffian, describing her as part of his legal team around 1995 to 1996 and saying he wanted Hatt to meet her in California. Hatt also said he later recognized Saffian in connection with the photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell at an In-N-Out Burger.James Hatt FBI interview, Nov. 30, 2020. EFTA01246385

Saffian later became publicly associated with Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal and media response. The earlier connection is worth noting, but on its own it only shows that her relationship with the Maxwell family went back much further.

Leah Saffian, left, with Isabel Maxwell outside federal court in Manhattan during jury deliberations in Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, Dec. 21, 2021. Photo: Emily Michot/Miami Herald.

What We Can Actually Check

Hatt was describing events that had happened years earlier, and some of what he told investigators was never tested in court. Kevin Maxwell has never been charged in connection with Epstein, and he and Ian Maxwell were acquitted in 1996 over charges tied to the collapse of their father’s business empire.

But Hatt’s background is documented. His telecom career, his senior role at PLD and his work across Eastern Europe all put him inside the same business world he later described to investigators.

The interview gives us names, dates, meetings and business relationships we can actually go back and check.The Beginning May Be Different Than We Were Told

The question I keep coming back to is simple: who actually introduced Ghislaine Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein?

According to Hatt, Kevin Maxwell said he did. Hatt also said Kevin had known Epstein around 1988 to 1990 and had been told by Robert Maxwell to meet him, even though Robert supposedly never met Epstein himself.

If Hatt’s account is right, then Epstein was already connected to the Maxwell family before Robert died, with Kevin there first and Ghislaine coming later. That matters because Hatt was not describing a world he barely knew. He had spent years in international telecom, working across the same places and business networks he later talked about to the FBI, and he went to prosecutors himself with names, dates, meetings and financial claims.

If Hatt was right about the beginning, then we have been starting the Epstein-Maxwell timeline in the wrong place.

Sept. 5 

The Parnas Perspective, Evening News and Commentary: Important Saturday Night Update, Aaron Parnas, right, Sept. 5, 2026. In a story getting renewed attention, Julia Molchanova has gone public for the first time about years of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein, revealing she was the Jane Doe plaintiff behind a $72.5 million settlement with Bank of America.

Molchanova, now 37, describedg years of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein that began in 2011 when she was 22 and spoke little English.

Epstein lured her in with a promise to help her enroll at the Fashion Institute of Technology, then abused her starting on her first trip to New York, eventually drawing her into what she described as a cult-like arrangement in which he controlled her spending, appearance, relationships, and even arranged a marriage for her to another woman, while registering companies in her name that he used to move money without her knowledge.

A federal judge recently approved a $72.5 million settlement with Bank of America over claims the bank ignored suspicious transactions tied to Epstein’s trafficking, calling it a case that “brought actual justice, although partial,” while Bank of America said it maintains it didn’t facilitate trafficking crimes.

Molchanova said she finally broke away in 2019 after discovering unfamiliar credit card activity tied to her name, confronting Epstein’s bookkeeper and accountant, and refusing his invitations back to Palm Beach, saying she feared “someone would find me on the bottom of his pool if I go.” She said she’s speaking out now to show “women have a voice and the ability to rebuild themselves,” while attorneys for Epstein’s accountant and lawyer disputed knowing she was a trafficking victim.

Sept. 4 

Gloria Steinem speaks at the Women's March in Washington, on January 21, 2017 (Shannon Stapleton photo for Reuters).

New York Times, How Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine Transformed the Publishing Industry, Katie Robertson, Sept. 4, 2026 (print ed.). The feminist icon insisted that women were not a niche audience — and proved it in 1971 with the start of an influential publication owned and operated by them.

When Gloria Steinem started Ms. magazine in 1971, most women’s magazines concentrated on how to keep a house and how to attract a husband. Her publication took a very different focus: liberation.

The magazine, the first owned and operated by women, made the discussion of issues like abortion, domestic violence and equality unavoidable — and revolutionized a generation of women’s writers and publishers.

“The one element that is the foundation of this magazine and makes it different from others is that it simply considers that women are human beings,” Ms. Steinem said of Ms. magazine in a 1973 BBC interview. “That doesn’t sound very revolutionary, but it is, because the other magazines are still arguing about it.”

In some ways, the publishing world is still arguing about exactly what it means to be a women’s magazine. Legacy publications like Glamour, Marie Claire and Teen Vogue have either ended their print runs or withered, while feminist blogs like The Hairpin and Feministing have shuttered.

But the DNA of Ms. magazine inspired a new generation of outlets, said Emily Ramshaw, the chief executive of the nonprofit newsroom The 19th, which focuses on women and politics.

Ms. Steinem “spent her life and career insisting that women were not a niche audience, that our experiences were not side dishes to the main event and that gender-based journalism could be both rigorous and unapologetic,” Ms. Ramshaw said.

Ms. Steinem, who died on Wednesday at 92, didn’t start out as a trailblazer. She began her career as a freelance writer, penning articles for traditional publications like Esquire, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Glamour and McCall’s. She famously went undercover as a Playboy bunny for a 1963 investigation in Show magazine that exposed the exploitative conditions the women worked under.

She occasionally wrote for The New York Times, including a 1965 article on the plight of women in network television and a 1966 profile of Mary Lindsay, the wife of the mayor of New York City, John Lindsay.

A black and white photograph of Ms. Steinem wearing the Playboy bunny costume.Gloria Steinem went undercover for Show magazine to expose what it was really like to work at New York City’s famed Playboy Club.Credit...Getty Images

But it was at New York magazine that Ms. Steinem honed her voice. Invited by the editor Clay Felker to join a new magazine he was starting, Ms. Steinem became a founding contributing editor in 1968.

She wrote a weekly column, “The City Politic,” where she proved herself a sharp cultural and political observer. She took on subjects like the turning sentiment against President Richard M. Nixon during the Vietnam War, Ed Koch as congressman and a tense New York City in the wake of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She was among other top-tier writers of 1960s New York, like Tom Wolfe, Nora Ephron and Jimmy Breslin.

But at New York magazine, “I was still the girl writer, and the guys there, whom I loved, their advice about feminism was, ‘Don’t get involved with those crazy women,’” she said in a 2015 profile in The New Yorker.

She didn’t pay attention. She co-founded Ms. magazine with a team of other feminists.

“I realized as a journalist that there really was nothing for women to read that was controlled by women,” she explained in a 2011 documentary.

Ms. magazine first came to life as a 32-page insert in New York magazine’s December 1971 edition. Mr. Felker helped fund it. A preview issue the next month sold out in eight days, selling 300,000 copies.

The Parnas Perspective, Morning News and Commentary: Andrew Tate Indicted, Faces Life in Prison, Trump Erupts as Courts Gut His Gerrymander, Fetterman Exposed, AI Breaks Free, Aaron Parnas, right, Sept. 4, 2026. Today’s rundown leads with Andrew Tate’s new indictment on trafficking charges.

Andrew Tate:

Manosphere influencer Andrew Tate, left, and his brother Tristan Tate, both indicted on sextrafficking charges on Sept. 4, 2026 (Pool 2026 file photo by the Associated Press)

Romanian prosecutors have indicted social media influencer Andrew Tate on charges of trafficking minors, money laundering, sex with a minor, and witness tampering, with his brother Tristan indicted as an accessory. Prosecutors allege the brothers recruited victims by falsely promising relationships or marriage before forcing them to produce pornographic content for a webcam business, including one alleged victim who was 15 when Tate seduced her in Britain in 2012 before moving her to Bucharest and using violence and intimidation to exploit her. The Tates allegedly kept $1.25 million, roughly 80 percent, of that victim’s videochat income. Both brothers, who hold dual US and British citizenship, deny all wrongdoing and remain jailed in the US, where a judge is weighing Britain’s extradition request on separate rape charges.

The Tates’ Romanian lawyer, Eugen Vidineac, pushed back hard on the new indictment, noting a previous case against them fell apart after a court found “significant irregularities” that prevented it from reaching trial, and said today’s filing “does not determine guilt.” He said the defense will scrutinize the new indictment for evidentiary, procedural, or legal deficiencies and stressed his clients’ presumption of innocence. Under Romanian law the brothers could be tried in absentia, but the case first goes to a preliminary court chamber for a legality review that typically takes well over the mandated 60 days. It remains unclear whether Romanian prosecutors will seek the Tates’ extradition from the US given the pending British request already in motion.

The Parnas Perspective, Morning News and Commentary: Big Epstein Update: Alleged Co-Conspirator with Sealed NDAs Sues, Aaron Parnas, right, Sept. 3, 2026. Today’s rundown leads with new developments in the Epstein story: subpoenas, sealed NDAs, and a $158 million question about what one of his associates was really paying for. 

Alleged Epstein co-conspirator, Leon Black (shown above in a photo collage with Jeffrey Epstein), is suing the House Oversight Committee to block subpoenas tied to his deposition testimony and an effort to obtain his NDAs with women, arguing the subpoenas lack a legitimate legislative purpose and exceed Congress’ authority.

The lawsuit comes as Black faces a committee deposition Thursday after refusing in June to answer questions about those NDAs, part of a broader inquiry into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. At the center of that inquiry are $158 million in payments Black made to Epstein between 2012 and 2017 for what Epstein called tax and estate-planning “art,” a fee Epstein himself struggled to justify, once writing “the value is in the eye of the beholder.”

Senator Ron Wyden has released a report finding Bank of America flagged $170 million in suspicious Epstein-related transactions connected to Black, some with “no apparent economic, business or lawful purpose,” and has called at least some payments equivalent to hush money. A 2021 Apollo-commissioned Dechert report found no wrongdoing and said Epstein’s strategies saved Black $1-2 billion in taxes, though outside tax lawyers told Bloomberg the techniques were largely standard estate-planning tools rather than the novel work Dechert described.

Congressman Thomas Massie named Black as one of 14 possible co-conspirators associated with Epstein:

The core transaction underlying the dispute was a 2012 crisis: Black’s family trust had overpaid him $142 million, risking a clawback that could have cost up to $1 billion in estate taxes, and Epstein devised a fix where Black gave up future trust distributions in exchange for swapping the trust’s $1.6 billion Apollo stake for a promissory note backed by art and stock. Dechert’s report called this a “grand slam,” but Bloomberg found the underlying technique, a “power of substitution,” was a well-established estate-planning tool that Black’s own longtime lawyer had presented on nearly a decade earlier. Epstein also helped Black extract tax benefits from valuation discounts on subdivided Apollo shares and from a 2015-16 transaction selling a stake in Black’s art-book company Phaidon at a reduced valuation to Black’s own employee and brother-in-law, a deal one outside lawyer warned the IRS likely wouldn’t approve and could result in “an embarrassing article in the Wall Street Journal.” That Phaidon deal eventually closed in revised form and saved Black about $11.6 million in taxes. Disputes over fees tied to these transactions, especially Phaidon, became a central source of friction between the two men.

The relationship fully collapsed over a 2016 art deal in which Epstein personally bought two artworks from Black for $30 million to help him defer capital-gains taxes via a like-kind exchange, then struggled to resell them and grew increasingly frustrated, at one point complaining Black hadn’t even offered to buy him lunch. Financial records show both men treated Epstein’s later reimbursement demand as a $30.5 million loan, of which Epstein repaid only $10 million, privately writing that he believed he actually owed Black a smaller amount. Epstein also hinted at leverage, warning that disclosing details of the tax exchange “will cost him more than the 30” and would expose other problematic past transactions. According to the Dechert report, Epstein’s failure to repay the remaining loan balance led Black to sever ties with him later that year, and weeks after the breakup, renewed media scrutiny of Epstein’s criminal conduct emerged, casting fresh attention on the relationship that had just ended.

 

Newsweek, Woman Who Exposed FBI Official for Working With Russian Oligarch Found Dead, Jenni Fink,Sept. 3, 2026. Allison Guerriero, a security researcher whose information helped expose the criminal conduct of former FBI counterintelligence official Charles McGonigal, has been found dead at her home in Boynton Beach, Florida.

Hours before her death, Guerriero posted a series of messages on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Representative Jim Jordan, the FBI and McGonigal. McGonigal was arrested in 2023 and was sentenced to 50 months in prison and then was later sentenced in a separate case to 28 months in prison in 2024. He pleaded guilty to secretly colluding with a Russian oligarch and also admitted to receiving $225,000 in cash from someone with ties to the Albanian government.

"I committed a felony and as a former FBI special agent it causes me extreme emotional and physical pain," McGonigal told the judge before he was sentenced. "I stand before you today with a deep sense of remorse."

It's unclear what caused her death, and authorities are waiting on a report from the medical examiner.

Newsweek reached out to the Boynton Beach, Florida, police department for comment via email but did not receive a response in time for publication.Who Is Allison Guerriero?

Guerriero was a security researcher who became publicly known after providing information to federal authorities about her former romantic partner, McGonigal, a longtime FBI official who once led the bureau's counterintelligence division in New York.

Guerriero alerted investigators after becoming concerned about McGonigal's behavior, including allegations that he was carrying large amounts of cash and maintaining unusual relationships with foreign-connected individuals. When she asked McGonigal about the cash, he reportedly told her that he won a bet on a baseball game. At the time, he was married with two children.

"Charlie McGonigal knew everybody in the national security and law-enforcement world," Guerriero said in an interview with Business Insider. "He fooled them all. So why should I feel bad that he was able to deceive me?"GeoscapeAward-winning editors deliver analysis of global hotspots – straight to your inbox.Sign up to Breaking News alertsBy clicking “sign up” you are agreeing to ourTerms of Service and Privacy PolicyA photo shows Allison Guerriero, left. Right: Charles McGonigal, the former head of counterintelligence for the FBI’s New York office, on February 09, 2023 in New York City.A photo shows Allison Guerriero, left. Right: Charles McGonigal, the former head of counterintelligence for the FBI’s New York office, on February 09,... | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Her tip reportedly helped launch a broader federal investigation into McGonigal's activities.

Guerriero had been involved in an approximately 18-month relationship with McGonigal. After the relationship ended, she became increasingly vocal about his conduct and the FBI's handling of the case. She frequently posted on social media and gave interviews discussing the scandal and calling for greater scrutiny of senior law enforcement officials.

Her information helped investigators uncover details about McGonigal's connections to foreign figures and contributed to the investigation that eventually resulted in his arrest and conviction. In the years that followed, Guerriero remained outspoken about the case and argued that some aspects of the scandal had not received sufficient public attention.

During McGonigal's sentencing, the judge praised Guerriero for her "extraordinary contributions" to counterespionage operations on behalf of the United States.

In an obituary for Guerriero, her family wrote that she found her "niche" in the security field after trying several different occupations. They added that she was also working for Roger Stone when she died. The family is holding a memorial service on Thursday for her.

"Allison’s over-the-top interest in law-enforcement and fighting evildoers kept her adjacent to all kinds of characters who seemed like they were from 1950s era G.I. Joe type comic books," her friend, Ken Kurson, wrote in a eulogy for her.What Did Charles McGonigal Do?

McGonigal served as the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division in New York, one of the bureau's most sensitive national security positions.

According to the Department of Justice, McGonigal pleaded guilty in 2023 to conspiracy charges stemming from his work for Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch under U.S. sanctions since 2018. The DOJ said McGonigal agreed to provide services to Deripaska in violation of federal sanctions laws and participated in a money-laundering conspiracy. In his role as special agent in charge, he also participated in and supervised investigations into Russian oligarchs, including Deripaska. McGonigal tried to find derogatory information about a rival oligarch, Vladimir Potanin, and his corporate interests, which Deripaska was fighting for control of.

U.S. Media, Entertainment, Culture

 

Gloria Steinem speaks at the Women's March in Washington, on January 21, 2017 (Shannon Stapleton photo for Reuters).

New York Times, Gloria Steinem, Personification of the Women’s Movement, Dies at 92, Katharine Q. Seelye, Sept. 4, 2026 (print ed.). She challenged sexist assumptions, helping women develop a sense of self-worth and gain a measure of equality at work, at home and in society at large.

Gloria Steinem, the feminist crusader who, in galvanizing the modern women’s movement, helped millions of women develop a sense of self-worth and gain a measure of equality at home, at work and in society at large, died on Wednesday at her home in New York City. She was 92.

Her death was announced in a post on social media, which did not give a cause.

Calling herself “an entrepreneur of social change,” Ms. Steinem helped usher in sweeping cultural transformations across virtually every facet of American life, from the boardroom to the courtroom to the bedroom.

For more than half a century, she personified the women’s movement and became its most enduring symbol; her tinted aviator glasses and curtain of streaked-blond hair parted in the center made her one of the most recognizable women in the world.

She was an unlikely revolutionary. Growing up a transient in the Midwest, she was 10 when her parents divorced and she was left to mother her mentally anguished mother — a formative experience that reverberated throughout her life. She had scant formal education until sixth grade; her big dream, as a budding tap dancer, was to become a Rockette.

But she read voraciously, graduated from college with honors and believed fiercely that women should be able to live whatever life they chose.

Her own feminist awakening didn’t come until her mid-30s, when, as a journalist in 1969, she attended a “speak out” of women discussing their illegal abortions. Charismatic, articulate, media savvy, deeply empathetic and a workaholic, she evolved into a political and cultural force.

She led protests and consciousness-raising sessions, wrote essays and delivered speeches, delved into political organizing, helped establish rape crisis centers and shelters for battered women, founded numerous groups that promoted women and had the Midas touch when it came to raising money for their causes. 

 

 

Gloria Steinem (r) with Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham Jan. 24, 1972 luncheon (Photo by Martin Kuhn).

National Press Club, Appreciation: Gloria Steinem was not impressed with Press Club tie gift after her speech in 1972, Gil Klein, Sept. 4, 2026. Feminist leader Gloria Steinem, who died Wednesday, Sept. 2, at the age of 92, was no stranger to the National Press Club.

While AI mistakenly referred to her as the first woman to speak at the Club (that honor actually goes to Eleanor Roosevelt), she wasn’t even the first after the Club admitted women as members in January 1971. That was feminist Germaine Greer (which AI also identified as the first woman speaker).

But Steinem had one lasting impact on NPC luncheons.

The Club always finishes a luncheon by giving the speaker a gift. With the overwhelming number of speakers being men before the 1970s, the traditional gift was a Press Club tie. That didn’t stop as the Club invited leaders of the women’s movement as it pushed for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

But when Steinem, the co-founder and editor of Ms. magazine, spoke at the Club on Jan. 24, 1972, with Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham seated at the head table, the tie didn’t go over well at all.

Presented with the tie, Steinem offered to don a man’s jacket “and confirm your worst suspicions.”

That was the end of the tie, but what to give? The selection expanded to include a scarf, paperweight and windbreaker before landing on the mug that is still offered today.   

August

Aug. 31

More On Dolly Parton's Passing, Cultural Importance

Dolly Parton as Doralee in a scene from the film “9 to 5.” (Photo Credit: Steve Schapiro)

New York Times Magazine, In ‘9 to 5,’ Dolly Parton Put a Friendly Face on Feminism, Susan Dominus, Aug. 30, 2026 (print ed.). In 1980, feminists were often stereotyped as man-hating or out of touch. Then Parton gave the movement a boost — and an anthem.

Before a script for the movie “9 to 5” even existed — when it was still just a vague concept for a story about female office workers — Jane Fonda had a lightning bolt moment about how to cast it. She was in the car listening to the radio when a Dolly Parton song came on. Immediately, as Fonda later recalled on the podcast “Dolly Parton’s America,” an image popped into her head: “I suddenly had a vision of Dolly as a secretary,” she said. “She can’t see her hands, typing with those long fingernails. Everything about it made me laugh.”

Fonda approached Parton about the role. “How hard can this be?” Parton remembered thinking, in the 2022 documentary “Still Working 9 to 5.” “If it’s big, I’ll get to roll around in the glory, and if it’s a flop, I blame it on them.”

Dolly Parton with "9 to 5" cast (Images by Steve Schapiro).

Parton made clear to Rolling Stone in 1980 that she did not take the role in order to be part of a feminist project. “Not that I’m not for rights for everybody,” she told the interviewer. “I’m just saying I don’t want to get involved in a political thing.” Whatever you thought about the movie, she implied, it was not, at least for her, a feminist cri de coeur about sexual harassment, equal pay, child care and job flexibility. “It’s just a funny, funny show,” she said — not, most definitely not, about “bosses in general or the plight of secretaries.”ImageParton on the set of “9 to 5.”Credit...Steve Schapiro

Later on in life, Parton, who died on Tuesday, would acknowledge that the movie had “a good message,” but she was clearly ambivalent about being pinned down. Given her many good works — her donations to vaccine research, literacy, disaster relief — Parton’s evasiveness has been interpreted generously by her fans across the political spectrum: It was not so much about making herself marketable as it was about maintaining her status as a unifying cultural force. She seemed to intuit that the best way she could help women fight for equality was by expressing herself her way — without labels.

Despite Parton’s protestations, “9 to 5” was, in fact, developed explicitly as a movie about the experience of low-level office workers. During the years of anti-Vietnam activism that earned her the nickname “Hanoi Jane,” Fonda had befriended another activist, Karen Nussbaum, who had started organizing secretaries and clerical workers, the jobs held by about a third of working women at the time. Fonda and her team interviewed dozens of them, many of whom spoke of overt sexism and sexual harassment; some responded enthusiastically when asked if they ever fantasized about getting even with their bosses. One said she wished she could grind up her boss and serve him in the office coffee.

In the film Fonda eventually developed, Parton plays a competent and sweet, happily partnered secretary who wears feminine dresses and a green sequin cardigan at the office. She and two co-workers, played by Fonda and Lily Tomlin, are fed up with their boss, whom they describe as a “sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.” The three women undertake an aburdist revenge plot that involves keeping him in captivity for six weeks, even suspending him from the ceiling.Editors’ Picks

Both Fonda and Parton, in their own ways, were trying to manage feminism’s image problem, which persisted despite the movement’s success in opening up women’s lives over a remarkably short span of time. The movement started picking up momentum in the early 1960s, but gained enormous visibility in 1970, when Betty Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique,” helped launch the Women’s Strike for Equality, which included rallies, walk-outs and teach-ins around the country on Aug. 26 of that year. Some 50,000 women protested in New York City alone, effectively shutting down Fifth Avenue.

In 1971, Gloria Steinem, already a powerhouse political and feminist organizer, co-founded Ms. magazine, which sold out its first 300,000 copies within eight days and helped mainstream the language and mission of female equality. Within the decade, the movement had made significant strides: The passage of Title IX expanded girls’ access to sports and academic opportunities in schools; legislation made it illegal for banks to discriminate on the basis of sex, meaning a woman could no longer be required to provide a signed letter from her husband to receive a line of credit; and a 1978 amendment to the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for employers to discriminate against women on the basis of pregnancy. The Supreme Court also decided Roe v. Wade, establishing a constitutional right to abortion that would stand for nearly 50 years.

And yet even as many of these gains were broadly popular, the feminist movement was still viewed with suspicion, especially by conservatives who associated it with its most radical forms — calls for women to reject men, motherhood and caregiving. If feminists weren’t stereotyped as unshaven and man-hating, they were alternatively construed as out of touch and elite. The comedians Catherine O’Hara and Andrea Martin satirized those tropes in a 1981 parody sketch called “I’m Taking My Own Head, Screwing It On Right, and No Guy’s Gonna Tell Me It Ain’t,” in which O’Hara proclaims she’s happy only when she’s working 21 hours a day and Martin complains that she feels like a prisoner in her own home. Even as series like “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” used humor to gently push forward feminist ideals, feminists were typically the butt of jokes in stand-up routines and on late-night shows.

Parton knew that Fonda was being strategic by casting her in “9 to 5,” in the hopes of bringing in a Southern audience. Fonda has been even more explicit that she viewed the movie’s humor as a vehicle for delivering a strong feminist message in a palatable way. “Even if people don’t want to deal with the issues we’re raising,” Fonda told the producer of “Dolly Parton’s America,” “they’ll like the movie anyway, because it’s really funny.”

I saw the film at age 10 with my sister, and I think it’s safe to say our reaction was shared by countless viewers: It was Parton who made us laugh the hardest, who we were really rooting for. The rage and revenge on display in the film might have seemed unhinged or ugly — the stuff of violent radicals — but somehow, with Parton at the center, their actions seemed almost plucky: You could push a sweet, smiling flower of a human only so far before she’d show you what she was made of.

The movie was not only a blockbuster — it made $100 million at the box office, the second biggest hit of the year — but according to the organizers who helped Fonda conceive it, it also changed culture in precisely the way they hoped it would. Before its release, “we had to argue that women’s work was plagued by discrimination,” Nussbaum was quoted as saying in Fonda’s memoir, “My Life So Far.” “The movie put an end to that debate. … The audiences recognized it and could laugh at it. Now the debate could shift to what we should do about it.” Ellen Cassedy, an organizer who worked with Nussbaum, said the movie “changed my life, and I can say that without a doubt, it changed offices, bosses and the whole atmosphere of office life.”

It’s unlikely that the movie would have been as effective without “9 to 5,” the theme song Parton wrote for it (a condition of her taking the role). The song starts with a driving, repeating single note, the song’s beating heart, music that’s quickly overlaid with what sounds like a clacking typewriter, even the ping of a cartridge. Written on set, with Parton’s acrylic nails her only instrument as she worked it out, the song universalizes the experiences of “folks like me, on the job, from 9 to 5.” Everyone starts their day with that cup of ambition; everyone has that boss who’s on the make; everyone hates on the man while simultaneously despairing of ever joining his ranks.

The song is sometimes considered a feminist anthem, but as the Canadian podcast “Material Girls” pointed out in March, it might be better considered a rallying cry for what the historian Dorothy Sue Cobble has called “labor feminism.” Labor feminism brought working-class women into the fold, recognizing, in Cobble’s words, that “the personal interaction between men and women at work and the sexploitation of women’s bodies were as much labor issues as wages and benefits.” 

Like Parton herself, the song “9 to 5” is unexpected as a feminist symbol — it’s playful, unlike many of the most important feminist anthems of the ’70s, which demanded respect, talked of survival, of being petrified. (In “I Am Woman,” Helen Reddy speaks of “wisdom born of pain.”) Fonda has said that she knew, from the moment she heard it the first time, it would be a cultural landmark: “If this movie’s not a big hit, this song will be — it’ll make us a hit,” she said in the 2022 documentary.

Parton took real professional risks in collaborating with Fonda, who earned the enduring enmity of thousands of Americans after she was photographed, laughing, sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a visit to Hanoi in 1972. In one of the early interview clips featured in the 2022 documentary, Parton suggested she was not having an easy time being asked “how I deal with Jane, what my folks think about Jane, and what the South thinks about me being a friend of Jane.”

But Parton never seemed to have regrets about making the film. She was herself a savvy career woman, and the film — her first — catapulted her into a new level of celebrity. Whatever her intentions, her performance can be credited with smashing the clichés of what a feminist looked like, even if she wouldn’t use that word to describe herself. She also helped reframe feminism’s image to emphasize more universally relatable demands for an egalitarian, humane workplace — better pay, better conditions, more respect. Getting ahead, getting the raise, getting the credit: It’s a song every American can hum along to.

 

JoJo From Jerz, Opinion: Bill Maher Is An Ass____, JoJo From Jerz, Aug. 31, 2026. Bill Maher, above, couldn’t tarnish Dolly Parton’s legacy, but he did manage to expose the rot in his own.

In case you missed it the other night, Bill Maher, the oleaginous, unctuous, supercilious, smugly self-satisfied septuagenarian sleazeball with the permanently pursed expression of a man who genuinely enjoys the smell of his own farts, who has spent decades steeping in stale dissent and the accumulated fumes of his own self-regard, stood on the Real Time stage in the middle of his own comedy show and decided that with wars raging, Donald Trump wreaking havoc and all manner of genuinely important s___ happening in the world, Americans were spending entirely too much time talking about the death of Dolly Parton.

You have got to be f____ kidding me.

He actually complained that “all America could really talk about” was how sad people were that we lost Dolly, ticked through some of the extraordinary displays of love appearing around the world, the Empire State Building glowing pink, the Santa Monica Ferris wheel covered in hearts, tributes stretching from London to Las Vegas, and then arrived at the Sphere and announced that it had “added a nipple.”

And that was basically it.

No tenderness. No affection. No meaningful acknowledgment of what she gave the world, what she created, what she meant to millions of people or why they might be gutted that she was gone.

Just this dry, drive-by little cheap shot tossed at a woman three days after she died, and then on to the next joke.

Really.

And I know exactly what some people are going to say.

Jesus Christ, Jo, don’t be so dramatic. 

Dolly joked about her boobs, her body, her hair, her clothes, her face, her makeup and practically every visible inch of herself that some tedious man had already scrutinized, underestimated or decided was available for public inspection, because she had that magnificent ability to grab whatever cheap s___ somebody intended to use against her, bedazzle the bastard, turn it inside out and make the joke hers before the other person even realized she’d stolen the weapon out of their hand.

And I guarantee you Dolly wouldn’t have cared what Bill Maher said about her on his stupid show.

She was a better person than I am by a factor of a thousand, to say the very least. She probably would’ve laughed, waved one perfectly manicured hand and gone on with her day.

I, on the other hand, am a petty, vindictive b___ who relishes any opportunity to eviscerate a sexist little hobbit with a superiority complex, so here we are.

The thing is, if a different comedian had made the exact same joke, I might’ve laughed.

This isn’t about the boob joke.

It’s about the f___telling it.

Context matters. History matters. And he did not materialize on that stage Friday night freshly hatched from some politically incorrect chrysalis, shiny and innocent and unburdened by decades of his own bullshit about women.

He has spent a career pawing through women’s bodies, beauty, brains, boundaries, bedrooms, breakups, beliefs and basic autonomy with the proprietary disgust of a man who thinks female existence is a defective appliance he alone has been burdened with troubleshooting, turning every woman who displeases, defies or simply declines to flatter him into another recurring exhibit in his personal Museum of Why Everybody Else Is Wrong About Everything Always.

I’m saying that when this particular man, dragging this particular history behind him, looks at the death of this particular woman, surveys this immense eruption of grief and gratitude, complains that she’s getting too much attention and then points at her chest, the punchline arrives with a long, greasy receipt attached.

Because Dolly was warmth and wit, humor and heart, bawdy and tender and glamorous as hell, deeply rooted in her faith, ferociously ambitious and astonishingly generous, with this uncanny gift for making people feel welcome in her presence instead of inspected by it.

I’m still not over her passing, and I don’t honestly expect I ever will be.

Losing her felt like somebody removed one of the load-bearing beams of human tenderness, something so constant that millions of us had forgotten how much weight she was carrying until she was gone.

That grief crossed generations, politics, religions and cultures because people weren’t mourning a résumé.

They were mourning Dolly.

And watching that ocean of affection scratched something raw in two sexist birds from the same rotten feather pile.

Donald Trump tried to jam his grubby little snausage fingers into her story by posting a fake AI image of himself (shown agove) walking arm-in-arm with her at the White House after she died, manufacturing a moment that never happened with a woman who spent her entire career being extraordinarily careful not to let politicians claim her for themselves.

Think about how f____ grotesque that is.

Even in death, he couldn’t leave a woman’s image, boundaries or legacy alone. He had to insert himself into the frame, manufacture an intimacy she never publicly gave him and paste his own face into her history after she was no longer here to tell him to get the fuck out of it.

The man has plenty of authentic photographs and archival footage of himself hanging around Jeffrey Epstein.

But Dolly?

He needed AI.

One grasping, glory-guzzling egomaniac tried to counterfeit closeness to her.

The other tried to cheapen the mourning.

Same f_____ sickness: a beloved woman dies and two swollen male egos immediately start clawing at what she left behind, desperate to wedge themselves into a story that was never about them.

And the irony of Maher complaining that everybody was devoting too much attention to Dolly while IMPORTANT THINGS were happening could choke a python.

He was delivering a monologue on a television comedy program.

This wasn’t the chairman of the Joint Chiefs interrupting a briefing on troop movements because somebody wanted to discuss Dollywood. Nobody burst into the Situation Room waving a sequined butterfly and screaming that the Empire State Building had gone pink. He was standing under studio lights being paid an enormous amount of money to make jokes about current events while scolding ordinary Americans for caring too much about the death of one of the most iconic and beloved entertainers this country has ever produced.

I used to watch him a lot. Many, many years ago, I watched his show constantly because I thought he was sharp and willing to say the uncomfortable thing.

He has calcified into the ageing, pretentious pub bore he would’ve mocked thirty years ago, mistaking irritation for intelligence, contempt for sophistication and chronic obnoxiousness for some rarefied capacity to perceive truths unavailable to the rest of us slobbering civilians.

Being incisive doesn’t require being insufferable. 

Dolly will outlive all of this.

Her songs will still be playing. Her movies will still be watched. Children will still open books because of something she started long before they were born. Families will still tell stories about her generosity, her one-liners, her ridiculous hair, the places she showed up, the people she helped and the particular way she made kindness look less like sainthood and more like common fucking sense.

Fifty years from now, people will still know Dolly Parton.

So finally, New Rule:

Trying to diminish Dolly Parton doesn’t make you daring, dangerous or defiantly unconventional. Taking a cheap shot at a legend three days after she dies because the scale of everyone else’s grief annoys you isn’t intellectual courage. It’s just cheap, sour little cruelty dressed up in the moth-eaten costume of rebellion.

Dolly Parton will be loved long after all of us are gone.

Aug. 30

 

 Famed Actress Targeted By Husband In Appalling Sexual Harassment Scandal. The German actress Collien Fernandes set out to discover who was pretending to be her and sending men sexually explicit material. Her answer ignited a feminist movement (Photo by Laura Stevens for The New York Times).

New York Times Magazine, Someone Was Impersonating Her in Online Affairs. She Says It Was Her Husband, Susan Dominus, Aug. 30, 2026 (print ed.). The German actress Collien Fernandes set out to discover who was pretending to be her and sending men sexually explicit material. Her answer ignited a feminist movement.

As evening approached on a Thursday in late March, Collien Monica Fernandes, a German actress and television personality, was growing restless. She was having an especially hectic day, shooting an episode of a TV series in a busy marketplace in Phu Quoc, Vietnam. The extras needed wrangling; the set was adjusted and readjusted. As the hours wore on, she checked her phone compulsively — she wanted to be alone in her room by 6 p.m. Finally, at 5:45, with the tropical light dimming, the director called it a wrap. Fernandes tore off her costume, raced to her nearby beachside hotel suite and made sure the digital “Do Not Disturb” sign was on. No one who worked on the show had any idea of what she was about to do.Listen to this article, read by Julia Whelan

Fernandes had recently finalized her divorce from another celebrity, an actor and comedian named Christian Ulmen. Ulmen was famous for being a master of cringe humor, or as the Germans call it with more precision, fremdscham (“someone else’s embarrassment”) humor — the kind that comes from watching another person experience an excruciatingly humiliating situation. In his most successful show, “Jerks,” Ulmen played a hapless actor and comedian also named Christian, whose desperate efforts to avoid awkward scenarios only dig him into deeper holes of shame. Escorts, sexual insecurities and fecal preoccupations feature prominently in the show, as do elaborate lies that pile up and eventually collapse beneath the men who lean on them.

Over the course of their 14-year marriage, Fernandes and Ulmen were a high-profile couple in Germany and the media covered their relationship regularly, often presenting it as a modern egalitarian marriage that reflected strong feminist values. After they had a child in 2012, Fernandes started speaking in interviews about the double standards applied to working mothers; she published a series of children’s books challenging traditional gender roles and produced a three-part documentary about the history of feminism. Ulmen, meanwhile, made news by declaring that he was taking a year off after their daughter was born.

At times, the public attention felt uncomfortable or outright invasive. When Fernandes gave birth to their daughter, she said, tabloids knew even before she had left the hospital room. Ulmen was obsessive about preserving their privacy — a journalist who was a friend of Ulmen’s wrote in a magazine profile that Ulmen seriously considered moving when the package delivery man started asking too many friendly questions. More troublingly, Fernandes was subjected to disturbing online harassment that went far beyond the usual comments about a female celebrity’s appearance. For years someone, or multiple people, had been impersonating her on social media, starting online affairs with men and creating and sharing or just recirculating pornography purportedly of her — material that featured other women who resembled her or imagery that might have been A.I.-generated. Others were charging money for the promise of access to her.

Fernandes initially did not devote much energy to the problem — how would she ever find these trolls typing away in some remote corner of the globe? — but in 2021, she learned about a video in which she appeared to be having sex with numerous men. She decided to respond as a journalist, by investigating her digital harassers. She was plagued by these shadowy figures for years and after considerable effort, she believed she had finally found one of them, a man who was conducting sexually explicit online affairs in her name. That March evening, she was ready to expose him.

The action Fernandes was about to take would dominate the news in Germany for weeks, inciting a nationwide movement that many would compare to #MeToo in the United States. Alone in her hotel suite, she prepared a post on Instagram to go up around the same time as the publication of a major news report about her experiences. She announced to her quarter of a million followers that she had filed a criminal complaint in Spain, where she had been living for the past few years, against a man she believed was responsible for digital and psychological abuse. “The perpetrator was (as I now know) quite close the whole time,” she wrote. “His name: Christian Ulmen.”

Aug. 27 

 

Future President Trump, right, enjoying life with his onetime best friend Jeffrey Epstein along with Trump's now-notorious birthday greeting to Epstein.

Lincoln Square Media, Six Questions Podcast: Katie Phang on Why She’s Suing the DOJ over the Epstein Files, with Steven Beschloss, Aug. 27, 2026. "The future of the Justice Department is bleak, and that is a generous construction:" — Katie Phang.

In this episode of Six Questions, Stephen Beschloss interviews independent journalist and former prosecutor Katie Phang, right, about her ongoing legal battle against the Department of Justice and new Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Phang explains her decision to sue Trump’s DOJ to force the release of heavily redacted Epstein files, noting that as an independent reporter, filing a lawsuit was a necessary tool to hold the government accountable. "We have an obligation to be truthful, but we don't have an obligation to be neutral,” she notes.

 

Aug. 21 

Last Page First, Jane Doe 4 and the Epstein Files: The Leaked FBI Notes Nobody Could Verify, Jana, left, Aug. 21, 2026. The FBI records are real. The leaked handwritten notes were never verified, then they were pulled. What happened, what the evidence shows, and how bad sourcing can damage a survivor’s story.

Before this piece was published, the journalist who posted the leaked notes pulled them from her own platforms. She wrote that she was “working hard to verify” them, that they “may be part of a disinfo campaign,” and that she was “putting the brakes on everything” until more was known.

That came after a federal judge had already warned the Justice Department in open court that he had held government lawyers in contempt before and was willing to do it again. Six days later, an independent journalist published 22 pages of handwritten notes she said were leaked copies of records DOJ is still withholding.

So the basic question is: what in this leak was ever actually verified?

What We Actually Know

Jane Doe 4 told the FBI in four interviews in 2019 that Jeffrey Epstein abused her on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, beginning around 1983, and that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her when she was between 13 and 15.

Those interviews are part of the FBI record. DOJ released them in stages this year, with the final batch coming out on March 5. What it did not release were the handwritten notes taken by the interviewing agents, along with roughly 37 pages tied to her file.

Those are the records now being fought over in federal court.A November 19, 2009 federal court order concerning Jane Doe 4’s deposition in the Epstein civil litigation. The court noted that her deposition had already taken place. EFTA02748206.

At an August 13 status hearing in Phang v. Blanche, a DOJ lawyer could not give the court a date for producing the notes. Judge Emmet Sullivan brought up the Ted Stevens case and reminded the lawyers that he had held government attorneys in contempt before for withholding information. He said he had no desire to go down that road again, but made clear he was willing to enforce the court’s orders.

Sullivan then gave Phang’s legal team ten days to propose how the case should move forward. Separately, her lawyers have asked the court to hold Blanche in contempt and impose a $1,000-a-day fine until he complies. That fine has been requested, not granted.

Phang’s attorney, Brendan Ballou, was blunt after the hearing. He said Blanche had “failed to follow the law,” pointing to DOJ’s failure to produce the required redaction log, begin producing foreign-language documents and turn over the notes concerning Trump.

DOJ has defended its handling of some of the material, saying it remains focused on protecting victim privacy.

The underlying story was already serious. There are FBI interviews, records DOJ still has not produced and a federal court fight over getting them released.

None of that needed an anonymous Reddit leak to make it worth reporting.

The Leak Nobody Could Actually Verify

On August 19, a journalist published 22 pages of handwritten notes she said had leaked to her. By her own account, the first batch came through an anonymous tip pointing to a Reddit thread. A second batch arrived through a private message.

The authentication came down to one phone call.

The source she contacted had seen the real missing notes once, briefly, in a supervised setting, and had not been allowed to photograph them. The source told her the leaked pages felt legitimate, but also said the handwriting did not match what they remembered and that a name they specifically recalled seeing in the real notes was missing.

That should have been enough to keep digging before publishing.

Katie Phang did exactly that. She did not post the leaked pages. On Bluesky, she said there were “concerns and questions about their authenticity” and that she was trying to get them vetted by sources who could actually verify them.

Phang’s own lawsuit is the reason these missing records are being fought over in court. She had every reason to want answers about them. She still did not call the leaked pages authentic before she could establish that they were.

Within days, the journalist who published the notes pulled them from her platforms. She wrote that she was “working hard to verify” them, that they “may be part of a disinfo campaign,” and that she was “putting the brakes on everything” until more was known. The Reddit thread the pages were said to have come from is also gone.

No government agency authenticated them. No court authenticated them. And no independent news outlet had shown they were the missing FBI notes before they were published to a large audience.

A researcher has said that related material appeared on Scribd under a pseudonym before it reached Reddit. That may help explain how the files traveled online. It does not tell us who created them or whether they are genuine.

If you are publishing purportedly leaked FBI records involving a survivor, allegations of sexual abuse and the sitting president, “it looks right” is not verification. A source remembering something similar is not verification either.

The person who published them ultimately decided there were enough questions to pull them herself.A Wrong Name Is Not a Small Error

You can already see the danger of getting ahead of the evidence with one name: “Jim Atkins.”

Jane Doe 4’s FBI material refers to a man by that name and describes ties to Ohio, a university or college, and the survivor’s mother.

The Post and Courier later dug through public records and matched roughly sixteen details from her interviews. Its reporting pointed to Jimmy L. Atkins, a Hilton Head real estate figure who also had ties to a for-profit college in Ohio.

That identification is backed by substantially more reporting and records. It is still not the same thing as the FBI or DOJ officially confirming that Jimmy L. Atkins was the man Jane Doe 4 was talking about.

Before that reporting appeared, a different candidate had also been proposed.

You can see how the match happened. Some of the details appeared to fit.

But that is not enough.

So we are left with two public attempts to identify “Jim Atkins.” One is backed by much stronger reporting. The other remains unconfirmed. Neither has been officially confirmed by the government.

And this is where bad verification starts hurting real people.

Once you attach a real person’s name to allegations involving sexual abuse and blackmail, that name travels. Screenshots travel. Search results travel. Other people repeat it.

A correction does not magically pull all of that back.

You cannot treat verification like cleanup after the fact. With allegations this serious, getting the person wrong can drag an uninvolved person into an abuse story while doing absolutely nothing to help the survivor whose story you were supposed to be reporting.The Incentive to Be First

None of this happens in a vacuum. The Jane Doe 4 story has been covered again and again by a group of independent journalists and podcasters who regularly appear on each other’s shows and cite each other’s work.

That is not automatically a problem. But it does mean something unverified can move very fast.

An anonymous tip becomes a Reddit post. Then a private message. Then a published story in front of a large audience, sometimes in the span of a night. Once one person puts it out, everyone else is reacting to it, quoting it, trying to identify names and scrambling to figure out what they have before anyone has really established what the document even is.

That is where the rush to be first starts screwing up the reporting.

Who leaked these pages, where they actually came from and whether they were deliberately planted are still open questions. Nobody can responsibly answer those yet.

Guessing does not help Jane Doe 4. It does not make her allegations stronger. It just adds more noise to a story that was already supposed to be about getting the actual records released.

What Matters Now

The real story is not the leak. It is that DOJ has had these notes since 2019 and still has not produced them, amid repeated promises of transparency and a federal judge warning government lawyers about contempt.

If DOJ eventually turns over the missing 37 pages, they can be compared directly with the copies that circulated online. That is what will settle this. Not one phone call. Not a source saying something felt right. Not silence from a lawyer. Not a document going viral before anyone knew where it came from.

Until then, the leaked pages are still unverified pages that were published, spread widely and then pulled by the person who published them.

And this is where the rush to publish starts causing problems.

Jane Doe 4’s allegations already exist in FBI records. There is already a legitimate court fight over material DOJ has not produced. Throwing questionable documents into the middle of that does not help her. It gives people something easier to attack, something easier to dismiss, and another excuse to cast doubt on everything else.

In a story involving a survivor, that kind of mistake can do real damage.

Survivors do not need people racing to be first. They need people willing to verify what they are putting in front of the public.

DOJ still has the records that can actually answer the question.

Those are the records worth waiting for.

Aug. 17

 

President Donald Trump is shown in a photo collage with columnist E. Jean Carroll, who won a jury verdict and damages because he sexually attacked her three decades ago. The rulings were confirmed on appeal, including two rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, one  on Aug. 17, declining to hear opposition by Trump to required damage payments. The case is the first to reach that level of completion out of scores of similar allegations against Trump by women and girls through the years, many still being suppressed by Trump's Justice Department despite a law requiring disclosure of records pertaining to his longtime friend Jeffrey Epstein, the late notorious financier and sex trafficker. Trump himself admitted his lecherous tendencies in remarks recorded for the television show Inside Edition and immortalized in such headlines as those by the New York Daily News, shown below. 

 

The Parnas Perspective, Morning News and Commentary:  SCOTUS Rejects Trump's E. Jean Carroll Appeal Again, Trump Threatens to Bomb Key US Ally, DHS Bulldozes National Park, Aaron Parnas, right, Aug. 17, 2026. Today’s rundown covers a lot of ground: the Supreme Court just denied Trump’s second attempt to overturn the $5 million E. Jean Carroll verdict, even as a separate $83 million appeal from that case still looms.

Trump threatened to “bomb the s--t” out of Oman, a key backchannel partner in the Iran war, right as his own 60-day deadline for a peace deal quietly expired with nothing to show for it. Federal contractors are bulldozing Big Bend National Park under a $960 million contract, and Trump picked yet another fight with a female journalist (this time misspelling the insult).

It’s a lot, and I’m going to walk you through all of it.

Before I do: this newsletter exists because I refuse to stop reporting, even when the Pentagon and the White House would rather I did. The Navy has denied my reporting. Hegseth has called what I’ve documented “misrepresented.” I’ve had officials call me a liar for accurately reporting what service members and their families are actually going through. That kind of pushback isn’t a sign I got something wrong. It’s a sign the reporting is landing.

Here’s the news:

 

Former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, center, at federal court with her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, left, on April 25 in New York City (Associated Press photo by Seth Wineg).

The Supreme Court on Monday declined for a second time to take up Trump’s bid to overturn the $5 million jury verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation, after Trump made the unusual move of asking justices to reconsider their June decision rejecting his initial appeal, a request the Court almost never grants. Trump has already paid the full $5 million plus interest. The case stemmed from Carroll’s lawsuit alleging Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in 1996, with the defamation claims tied to his later comments calling her allegations a “con job” and a “hoax,” which he has denied, saying he doesn’t know her. Trump still faces a separate Supreme Court appeal over a different case in which Carroll won an $83 million defamation judgment tied to remarks he made while in office during his first term, an appeal complicated by questions of presidential immunity that the Court isn’t expected to address until later this

The New Yorker Daily, A Nobel Laureate Charged with Child Abuse, David Remnick, Aug. 17, 2026. A virologist performed groundbreaking research on a fatal brain disease in Papua New Guinea. But his biggest experiment was on the children he took home.

Dr. D. Carleton Gajdusek’s scientific research among remote groups in the eastern highlands of Papua New Guinea, beginning in the late fifties, earned him a Nobel Prize. Gajdusek would travel there every year, bringing tennis balls, pencils, and paper for the children. He described the highlands as a “Shangri-La,” the place where he reached the “heights of human happiness.” He was there to study a fatal brain disease called kuru, which appeared only in that area. Those afflicted would tremble and jerk around, lose the ability to stand or swallow, and, after many months of slow suffering, die. Gajdusek eventually learned, through experiments with chimpanzees, that kuru was transmitted via a mourning ritual that involved eating the flesh of the dead.A portrait of a person.Luwi Ikabala, who, as a boy, moved with Carleton Gajdusek to the U.S. | Photograph by Tajette O’Halloran for The New Yorker

Gajdusek’s discovery was a remarkable breakthrough. His conduct, however, has, in recent years, come under intense scrutiny. Adjacent to his work on kuru, Gajdusek was also experimenting on the children of the highlands. From the sixties through the nineties, he brought at least thirty-six children from various Pacific islands, mostly boys, many of whom were under the age of twelve, to the U.S. to live with him at an isolated estate in Maryland, near his workplace, at the National Institutes of Health. “How stupid I feel & how unable to reply, when people start to tell me how generous & how altruistic & how fine it is of me to bring the boys to America for education,” he wrote in his journal. “I feel far more comfortable with those who worried, ask me for my real motives & my real purpose.”

His real purpose, it seems, at least in part, was to create the conditions in which he could be close to the children—sometimes sleeping naked in the same bed, sometimes touching them, sometimes encouraging them to masturbate. Gajdusek appeared to believe that his pedophilic attraction to his adopted brood was not causing harm; he wrote about his sexual interests in journals that were available to his staff at the N.I.H., “to the point that all of us were completely bored by it,” one colleague working in his lab said.

Rachel Aviv, in a piece for this week’s issue, travels to Papua New Guinea to speak with some of Gajdusek’s now grown wards, men who struggle to make sense of their experiences in the U.S.—and of what happened to them after they returned to the South Pacific. “We the lads of the Pacific / Our Island very wide,” one wrote in a poem, “When the doctor came to visit, / We followed for the ride.”

Trump Team Obsessions, Oppressions, Corruption

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, left in the collage, and Samuel Alito, both implicated in massive personal financial scandals with no accountability from any source, protected by their high position, lifetime judicial appointments and the ultra-right network of financial titans who arranged their career ascendancies.

Raw Story, Opinion: Repugnant Clarence Thomas is the perfect accomplice for Trump's gaudy conspiracy, John Casey, Aug. 17, 2026.  I've been fortunate enough to visit the White House several times, and what strikes you first, after you’ve seen pictures of it growing up, is how small it actually is. Not small in importance, of course, but small in square footage and size.

And I’ve been to the Oval Office three times, each time an awe-inspiring experience. And, again, it's really modest. I’ve been in corporate executive offices throughout my career that dwarf it. The press briefing room is tiny and cramped. I stood behind the lectern once, and I felt like I was looking down on a small hospital waiting room.

The Blue Room, the Gold Room, the East Room, even the grand-looking foyer you've seen in 100 photographs — in person, they're intimate, almost quaint. And that’s a good thing.That's not by accident. The White House was designed to be dignified, not imperial. It was built by a country that had just fought a war to avoid having a king, and every architectural choice since has, I think, tried to reflect that restraint. It is elegant precisely because it doesn't try too hard.

That was the White House before Donald Trump turned it into a grotesque obscenity, like his language. The Oval Office today is slathered in cheap gold appliques and trim, gilded cherubs, reminiscent of the Grand Ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, perched above the doorways. Gold eagles, gold urns, a gold-plated phony FIFA trophy, gold, gold, gold. The Oval looks like a trashy casino lobby.

Outside, along the colonnade, is the horrific "Presidential Walk of Fame," gold-framed portraits of his predecessors, with one glaring exception: instead of a portrait of Joe Biden, there's a photo of an autopen, a juvenile jab dressed up as decor.

The Rose Garden lawn is gone too, paved over into a stone patio. The whole thing is maniacally monarchical.

And most devastating is Trump’s bulldozing and demolishing of the East Wing, on a whim, to make way for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, a structure that will be larger than the White House itself, at a price tag way north of $400 million.

A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 this month that he had no authority to do this without Congress's approval, that "whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide," not a matter for a maniacal monarch to rule on.

Trump called the ruling "horrendous" and "unjust," and on Friday filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to let construction continue while he fights the lower court’s ruling.

The irony in this move is almost unreal. The billionaire bamboozler who slapped gold all over the people's house is now asking the Supreme Court, that has its own well-documented taste for gilded favors, to bless his gilded ballroom.

This is a court that has spent the last several years reliably ruling in favor of power and money over people. It gutted Chevron deference in Loper Bright, stripping federal agencies of the ability to protect workers, consumers, and the environment from corporate harm.

It ruled that cities can criminalize homelessness rather than house people. It let corporations sue unions into the ground for the economic fallout of a strike. And just this summer, in Trump v. Slaughter, it tore up nearly 90 years of precedent so Trump could fire independent watchdogs at will, gutting the very agencies meant to stand between big business and everyone else.

Then there's the court's own borderline criminal and massively covered-up relationship with wealth. Clarence Thomas, who hates anyone whose income falls below seven figures, spent decades quietly accepting superyacht vacations, private jet flights, and real estate favors from a billionaire megadonor, only disclosing any of it after journalists caught him.

The equally repugnant Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip on a hedge fund billionaire's jet, never reported it, and later ruled in that same billionaire's favor in a case worth billions.

This is a court that has no problem at all accepting gifts from precisely the class of people whose interests it keeps supporting in screwing over everyday people like you and me.

That said, don't expect this crooked court to suddenly discover a set, and I use this common man’s term intentionally, when a gold-obsessed, billionaire authoritarian leader asks permission to turn the modest White House into a monarch’s castle. If you take the court's recent history at face value, this should be an open-and-shut case for the side of extravagance.

Here's my prediction about what’s ahead for Trump’s ridiculous ballroom obsession, and it cuts two ways, both bad.

If the Court rules for Trump, expect the same disaster we've already seen with his other pet projects, which have been rushed, corner-cutting, done on the cheap with scant oversight.

The ballroom will follow the same botched work of the Reflecting Pool, helipad, Kennedy Center. It will be openly mocked and critiqued, just like the New York Timesfound with the ballroom being an architectural mess. It will be a never-ending money pit.

And speaking of pits. If the court rules against him, don't expect him to spend a dime of his own money finishing it properly or repairing what he tore down. He'll walk away, leaving a giant construction pit on the White House lawn, and let the next president clean up his mess, which is another pattern for Trump. When he messes up, someone else is left to clean up.

Either way, the ballroom will stand as a perfect monument to this dilapidated presidency, gaudy without taste, power, restraint, decorum, deference. It will stand as a total disregard for a national treasure that was never, ever his to remake in his own image. And a Supreme Court that has spent years proving whose side it's really on will have one more chance to prove it again.

 

Common Sense with Ally Sammarco, Opinion: $5 Million Down, $83.3 Million to Go, Ally Sammarco, Aug. 17, 2026. The Supreme Court has officially closed the door on Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the $5 million jury award in E. Jean Carroll’s 2023 civil case.

The justices declined to reconsider their earlier rejection of Trump’s appeal, without explanation or any noted dissents. Trump has already paid the $5 million judgment. Carroll, above, was found to have been sexually abused by Trump in the 1990s and defamed by him after publicly denying her allegations. Trump is still appealing a separate $83.3 million defamation judgment from 2024, arguing that statements he made about Carroll while president should be protected by presidential immunity.

Common Sense Takeaway: Pay up, Donald. You can’t worm your way out of this one. She deserves her money.

And how ridiculous that he thinks “presidential immunity” applies to making disparaging statements about a private citizen. The ruling was about immunity for official acts taken as part of the president’s constitutional duties—not using the office of the presidency as a shield for defaming someone. Even then, the ruling is questionable. But it most definitely shouldn’t stop him from coughing up the $83.3 million.

Aug.15

 

 

Katie Phang, OCourtroom Commentary: Où sont les documents? Katie Phang, right, Aug 15, 2026. Hey Todd: Where are the documents

During the Status Hearing this week in Washington, D.C. in my lawsuit against Attorney General, Todd Blanche, the following exchange took place between the presiding judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan, and Andrew Block, the Department of Justice attorney defending Blanche:

Judge Sullivan (below right): When did the process commence for the DOJ to begin its translation and review of the foreign-language documents contained within the Epstein Files?

Andrew Block: [Turning red, stammering, hemming and hawing, and eventually failing to answer the Court thereby confirming what we all suspected, which was the DOJ has not even begun the process of translating and reviewing the foreign-language documents.]

Judge Sullivan: How many pages of these documents are we talking about?

Andrew Block: I don’t have a number.

Judge Sullivan: But you knew this was going to be discussed today. You’re at the podium as counsel for the Attorney General.

Andrew Block: Our briefing is still our position and it hasn’t changed.

Judge Sullivan: The Government’s position then is you’re just not going to comply [with my court order]?

Andrew Block: Your order isn’t a final order [and some other gobbledygook that wasn’t responsive to the judge’s question.]

Judge Sullivan: You have nothing else to add?

Andrew Block: No, judge.

Recall: On June 26, 2026, Judge Sullivan entered an order granting my Motion for Preliminary Injunction, directing Todd Blanche to:

As of today, August 15, 2026, that hasn’t happened. And consider that language as compared to some of the other areas of that preliminary injunction order: the court didn’t give Blanche an “out” to explain why he couldn’t do the translations; the court ordered him to “immediately initiate review and production.”

I have made it clear that my work as an investigative journalist relies on those foreign-language documents being translated and produced. Jeffrey Epstein, with the assistance of a complex network of recruiters, enablers, facilitators, co-conspirators, employees, and others operated a multi-decade, multinational child sex trafficking ring. His ownership of residences in France, especially, and his direct involvement with modeling agencies gave him and his associates the necessary cover to cross international borders with children under the guise of the modeling business. It gave him and his associates the necessary cover to lure minors from their home countries with empty promises of supermodel futures, wealth, and success; to abuse them; to manipulate them; to control them; to violate them.

Jeffrey Epstein’s well-publicized personal and professional relationship with Jean-Luc Brunel is just one aspect of the Epstein Files that makes those foreign-language documents critically necessary to investigate and review. Brunel was a modeling scout in the late 1970s and he co-founded Karin Models in Paris in 1977. He was considered one of the leading model agents in Paris and eventually opened a U.S. branch called Karin Models of America with the financial backing of Jeffrey Epstein. That office became known as MC2 Model Management.

Just last week, the French publication, Le Monde, reported that Epstein not only used Paris as an abuse epicenter, but he would also do so in the luxury coastal town of Saint-Tropez. And he wasn’t alone in his crimes. American journalist, Michael Gross, documented the abuse in his 1995 book, Model, The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women: “Brunel ‘was the guy flying all the girls from Karins for the weekend to St.-Tropez. [He and his friends] were very well known in Paris for roaming the clubs. They would invite girls and put drugs in their drinks. Everybody knew that they were creeps.’” Brunel denied these allegations before his death by alleged suicide by hanging in a French prison in 2022 while under investigation on suspicion of the rape of minors and trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation.

French law enforcement at the Central Office for the Suppression of Violence Against Persons issued an investigative report in December of 2020 stating that “Jean-Luc Brunel used the modeling agencies where he had worked to gain easy access to vulnerable young girls whom he could abuse as he wished. This very likely allowed him, primarily, to provide the benefit of this access to his professional and personal associate, Jeffrey Epstein.”

And let’s not forget Ghislaine Maxwell’s own direct culpability in the trafficking ring. Per the late Virginia Giuffre’s testimony as cited in the 2020 investigative report by French police, Virginia identified Saint-Tropez as one of the locations where Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to the French owner of a hotel chain. Another victim interviewed by Le Monde alleged that she was raped by Epstein in his New York home in 2001. She first met Epstein at a party in Saint-Tropez when she was just 16 or 17 years old. Maxwell, who was also present at this party, manipulated this young woman and steered her to Epstein. The victim explained that in Saint-Tropez: “There were recruiters in the hotels, often funny and charismatic people, intermediaries who organized parties with celebrities present and who sent 14- or 15-year-old girls to them... Saint-Tropez could never have survived without that veneer. That’s what the town was selling.”

Epstein and one of his main recruiters, Daniel Siad, communicated extensively about his success in securing girls to introduce to Epstein. The two referenced in their exchanges how “most or many of the girls are eitehr [sic] gone to st tropez or holiday.” Siad, who was under investigation by Paris prosecutors for rape and human trafficking including for his association and work with Epstein, was recently found dead in his home in a Parisian suburb and his death is under investigation.

Another modeling recruiter and possibly one that worked with Epstein, Ramsey Elkholy, emailed Epstein stating a Latvian model, Marta, would be in Saint-Tropez and was looking to meet people. Epstein replied: “There are many interesting people there. you can give her my email.”

Why is the Trump Department of Justice participating in an active concealment and cover-up? Why won’t the “top cop” of the country, Todd Blanche, release the Epstein Files redacted in compliance with the federal law passed months ago? Where is the cooperation between American authorities and French authorities in investigating these leads? Instead of spending 9 hours with Ghislaine Maxwell cosplaying as a prosecutor and then secretly transferring her to a Club Fed to eat gourmet cheese and play with puppies, maybe Todd Blanche should be translating and reviewing those foreign-language documents in the Epstein Files and identifying more perpetrators, co-conspirators, and criminals for purposes of prosecution. Isn’t that his job?

But, Blanche doesn’t represent the people of the United States. He remains the personal lawyer for Convicted Felon Donald Trump. His loyalty is to one man and one man only. Blanche pays lip-service to the survivors and makes empty promises of justice. But, we’ve clocked him and what he’s all about from the very beginning. And that’s why I’m aggressively pursuing my lawsuit against Blanche because as Judge Sullivan stated during that Status Hearing: “The public and the victims have the right to know what the hell is going on.”

Aug. 10

 

New York Times, Opinion: He Says Obscene Things About Mothers and Children. Mike Johnson Is Raising Money for Him, Michelle Goldberg, right, Aug. 10, 2026. Brandon Herrera, in jeans and a white shirt, speaking into a microphone on a porch. Because this is a family newspaper, I cannot quote the piquant term that Brandon Herrera, a Republican House candidate in Texas, used to refer to children in a 2023 video. I can only report that he called them “trophies” for getting a man to ejaculate. Nor, alas, am I allowed to repeat the obscenities that Herrera, a gun influencer, used to explain why the opinions of mothers are without value. I can only say that he argued, essentially, that getting pregnant requires no special skill.

Two weeks ago, ahead of a fund-raiser that Mike Johnson, the House speaker, was holding for Herrera, The Austin American-Statesman reached out to Herrera’s campaign about these resurfaced comments. Herrera’s team responded with a crude visual pun that, once again, is too vulgar for me to describe here.

I can, however, tell you about the Nazi and eugenics stuff. In a 2022 video, Herrera and a buddy in sunglasses and a balaclava tested a Nazi-era submachine gun, then goose-stepped to a Nazi marching song. Herrera called the weapon “the original ghetto blaster.” In a 2024 podcast, after calling for abolishing Social Security, he joked that we should also “abolish old people,” laughing along as his co-hosts riffed about killing them off as in the cult horror film “Midsommar.”

Herrera became the Republican nominee in his South Texas district in March after the sitting congressman, Tony Gonzales, withdrew due to a sexual harassment scandal. Somehow, unlike Graham Platner, the Maine Democrat, Herrera hasn’t become a household name. I haven’t seen much public hand-wringing about the decision of the pious Johnson to raise money for Herrera, nor debate about what his candidacy means for the Republican Party’s attitude toward women, Jews or seniors.

That Herrera has flown somewhat under the radar is a testament to a fundamental asymmetry between the parties, as well as in our discourse about them. Thanks to Trump, misogyny and extremism among Republicans has become what journalists sometimes call a dog-bites-man story, something so ordinary and predictable that it breaks through only when it reaches an absurdly high threshold.Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

I regularly speak to people who follow politics closely but haven’t heard of Cory Mills, a Republican representative running for re-election in Florida. One ex-girlfriend of Mills won a restraining order against him after saying he threatened her with revenge porn. Another, whom he was seeing at the same time, told the police he’d assaulted her, though she later recanted. (He denies both charges.) Mills is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over allegations of both sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations. Yet it barely made a stir when Trump endorsed him in the Republican primary, which takes place next week; polls show him ahead in the four-way contest.

Max Miller, a Republican congressman from Ohio, has, in recent weeks, finally breached what we might call the bad-even-for-Republicans line, due to allegations of truly horrific abuse of his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, and his young daughter. Moreno — whose father is Ohio’s sitting Republican senator Bernie Moreno — claimed that Miller held a gun to her head, threw scalding water at her, and broke their 2-year-old’s collarbone. Two other women have also accused him of abuse. (He denies all these allegations.)

In a statement this month, Bernie Moreno wrote that Miller “is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter. If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them.”

The key word there was “if.” Consciously or not, Trump often seems to be trying to show that, especially when it comes to the treatment of women and girls, there are no such standards. At this point it’s tedious to recount all the times he has faced allegations of sexual assault, or to note that his secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, paid off a Republican woman who said he raped her, though he denied the assault.

As The Bulwark’s Tim Miller often points out, Trump is devoid of empathy toward almost everyone except those accused of abusing women. His grace even, at times, extends to Democrats. When a woman came forward to say that Platner had raped her — which Platner denies — Trump responded, “A lot of people say big falsehoods.” Trump endorsed the former football star Herschel Walker in the 2022 Republican Senate primary in Georgia even though his ex-wife, like Emily Moreno, said the candidate had put a gun to her head.

So it’s not surprising that while Trump reportedly called Max Miller to express concern about his candidacy, he never publicly urged him to drop out. Indeed, Politico reported that Trump’s team intervened to stop other Republicans from pressuring Miller to leave the race. Last month on CNN, a fellow Ohio Republican, Representative Jim Jordan, called Miller a “good man” enduring a “difficult” family situation.

On Saturday, a key deadline for Republicans to nominate a replacement for Miller passed without much effort to push him out. Despite the plaintive hopes of Bernie Moreno, Republicans have shown that they do not consider Miller beyond the pale. In such a party, someone like Brandon Herrera barely stands out. The Republican Party of Sarah Palin once pretended to revere mothers while fear-mongering about death panels. Now it stands, above all, for male impunity.

Democrats recently moved Herrera’s district, which voted for Trump by 15 points, onto their target list, convinced that his comments create an opportunity for Katy Padilla Stout, a lawyer and former teacher from San Antonio, to flip the seat. So far, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, no Republican has broken ranks to endorse her. This is predictable. In most ways that matter, Herrera is one of the party’s own.

News AnalysisTrump Wants to Move On From the Middle East. It’s Not Letting Him,Anton Troianovski, Aug. 10, 2026. President Trump is eager to declare success in Iran and Gaza, but he is struggling to impose his will in either conflict.

President Trump may want to let go of the Middle East. But it won’t let go of him.

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump said his new strategy was to be “low-keying it” in Iran, a suggestion that he wants to pressure the country into making a favorable deal without taking major military action. But a stark reminder of the limits of U.S. power in the region came from Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Sunday he was “ruling out” Mr. Trump’s peace plan for Gaza.

The two Middle East conflicts have underscored Mr. Trump’s eagerness to declare success and his inability to impose his will on them, despite the enormous military firepower that he has been able to deploy.

Mr. Trump is “clearly trying to find a pathway as the midterms approach to downgrade all of this,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank. Instead, Mr. Katulis went on, “reality is slapping him in the face.”

Mr. Trump faces depleted weapons stockpiles, an Iranian regime determined to impose pain on the United States, an Israeli prime minister battling for re-election and American voters reeling from high prices induced by the Iran war. The November midterms keep ticking closer, steadily raising the political costs of the turmoil to Mr. Trump and Republicans.

Mr. Trump laid out his low-key approach to Iran in a brief interview with the news website Axios on Sunday. Rather than make new military threats, he said that “we are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.” He added: “It will work out. It always works out. It’s like a chess game.”

“Now, can they make trouble? Yeah, they can make trouble,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Monday, acknowledging Iran’s ability to keep harassing commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. “But they’re broke.”

In describing the Iranian regime as suffering from economic pressure, Mr. Trump evoked his own predicament. The average price of a gallon of gasoline remained above $4 this week, more than $1 above the price when the United States and Israel began bombing Iran on Feb. 28. Polls show even Republicans growing disenchanted with the Iran war and Mr. Trump’s political movement has fractured over his decision to launch military action.

“I don’t think the president has very good options,” said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist and vice president at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “The pressure points for the Iranians are, while real, more endurable and bearable than those that are impacting the U.S. economy and the strategic calculus of the administration.

A White House official said in a statement on Monday that Mr. Trump’s “bold actions” on the battlefield in Iran and in diplomacy over Gaza “will strengthen American security for years to come.”

“The failed Obama and Biden policies were defined by appeasement,” said Olivia Wales, a White House spokeswoman. “The successful Trump policy is defined by American strength.”

In Gaza, Mr. Trump trumpeted a “historic breakthrough” on July 30, a multiphase deal under which the militant group Hamas would eventually disarm and Israel withdraw from the Palestinian enclave. Writing on his Truth Social website, in all capitals, he hailed an “amazing development” that “everybody said could never be achieved.”

But in the days after Mr. Trump announced the plan, Gaza saw an increase in deadly Israeli bombings. On Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu, who earlier this year went into the Iran war alongside Mr. Trump, emphatically rejected Mr. Trump’s plan: “I want to be clear here — Israel is ruling out the 15-point document.”

The Gaza episode was, to some analysts, another reminder of diminished American influence in the Middle East in the wake of the Iran war, which has dragged into its sixth month with none of Mr. Trump’s expansive goals appearing close to being accomplished. Many Israelis have seen Mr. Trump’s pursuit of a peace deal with Iran as a betrayal, giving Mr. Netanyahu a political incentive to be seen as standing up to Mr. Trump as he seeks re-election in October.

In both Iran and Israel, Mr. Katulis said, Mr. Trump has “misread the regional power dynamics.” Mr. Katulis also pointed to the new defense pact between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as a sign of countries looking to hedge their bets amid uncertainty over the future of American power in the Middle East.

In Iran, for all of Mr. Trump’s efforts at finding a way out, a renewed flare-up of violence could come at any moment. The U.S. military has kept up its naval blockade of shipping to Iranian ports and said Saturday it had redirected 53 commercial vessels in recent weeks, along with disabling two ships and boarding two others. Mr. Trump’s enormous buildup of U.S. military force in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, has remained in place.

“These tools are not low-key,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, an expert on Iran at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that is hawkish on Iran, referring to the U.S. sanctions and blockade. “Iran is likely not going to take them lying down.”

The United Arab Emirates on Saturday said an Iranian attack had targeted a tanker belonging to one of its state-owned oil companies as it crossed the Strait of Hormuz, the major artery for oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf. The Houthis, an Iranian-backed militia in Yemen, have threatened to block Saudi oil shipments through the Red Sea.

A senior Iranian official said on Saturday that Iran would reopen the strait only if the United States met a sweeping list of demands, including lifting sanctions and the blockade. The official, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, also demanded war reparations, prompting Mr. Trump to post on Truth Social on Monday that “I am likewise demanding compensation from Iran.”

Iran’s compensation, he said, would need to cover people killed and wounded in Iran’s “many conflicts” as well as Iranian protesters killed by the regime. He said he had instructed officials to seek that compensation in “any, and all, future negotiations.”

Iran and the United States are not known to be negotiating directly, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that Iran and neighboring Oman were holding talks with U.S. input. Online, some of the loudest supporters of Mr. Trump’s initial decision to bomb Iran continued on Monday to push for new attacks.

“For those here and elsewhere living in a fantasyland, there will need to be further military action,” the Fox News host Mark Levin wrote on X. “Economic pressure alone won’t cut it.”

Aug. 9 

 

 

Last Page First, Investigative Commentary: Jeffrey Epstein’s “Massacre of the Innocents” at Zorro Ranch, Jana, right, Aug. 9, 2026. Jeffrey Epstein’s “Massacre of the Innocents” at Zorro Ranch

Jeffrey Epstein commissioned a 9-foot reproduction of "The Massacre of the Innocents." The EFTA files show exactly how it was ordered, approved, and shipped to his New Mexico ranch.

 

Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem, The Massacre of the Innocents, 1591. This is the work Jeffrey Epstein’s office selected for a 9-foot hand-painted reproduction in 2010. Mauritshuis, The Hague.

The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam holds a 1590 painting by Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem. Nearly nine feet wide, it shows soldiers tearing infants from their mothers. One child is being killed. A woman claws at a soldier’s face. The museum’s own exhibition text asks a simple question: “Who would commission such a work? And why?”

In 1590, the answer was Prince Maurits of the Dutch Republic. The painting served as political propaganda. The biblical massacre was used to represent the rule of Philip II of Spain and the suffering of the Dutch under foreign troops.

Van Haarlem painted a second version in 1591 for the prince’s residence in Haarlem. The first was considered too graphic, so the later version was toned down.

More than four centuries later, in 2010, Jeffrey Epstein ordered a 9-foot oil reproduction of that second painting. He paid $1,999 to have it hand-painted in China, shipped to his Manhattan townhouse, and later sent by FedEx to Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, where survivors have described being abused.

The Rijksmuseum’s question works just as well here.

The documents explain the first commission. They do not explain the second.Jeffrey Epstein Commissioned a Replica of ‘Massacre of the Innocents,’ Files RevealCornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem, The Massacre of the Innocents, 1591. 

On November 20, 2010, a contact named Mark emailed Jeffrey Epstein about an elderly art collector looking to sell two paintings privately. One was a Rubens, priced at $45 million. The other was a Caravaggio, priced at $40 million.

To put the Rubens price in context, Mark pointed to another Rubens: The Massacre of the Innocents. It had sold for $72 million in 2002 to Canadian businessman Kenneth Thomson, who later donated it to the Art Gallery of Ontario.EFTA02408496.

Epstein replied asking for photos, but he did not buy either painting. Eighteen days later, someone in his office contacted Ocean’s Bridge Group about a different artist’s version of the same biblical subject.

The timing stands out. The November email had brought The Massacre of the Innocents into the conversation, and less than three weeks later Epstein’s office was asking about another version of it. Instead of a $45 million Rubens, he ultimately ordered a $1,999 reproduction of Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem’s 1591 painting, one of the harsher versions of the subject.

The Order

On December 8, 2010, Sarah Kellen contacted Ocean’s Bridge Group, a company that sells hand-painted reproductions of historical artworks. She asked about Painting ID 58335, Massacre of the Innocents 1591.

The original was Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem’s 1591 version, owned by the Mauritshuis in The Hague and on long-term loan to the Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem.EFTA00560320.

Kellen initially asked about a 12-foot version. Ocean’s Bridge told her that 9 x 9 feet 5 inches was the largest size they could ship. She also wanted to confirm that the reproductions were actually painted, not printed. The company said they were 100 percent oil, made using traditional methods, with no printing involved. Kellen asked to see examples of previous work, and they sent samples.

On December 28, 2010, she forwarded the quote to Epstein: “Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents.. pls see below.. Would you still like to proceed with the painting? The 9 feet by 9 feet 5 inch size is $1999.”

Epstein replied with one word: “proceed.”EFTA00901209.

The art historian Karel van Mander described it in 1604, writing about the “naked child killers” and “the efforts of the mothers to save their children.” He also discussed the different flesh tones of the figures and the physical effects of death on the children’s bodies. He considered the work excellent.

Van Haarlem’s painting is one of the harsher treatments of the subject. It is crowded, violent, and deliberately disturbing. His 1590 version was considered so intense that the 1591 painting was softened somewhat. Even then, it remained brutal.

Epstein had just been offered a $45 million Rubens when his office turned to a catalog and chose this painting instead for $1,999. The selection was specific. The painting ID appears in the emails, and the reproduction was made to order at Epstein’s direction.

The Ranch

Zorro Ranch was not some getaway vacation ranch. Previous reporting has documented the compound in extraordinary detail: a private runway and hangar, daily gun cabinet checks, weekly firearms cleaning, bi-weekly ammunition inventories, a fire truck tested monthly, an ambulance delivered in 2016, five to six full-time staff, satellite connections to Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, a bunkhouse, and more.

Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant and estate co-executor, handled procurement. Brice and Karen Gordon managed the ranch’s daily operations until Epstein’s death.

The painting arrived at Zorro Ranch in July 2011. Before it was shipped, Kellen wrote that it had been “rolled out for him to see in the entry way” at 71st Street.

It was not the only unusual artwork associated with Epstein’s properties. In 2019, a contractor who had worked at Zorro Ranch described a roughly 6-foot painting of a young woman straddling a dead lioness. He said it hung at the bottom of the stairs in the main house basement, near the laundry, and had been there since at least 2013. Fox News reported on the painting that year.

A different former contractor later provided a photograph of another painting he identified as a young Ghislaine Maxwell, nude and holding a gold-colored dagger. He said that painting had also been displayed inside the ranch.A portrait that a former Zorro Ranch contractor identified as a young Ghislaine Maxwell. The contractor said the painting was displayed inside Epstein’s New Mexico property.

Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse had its own interesting art collection. Parsing Bill, Petrina Ryan-Kleid’s portrait of Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress, was photographed there and widely reported in 2019.

Maria Farmer’s later FBI submission documented additional artwork associated with Epstein.Where the Painting Is Now

In March 2026, New Mexico state investigators searched Zorro Ranch with the cooperation of its current owner, Don Huffines, who bought the property in 2023 and renamed it Rancho de San Rafael. It is not known whether the painting was among the items cataloged during that search, and the Huffines family has not publicly said where it is now.

The New Mexico Survivors’ Truth Commission, a bipartisan panel of four state representatives, issued its first round of subpoenas in June 2026. More than a dozen entities were targeted, including the DOJ, FBI, Epstein’s estate, and several major banks. No individuals were subpoenaed. The commission is expected to issue its final report by the end of the year.

Attorney General Raúl Torrez reopened the state criminal investigation in February 2026 after reviewing newly released federal files. He put the limits of that investigation plainly:

“Epstein has been dead for years. Zorro Ranch has changed ownership. Physical evidence may no longer exist, and the statute of limitations has likely run on many potential offenses. These are real obstacles, and survivors deserve to hear them stated plainly.”

A photograph of the painting has since been published by the DOJ. Its current location is still unknown. LEFTA00553278.

Four hundred and twenty years apart, two men commissioned versions of the same image. We know why Prince Maurits wanted his. We do not know why Jeffrey Epstein wanted his.

We know Epstein approved the order, saw the finished painting at 71st Street, and then had it sent to Zorro Ranch.

Where the painting is now, nobody has said.

Aug. 1

 

Future President Trump, above right, with his onetime best friend Jeffrey Epstein, left, along with Trump's now-notorious birhday greeting to Epstein. 

Last Page First, Investigative Commentary: Katie Johnson, Jane Doe 4, and the Men In Between, Jana, right, Aug. 1, 2026. Two women, two decades apart, both alleging abuse by the same two men. Online, they became one story.

On July 4, 2016, attorney Thomas Meagher dialed the FBI’s public line from his office in Princeton, New Jersey. He reported the sexual exploitation and rape of a child, allegedly by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The official document is dated November 23, 2016.EFTA00129126

Meagher’s client, Jane Doe, was a thirteen year old girl from the Midwest. In the summer of 1994 just after finishing 7th grade, she left her father’s house under the guise of visiting her grandmother. The bus she boarded carried her east, all the way to New York City. She arrived with a dream of modeling but the agencies she approached turned her away. “Come back when you have a portfolio” they told her.

So she waited, stranded and disappointed, at the Port Authority bus terminal. That is where Tiffany found her. Tiffany didn’t offer her modeling career. Instead, she offered the girl access and Epstein parties. Easy money, she promised. To seal the deal Tiffany gave Jane a “buddy pass” plane ticket- a golden ticket back to Manhattan. The girl took it, and over the course of four visits to Epstein’s townhouse, she says she collected roughly $500.

Buried deep in the FBI’s intake narrative, the document says something that cuts straight through a decade of public confusion.

“Tiffany instructed Doe to use the name Katie Johnson at these parties.”

A single sentence that reframes everything. According to Meagher’s report to the FBI “Katie Johnson” wasn’t the plaintiff’s birth certificate name. It also wasn’t a court authorized pseudonym. It was an alias, a cover handed to a frightened child by the woman who recruited her.

What She Said Happened

The FBI complaint describes four visits to Epstein’s townhouse.

At the first party, the coercion began. The plaintiff was stripped to her underwear and ordered to massage Epstein. When she refused any sexual acts, the demand pivoted. She was told to use her hands to massage the genitals of Epstein’s guest, Donald Trump. This, she was informed, was the toll she had to pay to get a job.

The second visit pushed further into assault. She was forced to perform oral sex on Trump. By the third gathering, she wasn’t alone; another girl was brought in, and both were made to perform oral sex on him.

The fourth visit marked the threshold into violent rape. The plaintiff alleged that Trump raped her through vaginal penetration. When Epstein learned that Trump had taken her virginity, he erupted. Then raped her himself. Both men struck her during the assault. Afterward, both men threatened her. FBI Complaint Form FD-71, EFTA00129127

“We’ll make you disappear like REDACTED.”

The redacted name in the FBI complaint corresponds to “Maria” in the court filings. A twelve year old girl who, according to the plaintiff, was forced to participate in sex acts during that third encounter. She says she never saw Maria again after that night. Doe v. Trump Exhibit Tiffany Doe Declaration - Document #4 Attachment #2

She was not paid for the final party and her parents were never informed of any of it. According to Meagher, as of July 2016, twenty two years later, they still did not know.

The Filing History

April 26, 2016: The plaintiff filed pro se, without an attorney, in U.S District Court, Central District of California. Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS.She filed under the name “Katie Johnson” at 6634 Desert Queen Avenue, Twenty nine Palms, California. A foreclosed property whose owner had recently died. She framed it as a civil rights violation and sought $100 million. EFTA00622303

May 2, 2016: The judge dismissed it. Not because the allegations lacked substance, but because the legal theory was wrong. The civil rights statutes she cited required “race-based or class-based animus,” and she had alleged neither. The ruling was procedural, the judge never weighed the truth of what she claimed. Order on Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60) - Document #6

June 20, 2016: Attorney Thomas Meagher stepped in and refiled in the Southern District of New York. Case 1:16-cv-04642. This time, it was properly drafted and filed under “Jane Doe, proceeding under a pseudonym,” with sworn declarations from Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe attached. Meagher reframed the case around state-law claims and added a defamation allegation after Trump attorney Alan Garten publicly denied the accusations. EFTA00211168

July 4, 2016: Meagher called the FBI. The complaint was logged. The FBI ran Sentinel queries, its internal case management searches, on both Meagher and the case itself.

September 16, 2016: The second SDNY case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Meagher said a new witness had been identified.

September 30, 2016: A third filing in SDNY. Case 1:16-cv-07673. This one added a “Joan Doe” declaration. J. Cheney Mason, a veteran Florida defense attorney, filed a pro hac vice motion to join the case. The filing included a Statement of Relatedness confirming: “Both actions concern the identical parties, property, transactions and events; and there is complete, identical factual overlap.”

Statement of Relatedness -Document #2

November 2, 2016: Lisa Bloom (shown at right in a file photo) stood before reporters at a press conference that never happened. “Jane Doe has received numerous threats today,” she told them. “She is living in fear. She has decided that she is too afraid to show her face. She’s been here all day ready to do it, but unfortunately she is in terrible fear.” Screenshot of New York Post article.

November 4, 2016: The case was voluntarily dismissed. Bloom tweeted: “Jane Doe instructed us to dismiss her lawsuit against Trump and Epstein today. Tough week for her. We wish her well.”

November 8, 2016: Election day.

The case was dismissed on November 4, 2016. Four days before the election, not after. Some coverage moved the date to November 11, placing the dismissal after Trump’s victory. The docket says November 4.

Epstein’s Circle

The EFTA includes emails from inside Epstein’s world, sent within days of the first filing.

On April 28, 2016, two days after the California complaint, attorney Martin Weinberg forwarded Epstein a message: “Reporter said 1994 claim fed ct California. Will go to press in several hrs.”

Lesley Groff, Epstein’s assistant, responded: “ok... so sorry...”

On April 30, someone emailed Epstein directly.

“Sneaky who is Tiffany Doe? Did she work for you?”

The sender shared online commentary calling the lawsuit “bad fanfiction.”

Epstein replied with a single word: “no.”

Other released emails show that he discussed and circulated news of the lawsuit with several associates.

Deutsche Bank Findings

In the spring of 2018, a compliance officer named Vijay Sawant in Deutsche Bank’s Mumbai office was conducting a periodic review of Epstein linked accounts. The accounts belonged to Prytanee LLC and Southern Trust Company Inc. The related parties included Jeffrey Epstein, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Etienne Binant, and Caroline Lang. The accounts were marked high risk.

During routine “Google Panama searches,” Sawant found the Katie Johnson article from Global Research and attached it to the compliance file. A LexisNexis report commissioned for the review flagged multiple Epstein related news hits as “Possible match: sex trafficking could relate to money laundering.”EFTA01386389

So, a major international bank’s compliance team was reading about these allegations while reviewing Epstein’s own accounts. The allegation entered Epstein’s internal compliance file while the bank was conducting due diligence on Epstein linked accounts.

The Other Girl

This is where the public conversation shattered.

For the past year, two separate allegations involving two different people have been collapsed into a single story across social media, podcasts, Substack publications, congressional hearings, and news coverage. Some outlets continued repeating the conflation long after the distinction had been publicly documented. Others appear never to have checked. The result has been the same.

Katie Johnson/Jane Doe: The 1994 Case

A 13-year-old from the Midwest [shown above as an adult wearing a disguise and with face blanked out in discussing her ordeal]. Recruited at the Port Authority bus terminal in New York during the summer of 1994. She alleged abuse at 9 E. 71st Street. Named both Trump and Epstein and filed pro se in California, then through Attorney Meagher in SDNY. She withdrew November 4, 2016.

Jane Doe 4: The 1980s Case

She met Epstein around 1984 on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, after Epstein rented a vacation home from her mother, a real estate agent. The girl offered babysitting services. There were no children to babysit. The FBI interviewed her four times in 2019. She told agents Epstein abused her in the 1980s and that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was between 13 and 15 years old. She later pursued a claim involving the Epstein estate. Whether she received a settlement remains publicly unresolved. During Richard Kahn’s March 2026 congressional deposition, he initially appeared to confirm a settlement, but his attorney later withdrew that confirmation and said he could neither confirm nor deny that one occurred. She was represented by Arick Fudali of the Lisa Bloom firm.

She is now reported to be living off the grid. A family member told The Guardian she fears retaliation from the Trump administration.

Different Cases

Different decades, different states, different attorneys. Different case numbers, different recruitment stories, different legal theories. What they share is that they were both around 13 and both named Trump and Epstein in their abuse.

Some outlets have written that “Katie Johnson” is “known as Jane Doe 4 in the Epstein files.” That is wrong. Katie Johnson is the 1994 plaintiff, Jane Doe 4 is the Hilton Head accuser from the 1980s. Conflating them does not help either woman, it only helps the people arguing that both of their stories should be thrown out.

During the March 2026 congressional deposition of Epstein accountant Richard Kahn, his testimony about whether Jane Doe 4 received a settlement from the Epstein estate shifted during the hearing itself. Kahn initially confirmed a settlement. Then his attorney walked it back. House Oversight Democrats demanded clarification. That confusion fed the public conflation.

The Nadia Bjorlin photograph only made it worse.

A childhood image of the actress, whose family has its own separate, publicly reported Epstein connection, was cropped from a 2014 Instagram post about her late father and circulated as “Katie Johnson.” It is not Katie Johnson and it has no documented connection to the 2016 lawsuit. It is a real person’s childhood photograph attached to someone else’s story without her consent. 

July 

July 22 

 

U.S. Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche, currently acting attorney general and a former Trump criminal defense attorney before the president nominated him for Senate confirmation (Shown at U.S. Capitol on July 16, 2026).

Hopium Chronicles, Advocacy and Opinion: Epstein Survivors Speak Out Against Trump's AG Nominee Blanche, Troy Jackson Leads By 3 In New Maine Poll, OpenAI Goes Rogue, Rs “Preparing For The Bottom To Fall Out,” Simon Rosenberg, right, July 22, 2026. Jay Clayton advanced through Committee last night but Todd Blanche does not yet have the votes. So we need to be aggressive today peeps and keep the pressure on. The most important calls are Senator Tillis and Senator Cornyn. 

The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have released a letter to the U.S. Senators who will cast the deciding votes on Todd Blanche’s nomination to serve as Donald Trump’s Attorney General. I have excoriated Todd Blanche as unethical and downright evil for his leadership of the Trump-Epstein cover-up, and I stand by every word. But the letter these women have written is so painful, so passionate, and so morally unanswerable that I am compelled to share it with you in full.

 

Let’s keep making our calls people, particularly those of you in North Carolina and Texas!

“We’re preparing for the bottom to fall out” - Here’s the lead story in Politico Playbook this morning, the most read political newsletter in Washington:

EPIC FUMBLE: For months, President Donald Trump has insisted he could manage the Iran conflict on his terms: hit hard, force a deal and keep the United States out of another long Middle East war.

Instead the U.S. and Iran are escalating strikes. More U.S. service members are dead. Gas prices are again on the rise. The administration’s diplomatic off-ramp appears to be narrowing. And Republicans working to preserve their congressional majorities are beginning to contemplate a scenario they once viewed as unthinkable: a full-scale war still dominating the political landscape in November.

“We’re preparing for the bottom to fall out,” a GOP operative working on midterm races told Playbook.

The operative said contests in Iowa, Alaska and Ohio — along with House districts Trump carried by double digits in 2024 — are now firmly in play.

“Republicans are running out of runway here to improve their political fortunes before November,” the operative said.

In Iowa, a new battleground for the GOP, Democratic Senate candidate state Rep. Josh Turek has made the war a touchstone of his stump: “Everywhere I’m going — it doesn’t matter, urban or rural areas — people are telling me they’re struggling just to keep food on the table, a roof above their head, and now with this unnecessary war in Iran, we’re looking at being able to afford gas,” he told Playbook.

Battleground GOPers like Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania and Rep. Tom Barrett in Michigan have been boxed into a corner, forced to choose between toeing the party line on the war while convincing frustrated voters that position isn’t at odds with the conflict’s downstream impact on prices.

Yesterday’s Hopium post was about how Trump’s failed war had - predictably - turned into a global strategic and domestic political disaster for the Trump and the Republicans. Brent crude is over $93 a barrel this morning, gas prices are over $4 a gallon, diesel is back up over $5 a gallon, and bond yields are spiking again (higher interest rates, enormous new costs to US govt/taxpayers).

The budget process in Washington has completely melted down for the Republicans have no idea how they are going to pay for this unauthorized Mad Kingy war that is now running into the many, many hundreds of billions of dollars without any clear end in sight. In essence where the Rs are now is either spend enormous sums to launch a full ground invasion of Iran without a high likelihood of success or spend enormous sums rebuilding Iran after our full surrender. Either way the cost to US taxpayers is going to run into the many hundred billions, perhaps trillions, and our position here at Hopium is that the only people who should pay for this disastrous and illegal war are the oligarchs who put Trump into power and are slavishly propping him up now.

And let us again remind ourselves that every day Americans are already paying an enormous price for this failed war and the broader failures of the regime - higher prices, disrupted supply chains, higher health care costs and reduced access to care, lost markets, tremendous pressure on small business and farmers. In the midst of this new round of higher costs due to his war Trump is also now madly levying enormous new tariffs, to make the pain of these new higher costs even that more acute.

In my Monday post I showed that the true cost of this failed war to the world has been in the many, many trillions, already; and the harm to our standing in the world from just these first 18 months of Trump is incalculable. It’s another reason why “we’re preparing for the bottom to fall out” is a smart political course for Republicans now.Subscribed

G. Elliott Morris has new data this morning to show why Republicans should be so worried about the Novembers elections:

Over the last five election cycles (the extent of my readily available historical data), polls of likely voters have typically leaned more Republican than polls of registered voters or all U.S. adults. That’s because Democrats have typically held an edge with lower-turnout groups, like young Americans and non-white voters, that skew coarser samples to the left. More reliable voters, historically speaking, have been more Republican-leaning than the population as a whole (this was not true in 2024).

But data on likely voter turnout this election cycle points the other direction. According to a new analysis of pooled survey interviews from Strength In Numbers/Verasight polls since January 2026, Americans who say they are most likely to vote in November are actually more pro-Democratic than registered voters.

………..

Our July poll has Democrats leading the generic congressional ballot by 7 points among registered voters, 50% to 43%. That 7-point advantage itself would be enough to flip the House majority (Democrats need to win the popular vote by about 3 points to win 218 seats) and to make the Senate majority competitive, and would be a swing of 9 points since the 2024 presidential race (about the same swing as from 2016 to 2018).

But when we filter our polling data to the people who say they’ll definitely or probably vote in November, the Democratic Party’s lead grows to almost 9 points — a boost of about a point and a half on average across polls. The size of the premium bounces around from month to month (see image below), but the direction never changes. In all seven surveys since we started asking the turnout question in January, likely voters have leaned bluer than registered voters, by anywhere from one to two and a half points.

I want to be clear that this +9 with likely voters is far closer to what we are seeing in Senate polls across the battleground that show Democrats competitive in states Trump won by +11 or more. Note we’ve added the promising new UNH poll of Maine that has Troy Jackson ahead of Susan Collins, 49%-46%.

The Parnas Perspective, Morning News and Commentary: Trump Lawsuit Backfires as Judge Orders Financial Discovery, Big Epstein News and New Death, Iran Videos Show Troops Hiding, Aaron Parnas, right, July 22, 2026. The president has been ordered to hand over key financial records during discovery in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC, and legal experts say the case may be backfiring.

Meanwhile, there are major developments involving Jeffrey Epstein: the Trump Justice Department reportedly shut down a criminal investigation in 2019 and is now accused of failing to honor a key agreement, while an alleged Epstein recruiter was found dead today. Trump has also threatened to bomb one Iranian power plant or bridge for every ship Iran attacks, plus much more.

Much of this Epstein reporting does not gain traction anywhere but here, which is why I keep pushing.

Here’s the news:

Trump Ordered to Hand Over Discovery:

A federal judge ruled that Donald Trump must disclose detailed financial information about his businesses in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC. The decision could provide unusual insight into hundreds of ventures held by his family trust. It also illustrates the risks of seeking enormous damages in lawsuits against media organizations. Trump’s legal team is expected to appeal.

Trump sued over the BBC’s 2024 documentary “Trump, A Second Chance,” which misleadingly spliced parts of his January 6 speech to make it seem he directly encouraged supporters to attack the Capitol. The BBC apologized for the edit but maintains that Trump’s defamation claims lack merit. The judge is also allowing the BBC to subpoena Trump relatives and advisers, including Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon, and Stephen Miller. The BBC hopes these subpoenas will reveal evidence about Trump’s intentions and state of mind on January 6.

Trump’s lawyers plan to amend the complaint to claim only reputational harm, rather than damage to his businesses. They argue this change would make disclosure of his financial records unnecessary. For now, however, the BBC may continue requesting those records. It intends to show that Trump’s wealth increased after the documentary aired, undermining his claim of financial harm.

Epstein News:

Former New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas says federal prosecutors have failed to honor a 2019 agreement concerning the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Under the arrangement, New Mexico investigators stopped interviewing potential witnesses at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch. In return, federal prosecutors were supposed to refer state-related evidence to the New Mexico attorney general after completing their case. Balderas says partially redacted federal files contain handwritten notes confirming the agreement. Here is the agreement by federal prosecutors, under then President Trump, to hand over all relevant state files. They have failed to uphold this agreement:

Current Attorney General Raúl Torrez has accused the federal government of obstructing New Mexico’s investigation into Zorro Ranch. He says the Justice Department has delayed providing records identifying potential witnesses, survivors, and co-conspirators. Without those materials, state investigators may be unable to fully investigate or prosecute possible crimes. Balderas’ account supports Torrez’s claim that New Mexico cooperated while federal authorities did not.

Torrez argues that the federal government’s alleged breach strengthens New Mexico’s case for obtaining the records. He says the state is entitled to the materials and will use every available method to secure them. Those efforts could include litigation against the federal government. The dispute centers on whether New Mexico can access enough evidence to pursue unresolved criminal matters connected to Epstein’s property.

An external review found roughly 30 meetings between Jeffrey Epstein and 10 Gates Foundation leaders and employees, including Bill Gates, from 2011 to 2014, despite staff repeatedly warning senior leadership about reputational risks stemming from Epstein’s prior conviction. The meetings reportedly concerned philanthropy, donor engagement, polio strategy, and a possible donor-advised fund. Investigators found no evidence that foundation personnel knew about or participated in Epstein’s criminal activities, that Epstein received foundation payments, or that the meetings involved illegal conduct. Gates has expressed regret for the association, while the foundation has approved stronger vetting, oversight, and risk-escalation procedures.

Daniel Siad, a 69-year-old modeling scout whose name appeared thousands of times in the Jeffrey Epstein files, was found unresponsive in the kitchen of his home in Colombes, near Paris. A 28-year-old woman staying with him discovered his body, and a neighbor attempted CPR but could not revive him. French prosecutors opened an investigation and ordered a post-mortem to determine the cause of death, while Le Parisien reported that Siad suffered cardiac arrest. Siad was under investigation in France over his alleged connections to Epstein and also faced rape accusations; he denied knowing the extent of Epstein’s crimes but acknowledged introducing models to him. His inclusion in the Epstein files does not by itself prove criminal wrongdoing.

 

Roza Gilles discusses her experience with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on CNN (Photo credit: CNN/X)

The Wrap, Epstein Survivor Recalls Years of Abuse, Explains Why She Thought the Government Would Never Stop Him, Alyssa Ray, July 20, 2026. “I will never be able to move on from this, no matter how hard I try,” Roza Gilles says while speaking out publicly for the first time.

Roza Gilles, a model abused by late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, spoke publicly about her ordeal, recalling that she never believed the government would stop him.

In a Monday interview with CNN’s MJ Lee, Gilles explained how she found herself in Epstein’s clutches, landing at a modeling agency with ties to the disgraced financier. At one point, she remembered being sent to West Palm Beach, Fla. to take photos at Epstein’s mansion.

As she began to struggle financially, Gilles she was offered a secretary job at Epstein’s Florida Science Foundation. Not long into this position, Gilles said she was assaulted by Epstein for the first time.

“I froze,” Gilles said. “And [another] woman comes over and starts unbuttoning my blouse. She takes it off, then she takes off my bra, and then she walks out.”

Per Gilles, this was the first of several assaults, with the survivor sharing that she only realized years later that Epstein was wearing an ankle monitor during the first incident. Epstein was forced to wear the monitor as he had been serving time for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

“He didn’t stop what he was doing while convicted. He was doing the same thing,” Gilles said. “He had no remorse. The things he was doing to me hurt me so much, and left the biggest scar, and I will never – I will never be able to move on from this, no matter how hard I try.”

Gilles shared that she remembered thinking that she was “going to die” if she came forward with her allegations against Epstein. Gilles felt particularly powerless after she witnessed a man in uniform – who she believed may’ve worked for the sheriff – have a friendly conversation with Epstein at his home, ultimately leaving without arresting the controversial businessman.

“After I saw that sheriff, I understood that no matter what you do, this man is never going to be arrested,” Gilles said. “This man will never be stopped, and regardless of whether you scream and shout from the top of the universe, nobody would care.”

As the abuse continued, Gilles said she “ran around New York City as a child trying to get an STD to kill a pedophile,” adding, “Because I didn’t believe the government would ever stop him. That wasn’t my job to stop him.”

Gilles also called out her former modeling agency, claiming they witnessed how she was struggling.

“They saw me drink every night,” she said. “I would just scratch myself until I bled. And, as I was spiraling out, as I was losing weight, my hair was falling out, I kept this secret inside me for so long.”

Gilles eventually left Epstein’s grasp, relocating to the Midwest, where she met her husband and began rebuilding her life.

Watch Gilles’ CNN interview above.Vice President of the United States JD Vance, hosts Jessica Tarlov and Jesse Watters with discuss Vance's new his book "Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith" as he visits "The Five" at Fox News Channel Studios (Credit: Roy Rochlin/Getty Images)Read NextFox News' Resident Liberal Says Jesse Watters, Greg Gutfeld Check on Her After 'Upsetting' On-Air SpatsAlyssa RayAlyssa Ray is the night news editor at TheWrap and boasts a passion for period dramas, horror films, musicals, romance novels, reality TV, pop music and theme parks. After growing up in Massachusetts, Alyssa found herself in Los Angeles through Emerson College’s internship program, where she majored in Marketing Communications. After a stint in publicity,…

 

French model recruiter Daniel Siad, left, and his business associate Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier, celebrity, rapist and sex trafficker.

CNN, Model recruiter who introduced young women to Jeffrey Epstein found dead in France, Kara Fox and Pierre Bairin, July 22, 2026. A French professional model recruiter who for over a decade arranged for the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to meet multiple models, was found dead in his home near Paris on Monday.

Daniel Siad’s body was found in his house in Colombes, a suburb of the French capital, Marie-Céline Lawrysz, deputy public prosecutor at the Nanterre Judicial Court, told CNN in a Wednesday statement.

An autopsy will be performed on the body to determine the cause of death.

CNN’S Katie Polglase recently interviewed Siad, who said he had no reason to believe two women he had recommended to Epstein – and who had told CNN that Epstein had abused them – had been harmed by him.

Even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction on sex crimes, modeling-industry insiders like Siad continued seeking business ventures with him, invited him to fashion events, and allowed him to associate with their companies.

Siad said Epstein had assured him he had paid for his crimes and that “this would never happen with anybody” that Siad referred to him.

“I trusted him and believed this guy was a professional person,” he told CNN. “I never heard anything from anyone I introduced to him who came back to me that they had a bad situation. I believed this guy is a professional person.”

Siad (shown below in a file photo with models' faces blurred out) said he had believed Epstein was a casting director for Victoria’s Secret and the modeling agency MC2. CNN found no evidence to support that claim.

‘Too old’

Files released by the Department of Justice show Epstein paid tens of thousands of dollars to Siad.

In one message, Siad  wrote: “Cute French girl in Marrakesh… She said that she will (be) happy to meet you.”

Siad separately said that Epstein had asked him for help finding an assistant. In a 2018 email, Siad wrote that he was looking for a “good looking young assistant” for Epstein.

In another message, Siad sent a photo to Epstein of a woman, describing her as “very polite” and someone who has “potential” as a “model” or “assistant.”

“Too old,” Epstein replied.

Siad repeatedly sent Epstein photos of young women he encountered during his travels, some of them in provocative poses, according to the DOJ files.

Siad’s name appears more than 2,000 times in the DOJ’s Epstein files, CNN affiliate BFMTV reported.

Epstein’s ties to the modeling industry are part of ongoing investigations, which include a criminal probe launched this year in Paris that is reviewing information related to Siad, according to the city’s chief prosecutor.

Siad was also facing accusations of abuse. A model also accused him of rape when she was working in France in 1990. Siad denied the allegation. 

Courthouse News, Melania Trump files for sanctions against journalist Michael Wolff, Erik Uebelacker, July 21, 2026. It’s the latest entry in the first lady’s dispute with Wolff over comments he made about her connections to disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epsteiny.

 First lady Melania Trump filed a motion for sanctions against journalist and Donald Trump biographer Michael Wolff on Tuesday, weeks after a federal judge cautioned her against the move.

Accusing Wolff, right, and his lawyers of using the federal courts for “a fundraising drive and a political spectacle,” Melania Trump is seeking a myriad of fees in connection with Wolff’s unsuccessful anti-SLAPP lawsuit against her.

“Plaintiff and his counsel asserted a legally frivolous claim, propped it up with factual contentions that lacked any evidentiary support, and used them to run a political and commercial campaign,” the first lady claims in the 26-page motion. “They should pay for Mrs. Trump’s fees and expenses incurred for the process they abused.”

Wolff preemptively sued Melania Trump in an effort to ward off a billion-dollar defamation threat from the first lady, who was demanding retractions and an apology for Wolff’s commentary about her connections to disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

But U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the claim, finding Wolff filed the suit too early. She also lambasted Wolff for what she called an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship” by trying to keep the fight in a more favorable jurisdiction.

“Plaintiff asks for a declaration that, if the first lady sues him, he deserves to win. That is not how the federal courts work,” Vyskocil, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the May ruling.

Despite Melania Trump’s victory — and the scathing nature of Vyskocil’s order against Wolff — the judge cautioned the first lady about the “very high burden” for success with a sanctions motion and suggested she should perhaps quit while she is ahead.

“I wonder if it’s in the best interest of the parties to continue litigating in this court,” Vyskocil said from the bench at a July 1 conference.

Nonetheless, Melania Trump pushed ahead with her sanctions motion on the back of Vyskocil’s own findings.

“Plaintiff filed a patently meritless lawsuit and used it to harass Mrs. Trump in public,” the first lady claims. “The requested sanctions do not depend on a ruling that plaintiff’s statements were defamatory. They rest on the unsupported and mischaracterized federal submissions, the use of those papers for improper purposes, counsel’s multiplication of the federal proceedings, and the court’s findings that the action itself was abusively presented as textbook bad-faith forum-shopping.”

Melania Trump further argues that Wolff made false assertions about her personal life in several docketed filings. For instance, Wolff’s counsel proffered a declaration that stated Melania Trump’s relationship with the president “has no doubt been diminished if not fractured by his notorious affairs with other women — especially at the time of the birth of their son.”

The first lady said this speculation was not only untrue but completely irrelevant and “offered only to malign and embarrass” her.

She also critiqued Wolff for writing extensively about the lawsuit on his Substack account, as well as continuing to pool money on GoFundMe for the litigation, even after the lawsuit was dismissed. At the time of writing, Wolff has raised more than $836,000 on the crowdfunding platform.

“With your help, I intend to fight the Trumps and to make every effort to force husband and wife, under oath, to testify about their relationship with Epstein, or to hold them to account for why they won’t,” Wolff writes on his GoFundMe page. “And, as well, with the subpoena power of a lawsuit, to call other witnesses who can help explain the nature of Donald and Melania Trump’s long involvement with Epstein.”

Among the statements he sought to defend in the lawsuit was a claim that Donald Trump liked to have sex with his friends’ wives, and that he first slept with Melania Trump on Epstein’s private jet. Wolff also looked to back up his claim that their marriage was a “sham marriage, trophy marriage.”

He’s stated that Melania Trump “plays no small part” in “the Epstein story,” though he also noted in the now-dismissed suit that he never said Melania Trump was involved in Epstein’s crimes.

Wolff interviewed Epstein extensively before his 2019 suicide in a New York City prison. The Trumps’ reported relationship with the infamous sex offender continues to be a thorn in their side.

Melania Trump even released an unprompted recorded statement distancing herself from Epstein’s sex trafficking in April.

“I have never been friends with Epstein,” she said. “Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.”

New York Times, Government Overhauls Teen Pregnancy Program to Focus on Marriage and Starting Families, Jan Hoffman, July 22, 2026. The administration canceled federal grants to organizations across the country, accusing them of encouraging premarital sex. New criteria say programs should stress abstinence.

A few weeks ago, Rena Dixon, the head of Fact Forward, a South Carolina nonprofit that offers adolescent health and sex education classes, got a letter from the Trump administration with crushing news. The government was terminating the organization’s $1.6 million grant from a federal program to reduce teen pregnancies, effective immediately.

The administration’s priorities, it said, do not align with “content that encourages, normalizes or promotes sexual activity for minors.”

The move is the latest in a campaign that began in the first Trump administration to defund or overhaul the 16-year-old, $100 million initiative. Courts blocked the effort in 2018, but this time the administration, which abruptly canceled 53 of the program’s 67 grants last month, has been taking steps to be on firmer legal ground.

The letter from the assistant secretary for health accused Fact Forward of including lessons with “advice on making condom use more pleasurable” and discussions that normalize “use of pornography.” A video, it said, contained a “scenario of adolescents engaging in sexual activity.”

“That information was just not true,” said Dr. Dixon. The organization had never used the lessons specified, she said. The video “is about one teen telling another that she had had sex, and her friend responding, ‘That’s a big no-no!’”

In interviews, other directors also said that the government had distorted their content. They pointed out that the grant had required them to use courses from a federally approved list shown by research to be age-appropriate and effective.

Healthy Futures of Texas, a nonprofit that serves teenagers in Dallas, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley, won renewal of its grant less than a year ago, following a rigorous federal review of its material.

“Today those same materials are being cited as the reason for termination, with no opportunity to address those concerns,” said Ginger Mullaney, the organization’s chief executive. “So we’re all struggling a little bit to understand.”

Now dozens of grant holders face an existential dilemma, as they wrestle with whether to submit applications due this week for the next round of grants, under the administration’s new rules.

The new criteria say that grant recipients must teach abstinence as the only means to prevent teen pregnancy. Courses must stress the importance of marriage and procreation and instruct young people how to safeguard their fertility. They make scant reference to preventing sexually transmitted infections and virtually none to lesbian, gay and transgender sexuality.

The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the new requirements or the litigation. But these conditions mirror blueprints laid out in Project 2025 as well as in other position papers by the Heritage Foundation, which argue that teen pregnancy prevention programs falsely presume that adolescent sex is inevitable and also undermine parental authority.

Last week, three programs that lost funding and a nonprofit that works with them filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The programs seek to block the terminations and the new requirements that, they say, create an ideologically based framework that violates the intent of the federally mandated one.

“Congress plainly did not intend H.H.S. to focus on teaching young women strategies to become pregnant in a pregnancy prevention program,” wrote Democracy Forward, a national legal advocacy nonprofit, in the lawsuit.

The five-year projects funded by the Teen Pregnancy Prevention grants had supported topics in sex education, including consent, decision-making and healthy relationships, adjusted for age as well as a local community’s values and culture. Locations ranged from schools to juvenile detention centers to foster care settings. The programs also hold communication workshops with teens and trusted adults.

The teenage birthrate has been plummeting steadily for over two decades. Researchers say explanations are varied, but include increased teen access to forms of long-acting birth control, abortion pills and even smartphones.

Public health scholars and bipartisan congressional committees have also attested to the influence of the federal prevention programs on teen behavior, including delayed sexual initiation.

The birthrate among girls 15 to 19 has dropped by more than 65 percent during the time the program has been in effect, to 11.7 births per 1,000 in 2025 from 34.3 births per 1,000 in 2010, according to the latest provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yet at a time when the overall American birthrate is declining, a trend decried by many conservatives and others, the new, 89-page grant application requires programs to draw from a curriculum known as “sexual risk avoidance,” which connects abstinence during the teenage years to maturity and readiness for marriage and parenthood.

Civil Discourse, Opinion: Todd Blanche's Bad, Inadequate Answers, Joyce Vance, right, July 22, 2026. Along with a Senate confirmation hearing, it’s customary for nominees to submit written answers to questions asked of them by the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering their nomination.

They’re called “Questions for the Record” (QFRs), and they allow senators the opportunity to ask questions they can’t get to in their allotted time. They can be used to at least attempt to put a nominee on the record on specific issues.

In February of 2025, Todd Blanche submitted QFRs following his confirmation hearing to be the Deputy Attorney General. They ran to 76 pages of questions and answers. The name “Epstein” does not appear in the document. Blanche was confirmed on March 5, 2025.

Fast forward to the QFRs he submitted last Friday, two days after his confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General. The document is 404 pages long. The word Epstein appears in it 216 times, surfacing in the very first question.

Blanche’s answers to some of the difficult questions posed to him are about what you would expect, vowing DOJ will uphold the rule of law while kowtowing to Trump. They exemplify what happens when DOJ leadership commits its allegiance to the president, not the Constitution.

If Republicans on the committee had any spine, they would vote down the nomination.

Blanche flunked even the most basic test of fitness to serve as attorney general. When I wrote to you about his confirmation hearing, I noted that he was not asked who won the 2020 election. But in the QFRs, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked Blanche, “Who won the 2024 election?” Blanche responded, “On January 6, 2025, Congress certified that Donald Trump won the majority of electoral votes.” It is, of course, the dogma demanded of those who would serve Trump, and Blanche delivered it.

Asked about his May 17, 2026, statement on Fox News that there is a “ton of evidence” the 2020 election was rigged against Trump, Blanche affirmed that he still believed that was true and that his “proof,” despite more than sixty court cases to the contrary, is “several outstanding investigations” that he cannot discuss because it would be “inappropriate” for him to “comment on outstanding investigations.”

Jeffrey Epstein

When it came to the Epstein Files, Senator Dick Durbin asked why DOJ missed the deadline for releasing the files. He got a non-answer. He also asked who gave agents reviewing the files the order to flag any documents with Trump’s name in them. Blanche denied that ever happened. “Reviewers,” Blanche wrote, “were instructed to not redact the names of politically exposed persons ‘on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity’”—that’s what the language in the Epstein Files Transparency Act required. But in July 2025, news reports emerged that an FBI whistleblower had revealed agents were working in shifts to flag every document where Trump’s name was mentioned. That was around the time reports surfaced that “Trump wrote a letter to Epstein in 2003, accompanied by a drawing of a naked woman, that was included in a leather-bound birthday album gifted to Epstein for his 50th birthday,” which the president denied.

Blanche returned to non-answers when asked about Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to a low-security federal prison camp after her interview with Blanche.

Question: Did you or anyone from your office approve Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to FPC Bryan or otherwise approve her transfer to a facility other than FCI Tallahassee?

Answer: The Office of Deputy Attorney General oversees the day-to-day operations of the Department, including all components and agencies. This includes oversight of the Bureau of Prisons. Ms. Maxwell was transferred after the DOJ and BOP learned about threats made against her at FCI Tallahassee.

In a courtroom, a prosecutor, like Blanche, might ask the Judge to strike that answer as non-responsive and direct the witness to answer the question. Here, the only possible response is for senators, fed up with repeated instances like this of evasion, to vote against confirmation. Blanche said he was not involved in any conversations “with BOP” (the Bureau of Prisons) about Maxwell’s transfer and that he learned about it “through public reporting.”

Presidents have seen their attorney general nominations rejected for far less. Bill Clinton wanted to nominate federal judge Kimba Wood as AG, but she withdrew after it came to light that she had employed a woman without legal immigration status as a nanny, despite the fact that it was legal to do so at the time and she paid taxes on her employee’s wages.

Even when he could just as easily respond on an even keel, Blanche took advantage of opportunities to pander to Trump. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked, “Yes or no: Are you confident Director Patel has not had any ‘episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences’ during his tenure as FBI Director?”

Here's the response: “I am not going to certify, on a yes-or-no basis, matters that are the subject of liberal media reporting.” A simple “yes” would have worked. But when you’re only playing to one person, you have to keep doing it over and over to make sure you stay in their good graces. And that’s the whole point here: no attorney general should be in that position.

The big question, of course, is whether there will be a Republican vote against Blanche, which would force the question of advancing his nomination for a floor vote into the discharge process. Speculation has centered on Senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, neither of whom will be returning to the Senate next term. Interestingly, Senator Cornyn does not appear to have submitted any written questions to Blanche. It’s unclear what that signals.

The committee vote is scheduled for July 30, although there has been some talk that Republicans want to move it up. Ben Franklin cautioned, “A Republic if you can keep it.” One hopes those words are echoing in the ears of senators faced with a vote on Blanche’s nomination. 

 

Morning Shots via The Bulwark, Political Opinion:Todd Blanche’s Job Interview, Jordan Ferdman, right, July 22, 2026. Todd Blanche’s appearance last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and his subsequent written responses to questions (released Monday) constituted a kind of job interview. The standard advice for such a setting is something like: be sincere, discuss your accomplishments without seeming conceited, highlight your competence in executing important tasks, and tell the truth.

Blanche chose a different tack. He was asked a series of questions about Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer a year ago to a low securityprison—a transfer that took place a week after Blanche’s extraordinary two-day meeting with her, which in turn took place a week after the White House Situation Room meeting about Jeffrey Epstein in which then Deputy Attorney General Blanche was a central participant.

Blanche’s strategy in his job interview was to claim an extraordinary degree of ignorance about what his subordinates at the Justice Department were doing:

Question: When did you first learn of Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to FPC Bryan?

Blanche’s answer: I learned about Maxwell’s transfer to FPC Bryan through public reporting after it occurred.

Then, later:

Question: Did any DOJ officials, including at BOP, consult or notify you before Ms. Maxwell’s transfer?

Blanche’s answer: I was not involved in any discussions with BOP about Ms. Maxwell’s transfer.

It’s worth recalling that last July, in the midst of the firestorm over the failed attempt to stonewall the Epstein matter, Blanche took time out of his schedule to travel to Tallahassee to meet with Maxwell. He acknowledged in other written answers that Maxwell is the only witness or defendant he dealt with in this manner during his time as deputy attorney general.

Why did Blanche prioritize personally meeting with Epstein’s co-conspirator? He claims that his “extensive experience as a federal prosecutor handling complex, high-stakes cases—including sensitive witness interviews—equipped me to conduct a thorough, professional interview.” You might think that some of the federal prosecutors who report to Blanche, including the SDNY lawyers who actually prosecuted Maxwell and would know enough to catch her lies and ask follow-up questions, might have been asked to be present for this meeting—if the purpose of the meeting was to establish the truth.

But leave aside Blanche’s claim that he was somehow uniquely qualified to interview Maxwell. He would also have us believe that a week after his well-publicized and controversial softball interview with Maxwell, in which she “exonerated” Trump, his inferiors did not consult him about her transfer to a minimum security facility—an unprecedented move for a sex offender, occurring in the midst of a child sex trafficking scandal engulfing the Trump administration.

Blanche would have us believe not only that he didn’t order Maxwell’s transfer; not only that he didn’t sign off on it; not only that he wasn’t even consulted about it; but that he knew nothing about it—until he learned about it as millions of Americans did, through public reporting.

It strains credulity to think any senators actually believe Blanche. But perhaps telling the truth isn’t a necessary qualification for passing your job interview for attorney general.

New York Times, Former Conductor to Plead Guilty in Child Sex Abuse Imagery Case, Derrick Bryson Taylor, July 21, 2026 (print ed.). Julian Wachner, the former music director at Trinity Church in New York, faces up to 10 years in prison after reaching a plea deal.

Julian Wachner, the former music director at Trinity Church in New York who moved to Indianapolis when his career unraveled, has agreed to plead guilty to five counts of possession of child sex abuse material and one count of possession of cocaine.

Mr. Wachner signed the plea agreement with the State of Indiana on July 15, according to court documents. A jury trial for him that was scheduled for July 20 was canceled.

According to the agreement, Mr. Wachner waives his right to appeal any sentence imposed by the court and faces up to 10 years in prison.

Mr. Wachner was charged last summer with 10 counts of possession of child sex abuse material and one count of possession of cocaine.

Five of those counts will be dismissed at his sentencing, the plea agreement said.

Representatives for the prosecutor’s office in Marion County did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. A lawyer for Mr. Wachner, Bill Frederick, declined to comment.

The plea agreement concludes an episode that began when the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department received a tip that Mr. Wachner had used cryptocurrency to buy child sexual abuse material. The authorities recovered two devices from his home in Indianapolis that contained dozens of files, according to court papers.

He was arrested in August 2025 and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In an affidavit detailing the investigation, Detective Jason Zotz wrote that Indianapolis investigators were first alerted to the case by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a nonprofit organization that operates a tip line. Investigators were then able to examine Mr. Wachner’s activity on the dark web through information provided by a cryptocurrency company that allowed them to track his purchases on a site selling child sexual abuse material.

Mr. Wachner later admitted in an interview with the police that he had downloaded abuse material from the dark web over a period of several years.

The detective wrote that Mr. Wachner led the authorities to a laptop and hard drive at his home containing the material in addition to a “substantial quantity” of cocaine.lIn the years before the investigation, Mr. Wachner’s career had unraveled. Trinity Church, one of Manhattan’s wealthiest and most influential churches, fired Mr. Wachner from his post in 2022 after a former Juilliard School employee publicly accused him of kissing and groping her in 2014.

Mr. Wachner later relocated to Indianapolis, where he taught fourth-grade math at a charter school.

That school, Invent Learning Hub, fired him around the time the initial charges were announced and said in a statement that neither its employees or board members were aware that he was under investigation.

July 18

CNN, The Tate brothers arrested by US Marshals in Miami on UK extradition request over rape and sex trafficking charges, Holmes Lybrand, Dalia Faheid, Hannah Rabinowitz and Alea Motwane, July 18-19, 2026. U.S. Marshals arrested social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate in Miami Saturday on an extradition request from the United Kingdom following an investigation into sexual offenses reported by seven victims, according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service.

UK officials accused the brothers of abusing women in the East of England region, just north of London, between 2010 and 2017.

Andrew Tate, a self-proclaimed misogynist with billions of views online, faces 42 charges, including rape, human trafficking, indecent images of a child and assault, according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service and Bedfordshire Police. Tristan Tate faces 17 charges, including sexual assault, rape and trafficking, officials said.

“Officers from our major crime unit have been working closely alongside the Crown Prosecution Service and both national and international law enforcement agencies as part of this complex investigation,” Bedfordshire Assistant Chief Constable Karena Thomas said.

The Department of Justice confirmed US Marshals arrested Andrew and Tristan Tate “pursuant to extradition proceedings,” adding the arrests “were made in accordance with the treaties and law enforcement agreements governing Justice Department extraditions.”

The brothers will appear in federal court in Miami next week, a law enforcement source said.

An attorney for the brothers said they are innocent and criticized the UK’s move to seek extradition.Andrew Tate, right, and his brother Tristan arrive an event, April 11, 2026, in Miami.Andrew Tate, right, and his brother Tristan arrive an event, April 11, 2026, in Miami.Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP/File

“There is a long-standing agreement between the UK and Romanian governments that the UK would not seek extradition while the Romanian proceedings are pending,” Joseph McBride said. “Those proceedings are ongoing right now. That agreement exists because no nation gets to trample the judicial sovereignty of another for political convenience.”

Romanian prosecutors previously accused the brothers of trafficking women across Romania, the United Kingdom and the US and sexually exploiting them. They have repeatedly rejected the allegations made against them in that case. CNN has reached out to Romania’s justice ministry for comment on their arrest.

Advocates have warned against the pair’s rising tide of influence among young boys and men.

Andrew Tate is known for his aggressive speech about male dominance, female submission and wealth. At one point, he was suspended from major social media platforms.

The brothers, who have dual American and British citizenship, face dozens of new charges added onto previous charges brought by the Crown Prosecution Service after evidence was submitted by Bedfordshire Police, authorities said.

The new charges were brought after officials had investigated reports made by four additional victims in the East England areas of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, police said.

Andrew Tate is also facing a civil suit in the UK, which is being brought by four women who accuse the social media influencer of rape. A spokesperson for Tate previously told CNN that their client “categorically denies these unproven and untested allegations.”

The brothers left Romania after Romanian authorities lifted travel restrictions on them, arriving in Florida in February 2025. Upon their arrival, they found themselves at the heart of another criminal investigation – when Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the probe, led by the Office of Statewide Prosecution.

They had taken aim at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who previously suggested they were not welcome in his state.

“When Americans who are unfairly imprisoned abroad return home you betray them,” Andrew Tate said on X last year. “You better nail me now. Let’s go. Arrest me.”

Thomas, the Bedfordshire Police official, said “there is no place for male violence against women and girls.”

“We will continue to work tirelessly to support victims and investigate all reports made to us,” Thomas said. 

The capri-style pants and other garb for macho-influencer and Trump family friend Andrew Tate during his arrest on July 18 prompted considerable comment on social media, as indicated by this photo and a video.

Meidas Touch Network, This Weekend in Politics, Bulletin 422, Tates Arrested,  Ron Filipkowski, right, July 19, 2026. AP: “Influencer brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate, whose social media empire promoting wealth, male dominance and misogyny has made them among the world’s most polarizing internet personalities, were arrested in Miami as British authorities sought their extradition on rape and sex trafficking charges,  Prosecutors were seeking the brothers’ extradition on charges alleging they raped and trafficked women between 2010 and 2017.”

Daily Mail: “Andrew and Tristan Tate, the influencer brothers facing rape and sex-trafficking charges in the UK and Romania, spent the past several days in Washington as guests of Trump’s special envoy Paolo Zampolli. Zampolli, a former modeling agency boss who introduced Trump to Melania, confirmed that he hosted the Tate brothers at a house in DC on Wed for a summer soiree attended by around 150 guests.”

… Asked whether the event was connected to his State Dept role, Zampolli shot back: “Why would I do that? This was a summer gathering.” Zampolli said he wasn’t sure of the purpose of the Tates’ visit to the capital: “They’re having some business meetings.”

… “He also accompanied the infamous brothers on Tues to the Ned, the exclusive private members’ club near the WH which is a regular haunt for cabinet secretaries. The Tate brothers also made their way to Capitol Hill to rub elbows with Republican lawmakers. A photo obtained by DM shows the pair posing with TX Rep. Wesley Hunt in his congressional office.

…… Daily Mail: “The lawyer for the Tate brothers has told DM that Trump will support them after they were arrested in FL on an extradition warrant from the UK. Joseph McBride said that the President ‘hates political persecution and communism’ and this was an example of both. On the question of Trump’s support, McBride said: ‘Trump hates political persecution and communism’, referring to the actions of the British govt.”

… “As McBride understood it, a low level DOJ official signed off on the warrant and that DOJ leadership were not aware of it. McBride said the Tates were ‘100,000% contesting’ their extradition meaning the case will likely end up before a federal judge, and could drag on for months. Asked directly if he wanted Trump to intervene in the case, McBride said: ‘No comment’.”

… “The Tate brothers are reportedly friends with the President’s son Barron, who, according to a report in the NYT, ‘admires’ Andrew Tate and had a Zoom call with him in 2024. Donald Trump Jr has shown support to Andrew Tate and in June 2024 on a joint live stream on X, the President’s son told him: ‘You’ve got people attacking you as far as I’m concerned. They just want to silence you’.”

July 17

 

U.S. Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche, currently acting attorney general and a former Trump criminal defense attorney before the president nominated him for Senate confirmation (Shown at U.S. Capitol on July 16, 2026).

The Contrarian, Opinion: Undaunted, Blanche opponents; Buttigieg illuminates as a progressive role model, Jennifer Rubin, right, July 17, 2026. Courageous individuals this week showed tenacity and devotion to the rule of law in confronting acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, an unapologetic presidential flunky nominated for AG who lacks rudimentary legal ethics and has consistently subverted justice to meet the whims of his boss.

U.S. Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida, in a ruling on Monday, demolished Blanche in finding Donald Trump’s IRS lawsuit a scam used to concoct a slush fund for insurrectionists and grant Trump and his family immunity from future tax audits. Williams further held that Blanche’s role in devising a collusive suit violated federal Rule 11 and warranted referring him for Florida state bar discipline.

“[T]he Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose — to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact,” Williams wrote, noting Blanche’s glaring conflict of interest (namely: having previously represented Trump personally).

In her unequivocal slap down of Blanche and the other DOJ attorneys, Williams removed any doubt about the current DOJ’s utter lack of integrity and, specifically, the unfitness of Blanche to serve in, let alone lead, DOJ.

Well in advance of Blanche’s appearance Wednesday, the survivors of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein launched a massive campaign to block his confirmation as AG. They continued their efforts the week, flooding the airwaves to urge the Senate not to reward Blanche, the architect of his scheme to illegally withhold release of the Trump-Epstein pedophile files. Their PSA was courageous and compelling:

Jim Acosta @jimacosta.bsky.social: Epstein survivors released this video today urging senators to block the confirmation of Todd Blanche for Attorney General. They’re trying to get to 20,000 signatures on their petition to send a message to the Senate.

 

After Blanche’s deceitful testimony in which he falsely stated he was prohibited from meeting with victims, survivor Lara Blume McGee said at a press conference:

Under Mr. Blanche’s watch, the Department of Justice has released materials tied to the Epstein investigation in ways that exposed survivors’ names, medical and financial details, and other identifying information that should have been protected.

She continued. “For many of us, the DOJ’s redactions were not merely inadequate — they were another violation, reopening wounds we had fought to keep closed.”

 

Survivor Dani Bensky’s gut-wrenching testimony, shown above and excerpte in video here, put the blame directly on Blanche for releasing victims’ names and images:

She attested to “real and irrevocable harm” and called him out for refusing to meet with victims despite spending 9 hours to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell.

“To add insult to injury, the information that Todd Blanche gathered in the White House Situation Room last summer to curb the political fallout from the Epstein files was absolutely abhorrent. Instead of following investigative leads, our government treated and continue to treat this as a political crisis that needs to be managed,” she explained, utterly demolishing Blanche’s credibility.

Senators who vote to confirm Blanche in the face of such damning evidence of ethical depravity and professional unfitness should face the wrath of voters and the condemnation of history. By contrast, Judge Williams and the Epstein survivors deserve full credit for courageously defending truth, decency and the rule of law.Subscribed

July 16

The Parnas Perspective, Evening News and Comment: Major Trump Speech and Epstein News. I Watched and Fact Checked.Aaron Parnas, right, July 16, 2026. There is major Epstein news. This afternoon, survivors sat down with Todd Blanche for the first time—the first meeting between survivors and the attorney general. Blanche was rude, dismissive and, according to those in the room, gaslit them. It was a slap in the face. I have exclusive reporting from inside the meeting.

Epstein Survivors:

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, right, met Thursday with several accusers of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but the meeting appeared to deepen survivors’ concerns about his nomination to lead the Justice Department. The approximately hourlong meeting at Justice Department headquarters in Washington followed a demand from a Republican senator whose support is considered crucial to advancing Blanche’s nomination. I have exclusive recaps of what happened inside the meeting:

Blanche began by telling survivors, “I am not asking you guys to commit to anything today, and I don’t expect that I have to commit to anything today, too.”

The survivors asked him why he had said there were no investigative leads.

“I never said that,” Blanche replied. They pressed him, pointing out that he had said it in the media. Amanda Roberts, the sister in law of Virginia Giuffre, asked him directly whether he had misspoken. Blanche doubled down.

“I never said that.” The conversation then turned to opening an investigation. Blanche said he did not have the power to do that. He pointed to other people in the room, including members of his team.

“You need to talk to other people,” he said. “I can’t open an investigation. They can. I’m just the attorney general.” Sky Roberts, the brother of Virginia Giuffre, responded: “Respectfully, Mr. Blanche, what do you need from us to help you open an investigation?” Blanche said he needed testimony and evidence.

Sky reminded him that Virginia had presented evidence against the man formerly known as Prince Andrew. There was sworn testimony. There was a photograph. It was in the files. “Isn’t that an investigative lead?” Sky asked.

Blanche replied, “Andrew won’t cooperate with us, and Virginia isn’t here, so I can’t…” That exchange gets to the heart of what happened in the room.

The survivors pointed to testimony and evidence already contained in the files. Blanche said he needed testimony and evidence. When confronted with a specific example of both, his response was that Andrew would not cooperate and Virginia was no longer here.

The survivors came prepared with direct questions. They wanted to know why existing evidence was not being treated as an investigative lead, who had the authority to open an investigation, and what more they were expected to provide.

They did not leave with clear answers. Afterward, Blanche told reporters that he had encouraged the accusers to provide the FBI with any information that could assist investigators. Several survivors, however, described the meeting as evasive, unproductive and lacking meaningful commitments to accountability.

Annie Farmer said the encounter strengthened her opposition to Blanche’s confirmation.

“After meeting with Todd Blanche, I feel even more confident in urging senators to vote against his confirmation as the United States’ attorney general,” Farmer said in a statement. She described Blanche as “abrasive, condescending, and intentionally noncommittal to survivors,” contrasting his demeanor with his public testimony during his confirmation hearing.

Epstein whistleblower Maria Farmer, shown in a file photo at right, repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked federal authorities beginning in 1996 to investigate Epstein and his ring of traffickers and financers on the basis of their horrific depradations.

Farmer said Blanche criticized the failures of previous administrations but declined to take responsibility for decisions made underhis own leadership. According to Farmer, he would not commit to investigating why authorities failed to pursue her sister Maria Farmer’s 1996 report about Epstein. He also declined to release documents concerning internal deliberations over whether to charge Epstein.

Farmer further criticized Blanche’s explanations for his nine-hour interview with Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell and Maxwell’s subsequent transfer to a less secure facility, calling them “wholly dissatisfactory and contrived.”

“His evasiveness felt like a deliberate attempt to claim the attorney general’s office is powerless in this matter,” Farmer said. “By passing the buck once again, he is leaving survivors trapped in the same endless loop of searching for answers and receiving none.”

Another accuser, Dani Bensky said the meeting was neither substantive nor productive. “My mind has not been changed that he will do what is best for the American people and survivors in this country,” Bensky said.

Earlier Thursday, Bensky testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that women harmed by Epstein had attempted to meet with Blanche “through multiple channels” but received no response.

“We deserve to be heard directly, not dismissed and ignored,” she told lawmakers.

Lara Blume McGee, another Epstein survivor who attended the meeting, accused Blanche of treating the encounter as “a perfunctory audition for votes, not accountability.”

McGee said Blanche was condescending, repeatedly interrupted survivors and failed to explain why the Justice Department had released materials that exposed survivors’ identities. She also said he presented no credible plan to investigate potential perpetrators and enablers beyond Epstein and Maxwell.

“He offered no real plan to investigate anyone beyond Epstein and Maxwell and gave no reason to believe the remaining files aren’t vital to exposing other perpetrators and enablers,” McGee said. “Todd Blanche is unfit to be attorney general — Senator Thom Tillis and the Senate must vote no.”

Here is another statement I just received from Marijke Chartouni: “When institutions fail to address the concerns of sexual abuse victims, the betrayal comes at a much higher price. This perpetuates the cycle of oppression by creating psychological barriers that prevent victims from seeking necessary help, resulting in oppression in its most intimate form: survivors being implicitly and explicitly told that victimization was their fault, that their trauma didn’t deserve recognition, and that their recovery wasn’t worth institutional investment.”

July 14

 

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, left, with President Trumpl his friend who nominated him. Lutnick, who falsely denied contacts with Epstein during recent years, is newly linked to the notorious financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a close associate of Trump for many years before Epstein's death while in custody during Trump's first term.

More On Epstein Files, Trump Team Coverups BBC, Investigation: How US commerce secretary's Epstein links were uncovered by British whistleblower, Andy Verity, Rob Byrne, and Ben Milne, July 13,2026. Howard Lutnick was appointed US commerce secretary by President Trump in 2025

A British man has told the BBC how he unearthed evidence indicating that his former employer, Howard Lutnick -- now US commerce secretary -- failed to disclose a business relationship with the paedophile financier, Jeffrey Epstein.

Simon Andriesz, previously a managing director at a Wall Street firm, discovered an email chain from 2018 in which Lutnick and Epstein had discussed the prospects of a start-up business they were both involved in.

Andriesz shared his findings - from the millions of released Epstein files -- with US politicians on the influential House Oversight Committee, ahead of an appearance there by Lutnick in May.

Lutnick told the committee that, to the best of his knowledge, he had only learned this year that Epstein had been an investor in the firm. Speaking on his behalf, the US Commerce Department told us there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Andriesz also discovered in the files that one of Lutnick's firms had made plans in 2013 to go into business with another figure linked to Epstein, the then-Prince Andrew, left, by commercially exploiting the contacts the former UK trade envoy had made.

"What it involved was a loan to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of £1m... to basically buy a prince," he tells File on 4 Investigates.Searching 3.5 million documents

"I was completely shocked," says Andriesz, describing the moment when he discovered his own name in the Epstein files - a massive collection of documents, photos, video and emails relating to the notorious sex offender, released by the US government in the past year.

The specific files in which Andriesz appeared related to interviews he had given to the FBI while in dispute with his former employer, BGC Partners -- a financial brokerage firm, part of Lutnick's Cantor Fitzgerald group.

In 2016, Andriesz had raised concerns internally about accounting irregularities at the firm. He was sacked in 2017, but some of his allegations later led to BGC being ordered to pay a $3m (£2.24m) penalty by the US derivatives regulator for "numerous supervision, reporting, and record-keeping violations".Simon Andriesz wearing a dark quilted jacket stands on a beach beside the sea. The photograph is taken in profile, with Andriesz looking toward the horizon. In the background, waves roll toward the shore and a grassy cliff extends into the water beneath a cloudy sky. The scene is brightly lit by daylight, with the coastline and ocean filling much of the frame.Simon Andriesz, now living in Cornwall, has been in dispute with his former employers in the US for several years

BGC told us that Andriesz's allegations lacked credibility and were "categorically false". It said the claims had been investigated by authorities in several jurisdictions which, according to BGC, had not substantiated the allegations.

Andriesz spoke to the FBI about BGC, and about the firm's ultimate boss, Lutnick, in 2020-21 -- after Epstein had killed himself in jail while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The Epstein files show Andriesz alleged that Lutnick had had undeclared business ties with Epstein. The FBI did not investigate these accusations.

Andriesz tells the BBC he was disappointed that few had seemed interested in what he had discovered: "I'm exposing Howard Lutnick's relationship, financial links, with Jeffrey Epstein, and there's no interest."

In 2025, Lutnick was appointed US commerce secretary, at which point he sold his shares in Cantor Fitzgerald and passed control of the firm to his sons.

On a podcast later that year, he claimed he had only ever met Epstein once, 20 years earlier, when they had been neighbours in Manhattan, and that he had found his behaviour "gross".

However, with the Epstein files' release, inconsistencies began to appear in this version of events. A photo, above, showed Lutnick at right with Epstein, center, on the sex offender's Caribbean island, Little St James, in December 2012 (photo via U.S .Department of Justice). 

Four years earlier in Florida, Epstein had been sent to prison for two charges of soliciting prostitution -- including one with a minor.

Andriesz suspected there was yet more to find in the Epstein files that could back up his claims -- if only people knew where to look in the 3.5 million pages of documents.

"Everyone was searching 'Lutnick'," he says. He knew, though, that Cantor Fitzgerald executives preferred to use initials rather than full names in their emails.

Andriesz searched for "HWL" (Howard William Lutnick) and found emails sent to and from Epstein in 2018. Epstein had talked directly to Lutnick about a digital advertising company called Adfin, in which he and Lutnick's firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, had both invested.

Andriesz spotted correspondence where Epstein had directly asked the HWL account: "what do you think the prospects for adfin are?"

Lutnick responded: "Producing revenue finally. This is their year. Next 12 months they need to become economically self-sufficient."

Andriesz then shared this information with US politicians on the House Oversight Committee, the US Congress's main investigatory committee.

Lutnick agreed to appear before the committee in an off-camera hearing in May.

He has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and he told the committee: "I unequivocally condemn the conduct attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and everyone who participated in his illegal activities. The survivors of his crimes deserve our respect and support."

Lutnick repeated his claim to the committee, that he did not know until this year that Epstein had been a co-investor in Adfin. However, Democrats on the committee accused him of lying and all 21 signed a letter demanding his resignation.

The US Commerce Department told us the allegations against Lutnick were "a desperate partisan distraction from the historic work of this Administration", adding that the commerce secretary has answered hundreds of questions before Congress and there is "no evidence of wrongdoing or legitimate cause for concern".'To buy a prince'

Another discovery Andriesz made in the Epstein files concerned Lutnick's association with two other people who knew Epstein well - the then-Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson (shown above with him in a 2014 photo via Getty Images).

Lutnick had been friends with Ferguson since the 1990s and was a guest at Princess Eugenie's wedding in 2018.

Documents in the files revealed his firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, had a plan in 2013 "to buy a prince", as Andriesz puts it, and exploit Andrew's contacts with wealthy individuals and sovereign institutions

Under the proposed terms of the deal, £1m would be loaned to a firm controlled by the prince, which would then be bound to do business exclusively with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Epstein warned the prince's business aide, David Stern, against the deal, the files reveal. One of his concerns was about the exclusivity of the deal -- under its terms, Andrew could only introduce wealthy clients to Cantor Fitzgerald and no-one else.

The files indicate that advisers to both Lutnick and the former prince discussed the deal for four months, from August to November 2013, but it came to nothing.

Asked about the deal, Cantor Fitzgerald did not deny the talks took place but told the BBC it did not go into business with the former prince. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did not respond to a request for comment. 

 

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein partying together at Mar-a-Lago, along with an artist's rendering of a birthday card that the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein in 2003 boasting of their shared secrets. 

Andriesz, now 57, lives in a quiet Cornish seaside village, a world away from Wall Street. He says the litigation of the past decade has had a devastating effect on his career, his finances and his health.

Despite winning a financial award of $420,000 (£313,000) for his whistleblowing from the US regulator, Andriesz says authorities in the US and UK have failed to hold BGC and Cantor Fitzgerald properly to account -- or protect him from retaliation by his former employer for his reports of wrongdoing.

BGC says it has strong policies protecting whistleblowers from retaliation and denies retaliating against Andriesz. It says it has had no involvement with him since his departure other than responding to litigation he has initiated.

It maintains Andriesz's employment was terminated after he refused to follow medical advice, declined to perform essential job duties, rejected reasonable accommodation, and ultimately abandoned his role.

Speaking on behalf of Lutnick, the White House said: "The BBC's pathetic and desperate attempt to slander Secretary Lutnick will do othing to change the fact that he has been the most consequential Commerce Secretary in modern history."  

 

 

Former President Donald Trump is shown in a photo collage with columnist E. Jean Carroll, who won a jury verdict that he sexually attacked her three decades ago.

The disclosures in the E. Jean Carroll rape verdict echoed Trump's words in "Hollywood Access" videotape, reported upon above, that arose during the 2016 presidential campaign. Shown Then: The front page of a 2016 New York Daily News edition contrasts with President Trump's claimed innocence in the Carroll case.

The Parnas Perspective, Evening News and Commentary: Democrats Block Military Spending Package, Elon Musk Referred for Criminal Prosecution, Trump Pays Carroll, and More, Aaron Parnas, right, July 14, 2026. Donald Trump has finally paid E. Jean Carroll the millions she was awarded by a jury after he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. And much more.Tonight, I’ll be speaking with Epstein survivor Jess Michaels ahead of Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing tomorrow.

I am working around the clock to keep the Epstein story in the spotlight while also covering everything else unfolding across the country and around the world. Because of my reporting on Epstein, I have become a target for relentless attacks and intimidation. That pressure will not stop me from doing this work.

I will never stop. Not now. Not ever. 

Donald Trump / E Jean Carroll:

E. Jean Carroll has received the more than $5.6 million that Donald Trump owed her after a federal court released the funds from an escrow account following the collapse of Trump’s final appeal. The money was released on July 9, one day after Judge Lewis Kaplan, left, ordered the disbursement. The Supreme Court had declined to hear Trump’s appeal, triggering an agreement that required the funds to be turned over to Carroll. Trump’s legal team unsuccessfully argued the money should remain in escrow while seeking reconsideration. Carroll’s attorney said the payment fulfills the unanimous 2023 jury verdict that found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The payment was made through the federal court’s registry investment system, where Trump deposited the money while pursuing appeals. Both sides had previously agreed that the funds would be released if the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump’s case. Because the money was held by the court rather than Trump, it could not be delayed indefinitely through additional legal maneuvers. Judge Kaplan rejected Trump’s request for more time to challenge Carroll’s motion to release the funds. The court’s action effectively ended the payment dispute in the 2023 case.

The $5.6 million judgment stems from Carroll’s successful 2023 lawsuit over Trump’s sexual abuse and defamatory statements after she publicly accused him of assaulting her in a New York department store in the 1990s. Trump has consistently denied the allegations and any wrongdoing. The payment is separate from the $83.3 million verdict Carroll won in a 2024 defamation case over additional statements Trump made while president. Both lawsuits originated from Carroll’s 2019 memoir, in which she detailed the alleged assault. Trump continues to contest the findings, but the 2023 damages have now been fully paid.

July 7

 

 

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein partying together at Mar-a-Lago, along with an artist's rendering of a birthday card that the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein in 2003 boasting of their shared secrets. 

From left: American real estate developer Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, February 12, 2000. Getty Images.

The Parnas Perspective, Major News Evening News: White House Rushes to Block Major Epstein Files Release, War Erupts Again, Aaron Parnas, right, July 7, 2026. Trump Rushes to COVER UP Major Epstein Documents that Could SINK Justice Department.

 I did a deep dive into the Trump administration’s effort to block the release of major Epstein files ahead of Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing. War is erupting again between the United States and Iran.

A new report reveals Trump has what he calls the “Lewinsky room,” where he shows off memorabilia to visiting world leaders. Mitch McConnell is reportedly communicating with Senate leadership after weeks of speculation about his health. There has been another ICE shooting, new allegations that the U.S. shared confidential immigration information with Iran, accusations that Ken Paxton violated voting laws, and much more.

Get ready for some big Epstein news this week and next. Stay tuned…

I know some people get frustrated when I ask for subscriptions, but the truth is simple. Your subscriptions are what make this work possible. They keep the lights on, fund independent journalism, help protect my team and my family, and allow me to continue reporting without outside influence or corporate pressure. 

Here’s the news:

Epstein:

The Justice Department is asking a federal court to reject an expedited Freedom of Information Act request seeking acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s emails and messages related to Jeffrey Epstein before his Senate confirmation hearings. The lawsuit, filed by watchdog group American Oversight, argues the records are urgently needed because Blanche’s handling of the Epstein files isdirectly relevant to whether he should lead the Justice Department. The group requested communications mentioning Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump, and other related terms. It asked for the records to be released before Blanche’s confirmation hearings on July 15 and 16. The request is part of growing scrutiny over Blanche’s role in handling the Epstein files.

In response, the Justice Department argued that expediting the request would unfairly allow one organization to skip ahead of other FOIA requesters and disrupt the normal records process. DOJ lawyers said granting the request would create a precedent encouraging groups to use high-profile events to jump the line for government records.

It comes as more than 1,200 former Justice Department employees who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations have signed a letter urging the Senate to reject Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general. They argue Blanche, right, has created a “culture of fear” within the DOJ, prioritized loyalty to President Trump over the rule of law, and undermined the department’s independence. The letter says an attorney general should serve the Constitution and the law, not the president personally.

The former DOJ officials also claim that under Blanche’s leadership, more than 16,000 Justice Department employees have left, with some allegedly fired without notice and others resigning rather than carry out what they viewed as unethical or unlawful orders. They argue the departures have hurt recruitment, weakened the department’s ability to carry out its mission, and left communities less safe and Americans’ rights less protected. The group points to cases involving Trump’s perceived political opponents as examples of Blanche carrying out the president’s agenda.

July 6

Top Stories

U.S. President Donald Trump has published many self-portraits like those above portraying himself as a king, a godlike figure or a warrior inflicting military and other violent reprisals on nations and political opponents. Australia's "60 Minutes" program, which is modelled upon but under different ownership of the CBS program by the same name, examined Trump's presidency with the help of two New York Times journalists who just published the best-sellar "Regime Change."

60 Minutes Australia via Nine Network, Investigative Commentary: What drives Donald Trump’s delusion that he rules the world?  Host: Liz Hayes, right, July 5-6, 2026 (20:55 mins.). Think you know what Donald Trump is really like? Think again. Insiders reveal extraordinary details of what goes on in the Oval Office.

US President Donald Trump’s reputation for chaos and power flexing is well known, but the extent of his disregard for political process and world order is staggering.

New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan have pulled back the curtain to expose what’s really going on in Trump’s tumultuous second term.

The accounts collected from Trump’s inner sanctum are jaw dropping, from the fear and retribution to the deadly dangerous and the plain silly.

Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump takes us from the brink of economic abyss to the war in Iran to better understand what drives this American president who believes he rules the world.

Over the past three years, the journalists conducted more than 1000 interviews with anonymous staffers, department officials, former aides, donors, friends and foes of the president, and even Trump himself.

Their highly anticipated account of what they uncovered has already raised the hackles of the commander in chief.

“If you want to understand how the most powerful country in the world is being run, how Donald Trump is operating with a tiny group of people, five or six people are running this country,” Swan said.

“And there are senior people in the US government who are at the State Department and the Pentagon and the intelligence community who have no earthly idea what’s actually being said and done in the Oval Office.”

The accounts collected from Trump’s inner sanctum are jaw dropping, from the fear and retribution to the deadly dangerous and the plain silly. 

As an example, he said the number of people who saw the memorandum of understanding to end the Iran war before it was published was “microscopic.”

The war’s beginning was just as extraordinary.

On February 11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was granted rare access to the highly secure Situation Room in the basement of the White House to make his pitch for a joint assault.

Certain Iran was already weakened by last year’s bombing raids, Trump was happy to be convinced by Netanyahu that a regime change would be sharp and swift. Advertisement

On February 11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was granted rare access to the highly secure Situation Room in the basement of the White House to make his pitch for a joint assault. 60 Minutes

People within Trump’s administration did not agree.

• “Trump, at a very deep gut level, thought this would be a fast war,” Swan said.
• “What Trump does is when he has an instinct, he will shop around until he finds someone to support that instinct,” he added.
• Haberman said Trump would often look around for aides to blame for “bad advice”.
• “But people warned him what could happen, munition shortages, the Strait of Hormuz closing,” she said.
• “He went ahead with it. It was his choice and the after effects are – are his.”
• According to the award-winning reporters, in his second term Trump is a president who does what he wants. 

 

With control of Congress, a favourable judiciary [six pro-Trump Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are shown above] and complete disregard for due political process, the regime change has been much closer to home.

“He sent Delta Force into Caracas in Venezuela to snatch a foreign head of state out of his bedroom in his pyjamas in the middle of the night and change the leadership of that country. He didn’t even talk to Congress,” Swan said, adding it was the same for the war in Iran.

“He decided that fishing boats carrying cocaine were enemy combatants. He redefined them as enemy combatants, and he just killed them. He just bombed them.

“There was no authorisation for the use of military force. This was, he, he just, he said, ‘These are terrorists and we’re killing them’.”

Trump’s abuse of power and blatant disregard for the chaos he was causing was dramatically and chillingly evident early in his second term when he started slapping tariffs on countries around the world.

His formula of who should pay what was only devised the night before he announced the penalties on April 2 last year on what he called America’s Liberation Day.

Swan said Trump was “playing roulette with the global economy” and their reporting uncovered that behind the scenes it was “even more haphazard than people might have imagined”.

“For him to pull back. Yeah. I mean, it was really at the absolute, uh, last minute, uh, essentially,” Haberman said.

“And we describe in the book how terrified so many of his own advisors were about how close the car came to going over the cliff.

“And I think that it’s, it’s hard for them to look at sometimes. These are his decisions. And then you see what the aftermath is.”

He may be bombastic, juvenile and lawless but Swan and Haberman say he has also proven to be an effective leader.

Whether or not you like the policy, his success on border control is a measure of getting things done.

But Trump has also been a chaotic and vengeful president who has spent much of this second term seeking retribution against those who challenged him during his first administration, shamelessly quashing dissent.

Trump has taken to assaulting Haberman, even referring to her as "Maggot." 

Sex Assault Claim Pressures Upstart Maine Senate Democrat's Campaign 

Graham Platner, Maine Democrat running for a U.S. Senate seat, speaks during a campaign event.

Politico, Exclusive: Woman who dated Graham Platner says he sexually assaulted her, Jessica Piper and Adam Wren, July 6, 2026. The Maine Democrat denied the allegations and said, “Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue.”

A woman who dated Maine U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.

The woman, a 41-year-old Maine resident named Jenny Racicot, detailed the alleged incident to POLITICO in three interviews over the past two weeks. POLITICO also spoke with a man Racicot dated and confided in the years after the alleged incident, and reviewed documents, including emails between Racicot and her therapist and messages between Racicot and an acquaintance whom she warned against getting involved with Platner years before he ran for office.

Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner, who is now the Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.

“I remember him grabbing my pelvis and being really forceful of me,” she said. “I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, ‘This is no longer my choice.’”

Platner denied the allegations.

“These allegations are troubling, serious, and false. Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue,” he said in a statement.

Racicot previously described “reckless” and “unsettling” behavior by Platner to The New York Times, but says she didn’t go public with the specific assault claim because she didn’t want to be known as a rape victim.

Racicot said she later felt compelled to go public about her experience because the reaction to the Times story was dominated by controversy about another woman, Lyndsey Fifield, who alleged Platner mistreated her and faced attacks because of her ties to the Republican Party. (Contacted by POLITICO, Fifield stood by the allegations she made to the Times and declined to comment further.)

“My part of the story was just a read-over,” Racicot said in an interview. “And the story was Lyndsey, and the accusations of her being politically motivated.”

Racicot said she was torn over coming forward in part because she agrees with Platner politically.

“One of the reasons I didn’t come forward sooner was, the huge moral conflict that I had between supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person,” she said. “I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person.”

In a statement, the Platner campaign reiterated his denial and accused critics of trying to drive him out of the race.

“These allegations are very serious and Graham vigorously denies them. They are also coached and coordinated by out of state establishment operatives. For a year, opponents of this campaign have thrown everything they can at Graham –– calling him a Nazi, a war criminal, and a communist. None of it has been true and this is no different. It is not a coincidence that this story comes a week before the ballot deadline, just as the previous false allegations came a week before the primary. Graham began this campaign to fight for a Maine where everyone is treated with dignity and where Mainers are put first, and no amount of desperate smears will stop this movement from seeing that vision through.”

Platner, an oysterman and political newcomer when he launched his Senate campaign last August, easily won the Democratic primary last month to face GOP Sen. Susan Collins in one of the nation’s most highly watched Senate races. His remarkable rise has been tainted by controversies, including offensive online comments and allegations of past mistreatment of women. He has not previously been accused of sexual assault.

The Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran has linked some of his behavior to mental health struggles and alcohol abuse. But he says he’s changed and has denied previous claims that he was abusive to women.

Racicot told POLITICO she connected with Platner on the dating app Bumble in 2019 and had consensual relations with him prior to the night he allegedly assaulted her.

That night in late 2021, she said she had exchanged text messages with him and told him not to come over, saying she wasn’t in the mood for company. Later that evening, she said she realized when she heard a sound on the stairs that he had let himself into her house, which was unlocked.

Platner came up the stairs, Racicot said, to where she was on a couch. He got on top of her and kept grabbing her, she said, while she repeatedly told him to stop and that she wasn’t interested. Racicot said she smelled alcohol on his breath and believed he was “almost blackout drunk” because Platner ignored her protests and continued to grab her after knocking over an antique sewing kit, spilling small needles everywhere.

“I had been telling him these words, like: ‘No, don’t,’” she recalled.

“And, the look on his face and realizing what was happening, I just realized that, like, I am in a situation where there’s no consent here,” she said.

Racicot said she tried to separate herself from Platner by telling him she couldn’t be in that room anymore, after which he followed her to her bedroom and had sex with her against her will. She said he also ejaculated inside of her despite her telling him not to, as she was not using birth control at the time.

She went to clean herself up, she said, and when she returned, Platner had fallen asleep. She contemplated waking him up to kick him out, but worried he could hurt someone driving in the state he was in.

The following morning, she said, Platner tried to put his arm around her and she pushed him away. She said she asked him whether he remembered what had happened the previous night; according to Racicot, Platner said he didn’t remember. Racicot said she told him to leave and never contact her again.

Racicot said she waited several weeks until she got her period to ensure she wasn’t pregnant, then sent Platner a private message on Instagram saying that the encounter was not consensual and she did not want to hear from him ever again. Racicot had no further contact with him after that, she said. Racicot said she later deleted all her texts and social media correspondence with Platner as she tried to move on from the assault, and said she has not been able to recover the Instagram messages she sent him about the incident.

In the weeks after the alleged assault, Racicot said she considered going to the police but struggled with shock and confusion about what had happened to her and did not file a police report. Even as time passed, she said she felt uncomfortable potentially telling a police officer about such a personal experience, and feared retaliation from Platner. At first, she confided only in her therapist, who she continues to see.

Racicot showed POLITICO recent emails with her therapist in which Racicot explained she was talking to the media about her relationship with Platner and the “sa/rape,” using an abbreviation for sexual assault. In the message, Racicot was not ready to go public and was seeking help corroborating her account in conversations she was having with reporters on condition of anonymity. Her therapist responded that Racicot shouldn’t have to speak publicly about a traumatic incident in order to be believed, without referencing details of any particular incident. The therapist, who POLITICO agreed not to name at her request, declined to comment when reached on Monday.

New York Tmes, Live Updates: Platner Will Take Time to ‘Reflect’ on Campaign After Sexual Assault Accusation, Lisa Lerer and Katie Glueck, July 6, 2026. Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, called the allegation “false.” He did not say if he would continue his campaign.

Here’s the latest.

Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate nominee from Maine, said he was taking time to “reflect” on his political path forward after a report that a woman had accused him of sexual assault, which he denied.

In a video posted on social media, Mr. Platner called the account “false.”

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Platner intended to continue his campaign against Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican. The Democratic Party has until July 13 to replace him on the ticket if he withdraws, according to Maine state law. Both parties see Maine as key to the battle for control of the Senate.

Jenny Racicot, who said she dated Mr. Platner casually off and on between 2019 and 2021, told The New York Times this spring about a 2021 incident in which she said he arrived at her house drunk after she had asked him not to come over. At the time, she declined to share further details of that encounter on the record, but she said she found his behavior “reckless” and “unsettling,” and cut off contact soon after that episode.

But in a new interview published in Politico on Monday, Ms. Racicot elaborated on her recollection of that night, saying Mr. Platner let himself into her home, climbed on top of her and kept grabbing her — even after she repeatedly told him to stop. He ignored her protests and followed her into the bedroom, where, she said, he had sex with her against her will.

“I had been telling him these words, like: ‘No, don’t,’” she told Politico.

“And, the look on his face and realizing what was happening, I just realized that, like, I am in a situation where there’s no consent here,” she said.

Mr. Platner called the allegations “troubling, serious, and false,” in the direct-to-camera video.

“Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false,” he said.

His statement came shortly after he had postponed several campaign events.

Ms. Racicot did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

PoliticusUSA, Opinion: It Is Time For Graham Platner To Go, Jason Easley, right, July 6, 2026. Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has been plagued by scandals and allegations, but he should end his campaign as he has now been accused of rape.

Progressives have been championing a theory of candidate recruitment that, at its core, believes that the key to winning back white working class voters, especially in red areas, is to run candidates from the working class.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the modern champion of this theory, and even though it has proven to be effective, there is a segment of progressivism in the United States that tends to fall in love with candidate biographies and overlook red flags.

The Democratic Party put itself in a difficult position in the Senate primary in Maine when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer backed Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic primary. Mills is an older Democrat who, according to those in Maine, never expressed much interest in running in the primary, leaving a big opening for progressives in the state to win the Senate nomination.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, so I have no dog in the fight over who should have been the party’s Senate nominee, but as a political scientist, I saw red flags around Graham Platner’s candidacy, and it was also understandable why he won the primary.

The problem is that those red flags have turned into a raging five-alarm fire.

The accuser is a Democrat who shares Platner’s views, and the more details there are, the more troubling the story becomes.

CNN reported on Jake Tapper’s interview with Racicot:

Racicot said one night in November or December 2021, Platner showed up drunk at her house after she asked him not to come and then forcibly had sex with her despite her repeated demands that he stop – at one point knocking over a sewing cabinet, which inadvertently left a needle stuck in her leg. When she confronted him the next morning, he said he did not remember what had happened, Racicot said.

Progressives have been championing a theory of candidate recruitment that, at its core, believes that the key to winning back white working class voters, especially in red areas, is to run candidates from the working class.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the modern champion of this theory, and even though it has proven to be effective, there is a segment of progressivism in the United States that tends to fall in love with candidate biographies and overlook red flags.

The Democratic Party put itself in a difficult position in the Senate primary in Maine when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer backed Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic primary. Mills is an older Democrat who, according to those in Maine, never expressed much interest in running in the primary, leaving a big opening for progressives in the state to win the Senate nomination.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, so I have no dog in the fight over who should have been the party’s Senate nominee, but as a political scientist, I saw red flags around Graham Platner’s candidacy, and it was also understandable why he won the primary.

Racicot said she did not report the incident to authorities at the time, and she broke off contact with him soon afterward. Asked if she now considered the incident a rape, Racicot said, “By definition yes, absolutely yes.”

As with Eric Swalwell, Democrats need to decide if they are going to stand by their principles or go the Trump GOP route and determine that sexual assault allegations don’t matter.

Women are the majority of the Democratic Party, so this party should police itself better than Donald Trump’s rural white male sausage festival party.

Platner has one week to withdraw as the Senate nominee, and he is suggesting that he might end his campaign, "So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”

The allegations piling up against Platner are causing damage.

Susan Collins is the most vulnerable that she has ever been in her career, and all polls show that she is statistically tied with Platner, as Republicans prepare to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in Maine attacking Platner.

More telling is that Platner trails Collins by double digits with the white, blue-collar voters that progressives were hoping he could win over.

In my decades of covering the Senate elections of Susan Collins, I’ve seen this scene play out before. A flawed Democratic candidate looks close, but in the end, Collins, with the backing of a ton of money, wins another term.

• If the goal is to defeat Susan Collins, Graham Platner must go.
• If Democrats are sincere about upholding their values, Graham Platner must go.

Platner has a week before the deadline to withdraw from the race. There are many talented Democrats in Maine. Some of them already hold office and have been vetted.

Democrats need to ask themselves if Graham Platner is worth behaving like Donald Trump for?

If the answer is no, then Platner needs to go.

Epstein Files, Trump Team Coverup

Last Mile First, Investigative Commentary: Maxwell's Lawyer: Saffian, Raskin, and the Sister on the Payroll, Jana, right, July 6, 2026. A congressman, a cancelled lecture, and Ghislaine Maxwell's sister on her attorney's payroll.

 

PART ONE Contains the FULL audios.What You Need To Know

Leah Saffian, shown at left in a file photo as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell legal team that also includes David Markus, standing at the microphone

Leah Saffian is a California based attorney who, by her own camp’s account, has represented Ghislaine Maxwell for roughly a decade, but did not try Maxwell’s 2021 criminal case. She assumed a more prominent public role after Maxwell's conviction and now serves as lead counsel on Maxwell’s pending habeas corpus petition before Judge Paul Engelmayer in the Southern District of New York.

Emails released as part of the Epstein files show that Saffian's office employed Isabel Maxwell, Ghislaine's sister, as a paralegal in 2021. That reflects a documented professional relationship between Saffian's law office and the Maxwell family beyond the attorney-client relationship. LPF is not aware of any allegation of wrongdoing connected to that arrangement. This is a documented, on-the-record fact about the structure of Maxwell's legal team, and it has not previously been reported as part of the Saffian story.

In November 2025, Saffian publicly clashed with Rep. Jamie Raskin after leaked Bureau of Prisons emails described ‘concierge-style’ treatment for Maxwell at Federal Prison Camp Bryan, including customized meals and after hours guard escorts. Saffian called for disciplinary action against Raskin and said BOP staff had been fired over the leak.

A habeas corpus lecture Saffian was scheduled to co-present to the Bar of Ireland in April 2026, titled ‘The Great Writ: Werewolves, Witch Hunts and Why Irish Habeas is Not a Fairy Tale,’ was cancelled after the sponsoring group said its promotional material failed to meet its code of conduct.

Separately, and not part of Saffian’s case: LPF has reviewed a 2021 court filing, Document 719 in the Maxwell docket, from Maxwell’s original trial team of Jeffrey Pagliuca, Christian Everdell, and Bobbi Sternheim, disputing a witness’s testimony about when Maxwell purchased her London home at 44 Kinnerton Street. That filing predates Saffian’s active role on the case and should not be read as material connected to her.

Additional material provided to LPF by a source with direct knowledge of the earlier audio release is described below. None of it is independently verified, and none of it names Saffian directly. It is presented as context on how the material has circulated, not as evidence against any individual.

Where Part One Left Off

LPF’s prior piece, “Maxwell’s Lawyer, On the Record. Just Not the Way She’d Want,” reported that Leah Saffian’s identity and role as Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney are real and confirmed, and that a recorded claim attributing coaching instructions to her is not. This piece goes further into who Saffian is, what her actual role in the Maxwell case has been, and what is and is not connected to her.Ten Years, Not the Trial

Saffian’s own camp describes her as having represented Maxwell for roughly ten years. But she was not part of the defense team that tried the case in the Southern District of New York in 2021, that team was led by Bobbi Sternheim, with Jeffrey Pagliuca and Christian Everdell. Saffian’s public role sharpened afterward: she was present for Maxwell’s two day interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in mid-2025, and she is now the attorney publicly speaking for Maxwell on the post-conviction habeas petition, the one Samantha Harris references throughout the recordings covered in Part One.

A decade of representation is not the same as trial counsel, and conflating the two, or attaching a 2021 trial filing to Saffian’s name, would be a factual error. It is also, on its own, a notable fact: a long personal and professional relationship with Maxwell that predates and outlasts the courtroom loss.The Sister on the Payroll

Emails released as part of the Epstein files show that Saffian’s office employed Isabel Maxwell, Ghislaine’s sister, as a paralegal in 2021. That is a direct professional and financial relationship between Saffian and the Maxwell family that exists apart from the standard attorney-client relationship. This is a documented, on-the-record fact about the structure of Maxwell’s legal team, and because it has not been reported as part of the Saffian story until now.

In November 2025, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee (shown in a file photo), released whistleblower material describing what he called preferential treatment for Maxwell at Camp Bryan: customized meals delivered to her, a service dog in training, escorted after-hours access to the exercise yard, and direct access to the warden. The material included emails between Maxwell and Saffian.

Saffian responded publicly, calling the release improper and arguing it disclosed privileged attorney-client communication in violation of Maxwell’s constitutional rights. She said Bureau of Prisons employees had been fired for improperly accessing the email system, and that Raskin’s conduct should be a matter for professional disciplinary review. She separately said Maxwell has not applied for a pardon or commutation.

Those responses focused on the release of the material rather than the underlying allegations about Maxwell's treatment; whether she received treatment inconsistent with standard federal custody classification remains a separate question. It does show that Saffian has been willing to go on the offensive against a sitting member of Congress over how information about her client's confinement became public.The Lecture That Got Cancelled

In April 2026, Saffian was scheduled to co-present a session to the Bar of Ireland with Irish barrister Matthew Holmes, part of a visit by the California Lawyers Association. The session’s title was “The Great Writ: Werewolves, Witch Hunts and Why Irish Habeas is Not a Fairy Tale,” and promotional material described Saffian as someone who has represented a client “often portrayed as a witch in media and photoshopped to resemble Cruella.” Saffian was expected to walk through the habeas petition itself, including claims of prosecutorial misconduct and juror dishonesty.

The event was cancelled days before it was scheduled to occur. The California Lawyers Association said the program did not meet its code of conduct and apologized for any offense caused, while stating that no attorney should be judged by a client’s conduct. Saffian did not comment publicly on the cancellation.

A Different Document, A Different Team

This section is not about Saffian, and it should not be read as if it were.

LPF has independently verified a 2021 filing in the Maxwell docket, Document 719, a letter brief from Maxwell’s trial counsel arguing that a 1996 property sale agreement for 44 Kinnerton Street should be admitted as impeachment evidence against a trial witness who testified she visited Maxwell at that address in 1994. The filing is signed by Jeffrey Pagliuca, Christian Everdell, and Bobbi Sternheim, not by Saffian. It is a real, publicly available court record, confirmed against the docket in United States v. Maxwell, 20-CR-330 (AJN), Southern District of New York.

Document 719, page 4 — United States v. Maxwell, 20-CR-330 (AJN), S.D.N.Y.

A related sworn declaration from Kevin Moran, a London pub owner who lived across the street from 44 Kinnerton Street, states that he first met Maxwell in early 1997, after she introduced herself as the new owner of the property, timing that the defense used to support its argument that Maxwell could not have lived there in 1994 as the witness testified.

Declaration of Kevin Moran, United States v. Maxwell, 20-CR-330 (AJN)

The December 2021 trial transcript shows the witness testifying that she visited Maxwell at a Kinnerton Street home in 1994, and being cross-examined about that timeline once the property records surfaced. The defense argued the government had public land registry records available to check the purchase date and did not do so before calling the witness.

This is worth documenting on its own terms: it shows the 2021 trial team’s impeachment strategy, built on property records and timeline, years before Saffian became the public face of Maxwell’s post-conviction effort.

What We Can’t Confirm Yet

LPF has also reviewed additional screenshots provided by a source with direct knowledge of the material covered in Part One. They are internal exchanges about how that earlier material was being handled, not statements from Saffian, Harris, or anyone named in this piece’s confirmed reporting. They are included here for transparency about how the underlying material has circulated, not as evidence of any claim.

One exchange shows a person questioning whether a document could be AI-generated and asking how it was obtained and by whom before it was used. Another shows a person stating that a claim could be logged as a lead worth watching, but explicitly not as something with proof behind it yet. LPF is including these because they show the material was treated with caution by the people closest to it, not because they confirm any underlying claim. Nothing in this section is adopted as fact, and none of it is connected to Saffian.Why This Matters

Maxwell’s habeas petition is active in federal court right now, and Congress is actively examining her custody and treatment. Leah Saffian is the attorney at the center of both threads: the legal argument for Maxwell’s release, and the public fight over how much scrutiny that argument deserves. A ten-year relationship with the Maxwell family, a paralegal role for Maxwell’s sister, a public clash with a sitting member of Congress, and a cancelled lecture promoted using language sympathetic to Maxwell are all facts about that attorney’s public conduct, not allegations. They provide documented context for Maxwell's current legal representation regardless of what is ever confirmed about the recordings in Part One.

The Kinnerton documents belong in the public record too, on their own terms, as part of the history of how Maxwell’s defense has used property records and timeline gaps to attack witness credibility since before this current petition existed. 

Disclaimer: Material in this piece includes screenshots and court documents, some of which relate to recordings covered in LPF’s prior reporting. LPF did not create, obtain, solicit, or participate in the making of any recording referenced in that prior reporting, was not a party to any conversation contained in them, and played no role in their original release. Additional screenshots referenced here were provided to LPF by a source with direct knowledge of that earlier material. Where LPF has been given permission to reproduce material, that permission covers the provider’s own rights only; it does not verify the content, and it does not extend to the privacy interests of any other person who appears in it. Identities of individuals in this piece are as represented by their original publisher or source, except where LPF has independently verified them, as noted throughout. Claims made by individuals in this material are their own statements and are not adopted as fact by LPF except where separately confirmed against public record. Where a claim could not be verified, it is labeled as such. 

 

June

June 27

Epstein Files, Trump Team Coverup

 

Jeffrey Epstein's fellow sex trafficker and teen rapist Ghislaine Maxwell, left, is shown attending a social gathering with her friends Donald Trump and the onetime model and party girl Melania Knauss, right, the future First Lady Melania Trump.

Lance's Substack, Opinion: A Friend Asks, Why Won’t The MAGA Influencers Drop The Epstein Scandal? Lance F Rosen, right, June 27, 2026. What caused, and continues to cause, Trump followers to be stuck on the Epstein files?

• I know the release of the files was a campaign promise. Is it that he went back on his word? Would his followers have been satisfied if he’d released the files regardless of what they contained?
• Is it the alarming revelations from those groomed and abused?
• What keeps the majority of the MAGAs demanding that these files be released?

My Reply:

For most relatively normal and grounded individuals, it is out of concern for the victims and desire to see justice done, including seeing the perpetrators exposed and appropriately punished.

Also, not to be glossed over, is that a majority of people who oppose Trump and might have given up on politics or other constitutional pathways for removing him any time soon, are hoping and praying the Epstein investigation will do the job for us. However, as with everything else, hard core MAGA’s version of “normal” already left the station and then derailed a long time ago, and their motives for pushing the scandal are different from ours.

Let’s start with a refresher on QAnon.

I think that many people have made the mistake of dismissing QAnon as a small fringey conspiracy cult of Tin Foil hat types. They are actually a mass based movement.

Think about the whole “Pizzagate Affair” and what you know about the theory behind it. The duped idiots who jumped on that bandwagon joined with Trump because they equate the liberal Democratic establishment with the “Deep State,” the shadowy elite who are taking away their jobs and giving them to illegal immigrants, taxing them to death, trying to turn their kids gay, aborting all the white babies, and trying to take their guns.

Supposedly, they believed this group is a secret cabal of satanic pedophiles bankrolled by rich liberal Jews like George Soros and the Rothschilds, leading a global child trafficking and murder ring.

The Pizzagate theory was that this pedophile network was run out of their HQ which was the basement of a DC Pizza shop where the kidnapped children were taken to be raped and cannibalized by these wealthy powerful elites. That’s “Pizzagate,” in a nutshell. That was the birth of QAnon, right there.

That theory was popularized by MAGA anti-semite, far-right provocateur and “ratfucker” Jack Posobiec, who later became OANN’s White House correspondent. (FYI, last year he wrote and published a book attacking liberals and socialists, titled “Unhuman.” Literally, the same word used by Hitler to describe his targeted enemies, in German, “Untermensch.” Posobiec’s book was published with a foreword by J. D. Vance a year ago.)

So, when the Epstein second round of indictments first hit, then with him dying in jail under suspicious circumstances, that made the whole theory valid in their minds. Here they had it, a real live Jewish billionaire, sponsored by other Jewish billionaires and people with Israeli intelligence ties, apparently running a child trafficking and murder ring. These conspirophiles were in hog heaven, acting like they hit the Lotto because now everyone knew they weren’t crazy and thus was validated their paranoia, so they thought.

Bill Clinton was tied to Epstein, as was Bill Richardson, Bill Gates, Alan Dershowitz, each of whom known as liberals. Though Dershowitz later underwent a religious conversion to Trump fascism in order to defend him legally, mainly to get his backing in keeping his own role in enabling Epstein (or worse, his alleged sexual abuse of Epstein’s victims) out of any courtroom. The plan was to make Epstein into a scandal which served to expose and land on the Democrats, and if all the files came out, each of these liberal boogeyman were supposed to disappear like magic.

Trump was anointed by the leading QAnon influencers as their avenger, the Christian crusader riding in on a white horse who would bring these supposed satanic liberal Democratic pedophiles to justice and pull the Deep State out by the roots. (QAnon influencer and possibly founder Jim Watkins, a “spooky” ex-military guy, operated the first QAnon channel on Christopher Poole’s 4Chan out of the Phillipines. He was there because he made his money by file-sharing illegal uncensored porn into Japan, and later used it to found his own platform called 8Chan. However many sources believe “Q” is likely not a person, but an amalgam of a loosely affiliated network)

QAnon is a quasi-religious cult, created as a psy-op by military intelligence circles to mislead an online army of paranoid victimized rageballs into a rabbit hole in order to capture and neutralize them. These adepts were groomed to be anti-goverment extremists.

QAnon recruited heavily out of the fascist wing of the Catholic church with the help of various renegade Bishops like Joseph Strickland of Tyler Texas, (removed by Pope Francis) retired General Michael Flynn, Ginni Thomas, and excommunicated former DC Archbishop Jose Maria Viganó. Throw in the pseudo-Catholic Hollywood QAnon-linked anti-semites around actor Mel Gibson and his protege Jim Caveziel. (Star of Gibson’s explicitly anti-semitic Christian snuff film, “The Passion Of Christ,” and more recently the “Sound Of Freedom,” a fake film bio of so-called Christian tracker of missing children Tim Ballard, which was used as a QAnon propaganda film)

Also the Trump evangelical advisors such as Pastors Mark Burns and Mark Taylor, along with several figures in his White House team, including Mark Meadows, who were actively involved in spreading the QAnon conspiracy.

QAnon followers were a major bloc of the J-6 rioters, and they were instrumental in setting up groups like “Moms For Liberty” as vehicles for importing their conspiracy nonsense into school boards and local elections. The themes of “grooming” children for sexual exploitation by LGBTQ persons through books and literature in school libraries, (launching a book banning campaign) and compelling kids to go through what they called “Nazi style medical experiments via forced genital mutilation” became the talking points for MFL activists at school board meetings and campaign events.

This movement, which went under the slogan “Save The Children,” was a bloodthirsty rabble in their mindsets, who wanted scapegoats to blame for what they called “an attack on their religious values and way of life.”

So when Trump broke his promise on releasing the files, it was more than just another politician breaking their word on a campaign issue.

He had been assigned near messianic status as the leader of their own conspiracy, anointed by God to smite the evildoers.

When he blocked the files, it came out that he was in them all over the place. This was the equivalent of a bunker-buster bomb dropped on their heads, their homes, and their churches.

That is when many of these QAnon Trumpers realized they were conned. Their continuing obsession with Epstein now and getting everything out is in part about the victims for some of them, yes, especially some of the MAGA women like Nancy Mace and MTG. But it is also a heavy overlay of vengeance-seeking by people who feel betrayed by the man in whom they placed their faith, who they previously fought for and would have died for.

In reality, the demented pathological rapist Trump, screwed himself in the end by issuing death threats and bringing out heavy leverage against some of his best political allies to suppress and redact the files, which has backfired and made these former supporters even more determined to not let the truth be buried.

 

Last Page First, Investigative Commentary: Epstein Left Them $2 Million. New Mexico Hasn't Asked Them Anything, Jana, left, June 27, 2026. The people who ran Jeffrey Epstein's ranch were among the last he thought to provide for. The commission investigating that ranch hasn't thought to ask them a single question.

The New Mexico Truth Commission has issued 23 subpoenas. None of them have gone to Brice or Karen Gordon, the couple from New Zealand who managed Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch for years, then vanished after he died. The Commission says it's working methodically, institutions before individuals. But the paper trail on the Gordons doesn't need a subpoena to unlock. It's already public, and has been public since the DOJ released the EFTA archive.The Payment Structure

Instead of paychecks, the Gordons got monthly wire transfers, to a shell company Brice controlled.

The vehicle was Lee McKenzie Consultants LLC: a New Mexico limited liability company registered by Brice Gordon. Every month, from at least 2016 through May 2019, $16,666.67 moved from Epstein’s accounts to a Wells Fargo account belonging to Lee McKenzie Consultants LLC. That is $200,000 per year, paid in clean monthly installments, paid in clean monthly installments, never touching a payroll system.

The source accounts were LSJE LLC and Zorro Management LLC, the corporate entities Epstein used to manage Little Saint James and Zorro Ranch. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas processed the transfers. It's all in the bank statements, more than two years of them.

EFTA00609951, an internal payroll table from Zorro Development Corp tracks the Gordons going back to 2009, raises approved by Epstein himself, bonuses, moving costs, sick days, vacation time logged on his personal calendar. All the language of employment. But the money never moved like a paycheck. It moved as a consulting fee, to an LLC that exists nowhere outside Epstein's own financial world.Brice Asks For A Breakdown

On January 2, 2019, Brice Gordon emailed Una Pascal, Epstein’s administrator, and copied Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant. He asked for a breakdown of what Lee McKenzie Consultants LLC had been paid in 2018.

He ran his own pay through his own LLC and still couldn't tell you what he'd been paid without asking Epstein's accountant. | EFTA02607701

This wasn't unusual. Epstein built his whole financial network this way: shell on top of shell, Cypress Inc., Laurel Inc., Maple Inc., the Haze Trust, each one making the next harder to trace. The people who ran his properties weren't exempt from that.The Bank Confirms It

A month after Epstein died, Deutsche Bank walked federal prosecutors through his entire financial network. Exhibit S of that presentation is a table classifying every entity. Lee McKenzie Consultants LLC is on it. Next to it: "Brice Gordon-Controlled Business Entity." Not an allegation. A bank's own classification, delivered to the SDNY. The Truth Commission has never asked for it.

Deutsche Bank's own classification, delivered to federal prosecutors.The Corporate Trail

Lee McKenzie Consultants LLC was registered in New Mexico, with Brice Gordon listed as registered agent at 49 Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley NM, the Epstein ranch address itself.

A second Gordon connected entity, Cactus 3 Development LLC, was filed by Karen Gordon in April 2023. The registered agent on Karen’s LLC is Jody Lyn Stewart, a former New Zealand Army logistics officer who disappeared from corporate records for decades before surfacing on this single filing. She appears on no other New Mexico entity.

NZ Government Gazette Issue 27, February 26, 1987 / Issue 107, June 22, 1989

The Gordons’ last known addresses span three states: Tubac, Arizona, where Cactus 3 Development LLC purchased property at 1509 Golden Gate Way; Half Moon Bay, California, where Karen listed her personal mailing address on the Cactus 3 formation documents; and the Zorro Ranch Road address still attached to Brice’s LLC as of December 2024. As of June 2026, no subpoena has been issued to any of these addresses. The New Mexico Truth Commission’s July 31 interim report deadline is approaching.Who They Were

Brice and Karen Gordon were New Zealand nationals. Brice had a background in the New Zealand Defence Force. They were hired to manage Zorro Ranch, the 8,000 acre Epstein compound in the San Cristobal highlands of New Mexico, roughly 40 miles southwest of Santa Fe.

The ranch was operational infrastructure. It had a private airstrip, a guest residence, a main house, a 26,700 square foot “educational building” that Epstein told local officials was for scientific conferences, a fully equipped spa, underground structures, and a private microwave communications link to Sandia Crest Tower documented in FCC licenses WQXY316 and WQXY300.

The Gordons managed all of it.

Karen’s email signature, “Warmest regards Karen — Lee McKenzie Consultants LLC”, appears across years of internal correspondence. Vacation requests went to Lesley Groff, Epstein’s personal assistant, to be placed on his calendar. Sick leave was tracked. The ranch ran as a managed operation, and the Gordons ran it.

Brice Gordon told the FBI in 2007 that massage therapists at the ranch were sourced through a Santa Fe spa called Ten Thousand Waves. That interview was terminated by a phone call from Epstein’s New York office before Karen could be questioned.

EFTA00269599 documents the visit; the interview notes were not retained in the file as produced. You can read our full piece on the spa that supplied the girls here.

In October 2018, Richard Kahn forwarded to Epstein an accusation that Brice Gordon had been taking kickbacks.bNo record of any follow up action has surfaced in the public DOJ files. | EFTA01021257–58.

Two days before Epstein signed the 1953 Trust, the will executed two days before his death, he signed a separate document leaving Brice and Karen Gordon $2 million. They were among the last people he thought to provide for.After

Epstein died on August 10, 2019. Zorro Ranch was eventually sold. The Gordons have not given public statements. They have not appeared before the Truth Commission, nor have they been subpoenaed by it.

The New Mexico Truth Commission was established to investigate Epstein’s operations in New Mexico and their relationship to state institutions. It has subpoenaed the University of New Mexico Foundation, the Santa Fe Institute, state officials, and a range of institutional actors. Twenty three subpoenas as of June 23, 2026. None of them have targeted the people who lived on the property, ran the day to day operations, managed the staff, and were compensated through an LLC that a Deutsche Bank forensic presentation independently classified as a controlled business entity of one of them.

The Commission says it is working methodically: institutions first, then individuals, building foundational knowledge before moving to people.

Except the foundational knowledge on the Gordons is already built. It is sitting in the public record. An independent journalist with no subpoena power, no staff, and no $2.5 million budget found it using a government search bar.

The interim report is due July 31. The paper trail on the Gordons’ money has been complete for longer than the Commission has existed.

June 20

More On Epstein Files, Trump Team Coverup

 

Future President Trump, above right, with his onetime best friend Jeffrey Epstein, left, along with Trump's now-notorious birhday greeting to Epstein.

The Parnas Perspective, Morning News and Commentary: Important Epstein Deep Dive: Investigations Ramp Up as Accountability is Coming, Aaron Parnas, right, June 20, 2026. As promised, I wanted to take a deep dive into the Epstein files and the question of accountability. With so much attention on the document releases, it has become easy to lose sight of what has actually happened as a result. After speaking with survivors, members of Congress, and others involved in this issue, I have compiled a detailed list of individuals who have faced real consequences.

TikTok has completely censored my content today and nothing will post, so I figured we start the day with some Epstein news.

I also want to walk through the investigations that are currently underway, the depositions that are scheduled, and what may come next. It is important that we keep the Epstein files at the forefront of the public conversation, because this story is far from over.

This work is only possible because of your support. Many platforms are reluctant to amplify this information, but people deserve to know where things stand, where the investigations are headed, and who has actually been held accountable.

Investigations

Borge Brende

Position: Former Foreign Minister of Norway; President and CEO of the World Economic Forum. Brende, above, resigned as president and CEO of the World Economic Forum in February 2026. His departure followed disclosures that he remained in contact with Epstein long after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor. The revelations raised questions about his judgment and associations while leading one of the world’s most influential international organizations.

Peter Mandelson

Position: British Ambassador to the United States, right; Labour Party politician; member of the House of Lords. Mandelson was arrested by British police, released on bail, and remained under investigation. He had already lost his position as ambassador after scrutiny of his relationship with Epstein intensified. He was also forced to resign from the Labour Party and the House of Lords. His case involved both legal scrutiny and the loss of multiple high-profile political positions.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Prince Andrew)

Then-Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts, later Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001.

Position: British royal family member; former British trade envoy. Prince Andrew was arrested and later released while an investigation continued. Prior disclosures had already resulted in the loss of his royal titles and removal from his royal residence. Authorities were investigating allegations that he shared confidential information with Epstein while serving as a trade envoy. The consequences included legal scrutiny as well as the loss of royal status and privileges.

Thorbjørn Jagland

Position: Former Prime Minister of Norway; former Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Jagland, right, was criminally charged with “gross corruption” by Norwegian authorities. Investigators examined whether gifts, travel, and loans connected to Epstein were linked to his public positions. Released communications showed extensive contact between the two men. He faced one of the most severe forms of accountability: formal criminal charges.

Mona Juul

Position: Norwegian Ambassador to Jordan and Iraq. Juul was suspended from her diplomatic post before resigning. Norwegian police subsequently announced a corruption investigation involving her and her husband over financial dealings connected to Epstein. The fallout cost her a senior diplomatic role and exposed her to possible legal consequences. The investigation remained ongoing at the time of publication.

Terje Rød-Larsen

Position: President and CEO of the International Peace Institute; diplomat involved in the Oslo peace process. Rød-Larsen became the subject of a Norwegian police investigation after reports concerning financial benefits connected to Epstein. Years earlier, he had resigned from the International Peace Institute after revelations involving donations and a personal loan from Epstein. The renewed investigation brought additional scrutiny to conduct that had already ended one major leadership career.

Jack Lang

Position: Former French Minister of Culture; President of the Arab World Institute. Lang, shown above left with Epstein in a file photo, resigned as head of the Arab World Institute after French authorities began investigating reports of financial ties between his family and Epstein. The resignation followed growing public scrutiny surrounding the allegations. Although no charges had been announced, the investigation led to the loss of a prestigious leadership position.

Morgan McSweeney

Position: Chief of Staff to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. McSweeney resigned under political pressure because of his role in appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. McSweeney has no known ties to Epstein. Nevertheless, he became caught up in the broader fallout resulting from the controversy.

Joanna Rubinstein

Position: Chair of Sweden for the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. Rubinstein resigned after documents revealed that she and her family had visited Epstein’s private island. The disclosures generated public scrutiny and questions about her judgment. She subsequently left a prominent international humanitarian position. Her accountability came in the form of resignation rather than legal action.

Miroslav Lajčák

Position: National Security Adviser to Slovakia’s Prime Minister; former Slovak Foreign Minister. Lajčák stepped down after emails surfaced showing exchanges with Epstein that appeared to joke about young women. The communications triggered political controversy and damaged confidence in his role. He resigned from one of the most sensitive positions in the Slovak government. The consequence was the loss of public office.Academia

Leon Botstein

Position: President of Bard College. Botstein announced his retirement after files showed years of messages and visits involving Epstein. Bard College commissioned an independent review that criticized aspects of his leadership but found no illegal conduct. Nevertheless, the controversy contributed to his decision to step down.

Joichi Ito

Position: Former Director of the MIT Media Lab; technology entrepreneur. Ito resigned from a Japanese government technology initiative after renewed attention to his ties with Epstein. Earlier disclosures had already led to his resignation from MIT’s Media Lab, several corporate boards, and academic positions. The consequences accumulated over multiple years and institutions. His case represents one of the most extensive examples of professional fallout in academia.

Larry Summers

Position: Former President of Harvard University; former U.S. Treasury Secretary. Summers announced he would stop teaching at Harvard and resigned from university leadership roles. Earlier fallout had already included resignations from think tanks, the board of OpenAI, and the loss of a New York Times contributor position. Newly disclosed emails showed ongoing contact with Epstein after serious allegations had emerged.

Richard Axel

Position: Nobel Prize-winning scientist; Columbia University professor. Axel resigned as co-director of a Columbia neuroscience institute and stepped down from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Documents portrayed him as a frequent guest at Epstein’s residence and an intermediary with university officials. The disclosures generated intense scrutiny within the academic community.

Dr. Letty Moss-Salentijn

Position: Vice Dean, Columbia University College of Dental Medicine. Columbia University stripped Moss-Salentijn of her vice dean title after documents suggested she helped develop a customized academic plan for Epstein’s girlfriend. She retained her tenured faculty position but lost her administrative authority. The university’s action reflected concerns about her conduct in an admissions-related matter.

Dr. Thomas Magnani

Position: Columbia University Dental School affiliate; dentist. Columbia University severed all remaining ties with Magnani after disclosures connected him to efforts to secure admission for Epstein’s girlfriend. The university removed him from admissions and volunteer leadership roles. Although he had not taught there for several years, the institution formally ended its association with him.

David A. Ross

Position: Chair of the Fine Arts Department at the School of Visual Arts; museum executive. Ross resigned as department chair after emails revealed a friendship with Epstein spanning decades. The disclosures generated public criticism and pressure within the arts community. He subsequently stepped down from his academic leadership role.

Elisa New

Position: Former Harvard professor; host of PBS’s Poetry in America. Arizona State University ended its relationship with New, and PBS canceled her television program. The actions followed revelations that Epstein had helped develop and fund the project. She lost both a university affiliation and a nationally distributed media platform.

Business

Casey Wasserman

Position: Founder of Wasserman talent agency; sports and entertainment executive. Wasserman’s company removed his name from the agency and began seeking a buyer after numerous clients left. The departures followed the release of emails involving Ghislaine Maxwell.

Dr. Bernard Kruger

Position: Concierge medicine physician. Kruger stepped away from positions at two concierge medical practices after details of his relationship with Epstein became public. The disclosures led to questions about his professional judgment and associations. He subsequently relinquished leadership and professional roles.

Bob Kerrey

Position: Former U.S. Senator from Nebraska; Chairman of a clean-energy company. Kerrey resigned as chairman of a clean-energy company after documents showed continued contact with Epstein following Epstein’s plea deal. The disclosures generated criticism regarding his decision to maintain the relationship. He subsequently stepped down from his corporate leadership role.

Dr. Peter Attia

Position: Physician, author, and CBS News contributor. Attia resigned as a CBS News contributor and had previously stepped down from a corporate science position. Documents described close contact with Epstein, including visits and correspondence over several years. Public backlash followed publication of those details. The result was the loss of multiple professional affiliations.

Thomas J. Pritzker

Position: Executive Chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Pritzker stepped down as executive chairman of Hyatt after files revealed continuing contact with Epstein after Epstein’s plea deal. The disclosures prompted scrutiny of his judgment and associations. He relinquished one of the most important leadership roles in the hospitality industry.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem

Position: Chairman and CEO of DP World. Bin Sulayem resigned from leadership of the global ports company DP World. Documents suggested efforts to arrange business opportunities with Epstein and contained exchanges concerning women. After his identity became public, pressure mounted rapidly. The consequence was the loss of leadership of a major international corporation.

James E. "Jes" Staley

Position: Chief Executive Officer of Barclays. Staley,  shown above right with Epstein in file photos, resigned as CEO of Barclays in 2021 amid scrutiny of his ties to Epstein. Evidence showed that he maintained contact with Epstein after Epstein’s plea agreement and visited him during his sentence. Regulatory and public pressure intensified over time.

Leon Black

Position: Co-founder and CEO of Apollo Global Management; Chairman of the Museum of Modern Art. Black, shown above left in a collage with Epstein, stepped down from all leadership positions at Apollo Global Management and later from the Museum of Modern Art. Investigations highlighted extensive business and social ties to Epstein, including large payments for advisory services. The disclosures generated sustained public and investor scrutiny.U.S. Politics

George J. Mitchell

Position: Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader; diplomat and peace negotiator. Mitchell resigned from the Mitchell Institute and saw institutions remove his name from programs, awards, and honors. Queen’s University Belfast removed a bust of him and renamed a research institute that bore his name. Other organizations also distanced themselves from his legacy.

Alexander Acosta

Position: U.S. Secretary of Labor; former federal prosecutor. Acosta, right, resigned as labor secretary in 2019 after criticism of his handling of Epstein’s 2008 plea deal while serving as a federal prosecutor. Critics argued that the agreement was overly lenient given the allegations. The controversy became politically untenable and ultimately ended his Cabinet tenure.

Law

Kathryn Ruemmler

Position: General Counsel of Goldman Sachs; former White House Counsel. Ruemmler announced she would leave Goldman Sachs after emails revealed a long-running friendship with Epstein. The correspondence showed personal and professional interactions spanning many years. Public scrutiny intensified after the communications became public.

Brad Karp

Position: Chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Karp resigned as chairman of one of the nation’s most influential law firms after emails suggested a deeper relationship with Epstein than previously understood. The disclosures included legal advice he offered regarding Epstein’s earlier plea agreement. Although he remained at the firm, he relinquished its top leadership role. His accountability was the loss of the chairmanship.

Here are the pending investigations:

• New Mexico Criminal: The state of New Mexico has launched an active criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s activities at Zorro Ranch, his sprawling property outside Santa Fe, while a separate legislative “Truth Commission” is conducting a survivor-centered inquiry into what occurred there and whether institutions failed to act. In recent months, investigators from the New Mexico Department of Justice executed a search of Zorro Ranch and issued preservation orders to major companies, including JPMorgan Chase, Google, and PayPal, directing them to retain any records related to Epstein.
• New Mexico Truth Commission: One of the most significant developments in the Epstein case is New Mexico's newly established Truth Commission, a legislative investigative body tasked with examining Jeffrey Epstein's activities in the state, particularly at his Zorro Ranch property outside Santa Fe. The commission has already begun issuing subpoenas to state agencies, law enforcement offices, government officials, and private organizations in an effort to uncover records related to Epstein's operations, financial dealings, and relationships in New Mexico. Among the records being sought are communications involving former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, documents related to Zorro Ranch, law enforcement files, and information about donations made by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Commissioners have described the effort as a survivor-centered investigation focused on establishing a full public record of what occurred in New Mexico, identifying institutional failures, and ensuring accountability for anyone who may have enabled or concealed Epstein's activities.
• Overseas Investigations: The release of millions of pages of Epstein-related documents has triggered a wave of investigations outside the United States, with authorities in at least eight countries and the European Union opening probes into individuals, financial networks, and possible misconduct connected to Epstein's global network. In the United Kingdom, investigators arrested both Prince Andrew and former British Ambassador Peter Mandelson, while British authorities continue examining allegations uncovered through the files. Norway has launched some of the most aggressive actions, including criminal charges against former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland and investigations involving other current and former officials. Authorities in France, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Turkey, and Slovakia are also reviewing ties revealed in the documents, while the European Union's anti-fraud office has opened its own investigation into Mandelson. These inquiries range from allegations of corruption and abuse of office to questions surrounding financial relationships, trafficking networks, and whether powerful individuals received benefits or provided assistance through their connections to Epstein.

Upcoming Key Dates: House Oversight Committee Testimony

• June 26, 2026 — Leon Black, co-founder and former CEO of Apollo Global Management, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee.
• July 9, 2026 — Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein’s former attorney. Requested
• July 15, 2026 — Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House Counsel and former General Counsel of Goldman Sachs, is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee.
• July 23, 2026 — Jes Staley, former CEO of Barclays, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee.

These hearings are expected to provide lawmakers with additional information about relationships, communications, and decision-making involving Jeffrey Epstein and his network, and could shape the direction of future investigations.

Epstein Survivor Stories:

Finally, I wanted to share the voices of those most directly affected by Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Over the course of this investigation, me and other journalists have sat down with multiple survivors and advocates who have spent years fighting for accountability and transparency. Their stories provide a powerful reminder that this is not simply a story about documents, investigations, or powerful people. It is a story about real victims whose lives were forever changed.

Below, you’ll hear from:

• Jess Michaels:
• Marina Lacerda and Andrea Sterling:
• Sky and Amanda Roberts:
• Danielle Bensky:

All of these survivors offer a unique perspective on the lasting impact of Epstein’s abuse, the pursuit of justice, and why the fight for accountability continues today.

More On Trump Administration New York Times, Book Preview: A President Using Super Glue and Irked About Epstein: Takeaways From a New Trump Book, Tim Balk, June 18, 2026. The book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of The New York Times, “Regime Change,” reveals a host of details and surprising exchanges as President Trump pushed to drastically expand his power.

A hunger for vengeance. A lack of restraints. A fixation on interior decorating and a drive to leave lasting marks on his office.

That is the portrait of President Trump in his second term that emerges from “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump,” a new book by two New York Times reporters, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.

The 464-page book, set to be released on Tuesday, describes Mr. Trump’s relentless, norm-shattering efforts to bend the federal government, cultural institutions and news cycles to his will. It draws on extensive interviews conducted on the condition of anonymity to recount internal discussions and sensitive issues. Throughout the reporting process, the authors write, they made extensive efforts to contact the people named in the book and to give them ample opportunity to offer their perspective.

A group of formerly enslaved people at a wharf during the American Civil War.Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

“Regime Change” describes the “most powerful president of our lifetimes” — a leader operating on “grievances and instincts” who could be found, on at least one occasion, decorating the White House with a tube of super glue.ImageA book cover with the title, subtitle and authors' names on a gold, textured backgroundCredit...Simon & Schuster

Here are 11 takeaways from the book. lTrump relished watching Zuckerberg and Bezos try to ingratiate themselves with him.

After Mr. Trump won the 2024 election, the book says, he reveled in the ways that tech leaders who had once scorned him were now “kissing my ass.”

He especially enjoyed the outreach from Mark Zuckerberg, the Meta chief executive, who had barred Mr. Trump from Facebook and Instagram after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.ImageFrom left, Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sánchez, Jeff Bezos and Sundar Pichai standing together before President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025.The book details how tech executives including Mark Zuckerberg, left, and Jeff Bezos, center alongside Lauren Sánchez, now his wife, sought to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Trump.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

At Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump would tell visitors about texts he had received from the titans of tech companies, the book says. In one instance, he showed guests a photo of a letter from one of Mr. Zuckerberg’s children, who had written that they eagerly awaited “the golden age of America” arriving with Mr. Trump’s return, according to the book. In another, he showed a text from Jeff Bezos with a smiling selfie of the Amazon founder and Lauren Sánchez, now his wife.

At a dinner after the 2024 election, Mr. Trump and Mr. Bezos commiserated, according to the book, over a source of shared frustration: The Washington Post, Mr. Bezos’s newspaper, whose coverage had long irritated Mr. Trump.

Mr. Bezos, who bought The Post in 2013, complained that the newspaper had been his worst investment, the book says.

“The people there are terrible,” Mr. Bezos said of the news organization’s business side, according to the book. “They don’t listen. My other companies, they listen.”

At another point, Mr. Trump seemed to marvel at his new reception in the tech world.

“They hated me,” he told Elon Musk, referring to Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Bezos, the book recounts. He added, “And look at them now.”

June 16

 

Last Page First, Investigative Commentary: Stanley Pottinger: 'Ever-Present, Yet Invisible In The Epstein Scandal, Jana, right, June 16, 2026. Before Epstein needed a victims' lawyer, he already had Pottinger. The federal record shows why that matters.

Before Epstein became Epstein, J. Stanley Pottinger was already his business partner, already his Palm Beach neighbor, and already the kind of man who, when his old colleague got arrested for paying underage girls for sex, sat down and wrote him a letter saying it would pass.

He went on to represent Epstein's victims, drew up a private list of powerful men whose surveillance footage he believed could be monetized, pushed a trafficking survivor to settle her case while she was in a wheelchair with two broken feet and a fractured spine recovering from a suicide attempt, called her turning tricks during a phone call about her own litigation, and was named an abuser in open federal court by a woman who had been his client. He appears in over 2,000 documents in the federal Epstein archive. He died on November 27, 2024, in Princeton, New Jersey, without ever being investigated — and the question a survivor asked of a sitting federal judge in 2023, whether anyone had looked into what he had done, has never received a public answer.

J. Stanley Pottinger, shown at right in a Reuters photo, was born in Dayton, Ohio in 1940, graduated Harvard Law in 1965, and spent the years between 1973 and 1977 as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Nixon and Ford — inside the DOJ on the night of the Saturday Night Massacre, at Wounded Knee in 1973 as the chief federal negotiator, reopening Kent State and Jackson State, reviewing the FBI’s files on Martin Luther King Jr. in 1975. He described those years as a bizarre balancing act, trying to do liberal work in a conservative administration. His father had built one of the few insurance companies in the country that served Black clients. He credited that with shaping everything that came after.

By 1981 he was Epstein’s business partner, the two of them renting a penthouse at the Hotel St. Moritz on Central Park South alongside Pottinger’s brother, pitching tax-avoidance strategies to wealthy clients out of an office the broker said Epstein eventually stiffed her on the commission for. By 2016 he was Epstein’s victims’ lawyer.

He died November 27, 2024, in Princeton, New Jersey. He was 84. He left behind three children, including his son Matt, who served as Donald Trump’s Deputy National Security Advisor from September 2019 until January 7, 2021, when he resigned in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol insurrection. He left behind a completed but unpublished fifth novel his son described as a spy thriller. He left behind his name in 2,011 documents in the DOJ Epstein Files Transparency Act archive. And he left behind a question that no court, no bar association, and no federal investigator ever formally answered during his lifetime: what exactly was J. Stanley Pottinger doing in the Epstein case, and on whose behalf was he doing it.

One person who asked that question in open federal court was a survivor who had been his client. Her name is Sarah Ransome, shown at left on the cover of her memoir. She asked it in front of Judge Jed Rakoff, under her own name, on the record, in a sworn declaration in which his name appears 37 times. She described him as ever-present yet invisible.

That phrase is in the federal record at EFTA00144591, paragraph 30, filed under penalty of perjury in the JPMorgan class action, SDNY, October 19, 2023. And it is, as this investigation will show, about as accurate a description of J. Stanley Pottinger as the archive provides.

"Mr. Pottinger remains ever-present yet invisible in the Epstein scandal, and this all needs to be thoroughly investigated by the Court, under oath if necessary." Filed under penalty of perjury.The Penthouse on Central Park South

In 1981, Jeffrey Epstein resigned from Bear Stearns. The firm had been investigating him for insider trading — specifically, for sharing information about an upcoming IPO with a client’s girlfriend and for taking a personal loan connected to that client. The executive committee fined him $2,500 and suspended him. Rather than accept the indignity, Epstein announced he was resigning. He was deeply offended, he later wrote in a letter to colleagues. His five-year career at one of Wall Street’s most aggressive firms was over, and he was, by the accounts of people who knew him then, occasionally bouncing rent checks.

What he did next has been documented in the public record for the first time only recently, and what it shows is that the first person Jeffrey Epstein turned to after the collapse of his Wall Street career was J. Stanley Pottinger — a man who had just left a senior post at the DOJ, who brought with him a rolodex built across eight years of federal civil rights enforcement, and who, it would emerge decades later, was simultaneously operating in the architecture of what would become Iran-Contra.

In 1981, after his resignation from Bear Stearns, Epstein rented a penthouse office at the Hotel St. Moritz on Central Park South with Pottinger and Pottinger's brother, and the three of them pitched tax-avoidance strategies to wealthy clients, some of whom Epstein had met through Bear Stearns. The broker who helped them secure the space, Joanna Cutler, told the New York Times (which confirmed the partnership in December 2025, the first time it had ever been publicly documented) that Epstein stiffed her on the commission. The business was short lived, but the partnership had been formed, and the man at the center of it was the same man who would call Brad Edwards 33 years later offering to help represent Epstein's victims.

Former Hotel St. Moritz, Central Park South, New York City

The New York Times, to its credit, reported the St. Moritz detail. What the paper did not report — and what Drop Site News’s Ryan Grim documented in February 2026, drawing on FBI surveillance records and Senate Foreign Relations Committee findings — is that during the same period Pottinger and Epstein shared that penthouse, Pottinger was also serving as attorney to Cyrus Hashemi, an Iranian banker the FBI had placed under extensive electronic surveillance. The tapes, recorded across a five-month span beginning in fall 1980 and continuing into the period Pottinger and Epstein shared the St. Moritz office, captured Pottinger advising Hashemi on how to circumvent the US arms embargo against Iran using phony invoices and overseas shell companies. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee later found that the CIA was involved in planning those arms deals and had met with Hashemi in Pottinger’s office, the same office Pottinger shared with Epstein. The profits from those Iran arms sales, routed through Israel as a CIA middleman, would eventually bankroll the Contra army in Nicaragua, giving the scandal its name.

This is not a conspiracy theory. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee finding is a matter of congressional record. The FBI surveillance tapes exist. The Cyrus Hashemi wiretaps are documented. The man whose office the CIA used to plan embargoed arms shipments to Iran was, at the same time, running a financial advisory business with Jeffrey Epstein from a penthouse overlooking Central Park.

Johnny Vedmore, whose Pottinger Ultimatum series ran on NEWSPASTE.com from 2023 and was most recently updated with The Pottinger Legacy in February 2026, was the first writer to document the full scope of this overlap and to argue that Pottinger was a CIA asset whose role in the Epstein case was operational rather than legal. This investigation focuses on the documented facts his reporting helped surface: the St. Moritz partnership, the Iran-Contra overlap, the Palm Beach proximity. Those facts are now confirmed by the NYT, by Drop Site, and by the congressional record. Vedmore got there first, and that is worth noting.The Neighbor, The Letter, And The Phone Call

By 1990, J. Stanley Pottinger had become Jeffrey Epstein’s neighbor in Palm Beach, living approximately 500 meters from the residence that Palm Beach police would begin investigating 15 years later. Both men had moved on from the St. Moritz venture to other things. Epstein had found his way to Les Wexner’s money and was building the architecture of what his victims would eventually call the network. Pottinger had moved through investment banking and a real estate venture that ended badly in the 1987 market crash, and had turned to fiction writing. His first novel, The Fourth Procedure, became a New York Times bestseller in 1995, selling over a million copies.

In 2005, Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein after a family reported he had paid a 14 year old girl for a massage. In 2006, Epstein was arrested. According to a 2006 email now in the EFTA archive, confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, Pottinger wrote to Epstein after the Palm Beach arrest expressing support and predicting the situation would pass.

The man who had spent eight years as the top civil rights enforcement officer of the United States Department of Justice, the man who had reopened the Kent State investigation, who had reviewed the FBI’s files on Martin Luther King Jr., who had stared down Wounded Knee, wrote to a man who had just been arrested on charges of paying underage girls for sex and told him ‘it would pass.’

In that same year, Cecilia Steen — Epstein’s New York office manager, the subject of the previous Last Page First investigation ‘Best Wishes, Stan’ — sent an email to Epstein from her personal gmail account that was signed ‘Best wishes, Stan.’ That email, which has since been removed from the EFTA archive but is preserved in the Drop Site Jmail database, was sent during the active Palm Beach investigation.

It is in the record alongside Pottinger’s documented name and his documented Palm Beach address and his documented DOJ background. The Steen/Pottinger thread is covered in full in the previous piece mentioned above. What belongs here is the observation that in 2006, while Epstein’s victims were trying to get federal investigators to take the case seriously, the men around Epstein — including his former business partner who happened to be a former senior DOJ official — were writing him letters of support and predicting things would pass.

Eight years later, in 2014, Pottinger called Brad Edwards. Edwards was already the most consequential victims’ rights lawyer in the Epstein case. He had filed the CVRA lawsuit in 2008, he had fought the NPA, he was the man Epstein had once counter-sued in a case that was eventually dismissed. The call came late at night. Pottinger offered his assistance with the litigation against Epstein. Edwards was suspicious. He later wrote in his memoir, Relentless Pursuit that he became further concerned when Pottinger mentioned he had shared an office with Epstein. Pottinger explained that they had only shared space for a few weeks and had not been in the same firm. Edwards set aside his concerns and partnered with him anyway and Edwards Pottinger LLC was born. In December 2025, the New York Times confirmed that Pottinger and Epstein had not merely shared office space but had been business partners; pitching tax-avoidance strategies together from the Hotel St. Moritz. Edwards said he was unaware of this at the time. As of February 2026, he had not responded to press requests for comment about the business relationship.The Victims’ Lawyer

By May 2016, J. Stanley Pottinger was attorney of record for Virginia Giuffre in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case 1:15-cv-07433, in the Southern District of New York. Specifically, this is in section C of the table of contents of the plaintiff’s response in opposition to Maxwell’s motion to compel non-privileged documents, filed May 31, 2016, which reads: ‘J. Stanley Pottinger is an attorney of record for [plaintiff] in this case.’ That document is EFTA02797772.

Virginia Giuffre, shown above in a photo collage that includes Epstein and former Prince Andrew, was the most prominent survivor of the Epstein network. She had reported Epstein to the FBI in 2000. She was the plaintiff whose case eventually forced the unsealing of the Maxwell documents. Virginia died on April 25, 2025, five days after Maria Farmer submitted a 41-page evidentiary dossier to the FBI. One of those paintings in that dossier, EFTA01652481, titled ‘The Double Handed Deck/ The False Worship Of Lawyer’, depicts a devil figure at a podium labeled EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC. Maria Farmer painted this and submitted it along with more of her painting to the FBI as evidence. That is the documented record. We have also reported on that, and you can read that here.

While Pottinger was serving as attorney of record for Giuffre, he was also, from October 2016 onward, in direct communication with another survivor: Sarah Ransome. Ransome had come forward in October 2016. She reached Boies Schiller through the network of Epstein survivor litigation, and it was Pottinger, not Boies, not McCawley, not Edwards, who became her primary point of contact. His first email to her said: ‘Hi. When can we talk? Important that we do so Friday. Send Proton, please. Stan.’ He asked her to use ProtonMail. This was the beginning of a relationship that would last three years, produce hundreds of documented exchanges, and end with her in a wheelchair unable to remember signing a settlement agreement.

EFTA00145606 The Hot List

In November 2019, four months after Epstein died in federal custody, and three months after the SDNY had charged him with sex trafficking of minors, a man who called himself Patrick Kessler made contact with David Boies and J. Stanley Pottinger. Kessler claimed to have access to surveillance videos secretly recorded by Epstein at his properties. He said the videos showed powerful, wealthy men engaged in sexual activity with women at Epstein’s residences. The lawyers understood that at least some of the footage likely constituted evidence of crimes against minors.

According to the New York Times’s November 30, 2019 investigation, titled ‘Jeffrey Epstein, Blackmail and a Lucrative Hot List,’ what followed was a scheme that the Times described as looking, to Kessler at least, like blackmail. Boies took the lead on the Kessler relationship, but Pottinger — independently, in texts that Boies was not copied on — drew up what the Times called a ‘hot list’ of prominent men as possible targets. He suggested in those texts that the lawyers stood to make up to 40 percent of whatever money they negotiated in private settlements. To enhance the lawyers’ leverage, Boies invited New York Times reporters to a meeting with Kessler at the BSF offices in Manhattan — on the theory that, as the Times reported, ‘the threat of a major news organization writing about the videos and confirming the existence of an extensive surveillance apparatus could greatly enhance the lawyers’ leverage over the wealthy men.’

NPR’s reporting on this story, published in March 2020, added a detail that the original Times piece had buried: Pottinger drew up the hot list independently, in texts Boies was not copied on. The scheme was Pottinger’s own initiative, operating in parallel to whatever Boies was doing. When NPR made four attempts to reach Pottinger for comment, he did not respond to any of them.

Scott Srebnick, then the defense attorney for Michael Avenatti in United States v. Michael Avenatti, put the legal framework plainly in a Brady letter he filed with SDNY on December 2, 2019 — two days after the Times published the hot list story. That letter is EFTA00032751. It stated that Boies and Pottinger had agreed to purchase what they believed to be videos secretly made by Epstein, that the lawyers believed at least some of the footage constituted evidence of criminal sex offenses targeting minors, and that the plan, as described, amounted to conspiracy to commit extortion, along with potential violations of 18 U.S.C. sections 2252 and 2252A, the federal child pornography statutes. Srebnick demanded SDNY disclose whether Boies or any member of his firm was under federal investigation for this conduct. He also asked, explicitly, that if they were not: why not?

There is no public record of SDNY ever answering that question.

EFTA00076013 What He Did to Sarah Ransome

Sarah Ransome is a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network. She was recruited into the network, trafficked to Epstein’s private island, and abused repeatedly. She came forward in October 2016. She is a documented victim, her account is in the federal record across multiple court proceedings, in a sworn declaration filed under penalty of perjury, and in the EFTA archive. Her account is also detailed, specific, and supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence including email chains, medical records, a police complaint, and correspondence with multiple attorneys. This publication treats her as what the record establishes: a victim and a witness.

From January 2017 through the end of 2019, J. Stanley Pottinger was one of her lawyers. What follows is drawn entirely from the documents she filed under penalty of perjury: EFTA00145606–145642, her September 2022 grievance, and EFTA00144588–144594, her October 2023 objector declaration in the JPMorgan class action. The emails quoted below are from her own documented correspondence, preserved in the record she submitted to federal proceedings.

Pottinger and Edwards traveled to Barcelona in January 2017 to meet Ransome in person. She was in hiding, Epstein had been tracking her. The firm had already filed her civil lawsuit on January 26, 2017, before she had even signed a retainer, which she did not sign until February 24, 2017, after she had performed a deposition they needed from her for another client. The deposition was taken on February 17, 2017. The retainer was signed seven days later. As she documented: they filed her case before they were legally her lawyers, extracted what they needed, and then processed the paperwork. She wrote to Pottinger on February 21, four days after the deposition she had given for someone else’s case, scared for her life, in hiding: ‘Stan, I think you know what it’s about. Now that you guys have what you want from me, you have left me high and dry.’ He replied asking what time she wanted to talk.

EFTA00145607

It was not finished. She stayed with the firm for two and a half more years, because as she documented, she had no real choice. They had her case, they had filed it in her name. They had her emails. By the time they asked her to hand over her email account passwords so they could access all her correspondence, she felt she had no option but to agree. She wrote later that she has no idea how long they monitored her private email accounts. That disclosure is in a sworn declaration filed in federal court.

In November 2017, Pottinger called her on a Saturday morning to ask her to put her name to an op-ed in the New York Times titled ‘How David Boies Saved Me.’ He called her after weeks of silence during which she had sent increasingly desperate emails asking for any update on her own litigation. The op-ed was published on November 15, 2017, the first time Ransome publicly identified herself as an Epstein victim, giving up her pseudonym of Jane Doe 43. She wrote later that she would not have agreed to put her name to it if she had known Boies had been photographed at an intimate dinner with Harvey Weinstein and the Clintons on December 13, 2016 — less than a year before they asked her to write an op-ed rehabilitating his reputation. She described the call as pressure she could not refuse, because Boies had her case and she was desperate for any contact from her legal team. ‘I was tricked and wholly used by Boies Schiller, Brad and Stan,’ she wrote.

On September 18, 2018, during a phone call with Pottinger, he used the phrase ‘turning tricks’ to describe her. She documented it in an email to him the same day — the documentation is in the record, it is in EFTA00145637. She wrote: ‘Stan, is that what you think I was doing on my trip to Miami? Turning Tricks? I find that term not only derogatory but insulting and disrespectful to me as one of your clients. I didn’t turn tricks. I tried to survive, for your information.’

He was her lawyer and she was a trafficking survivor. He described her, during a phone call about her own litigation, as someone who had been turning tricks. There is no ambiguity in the record about what was said or who said it.

On October 3, 2018, two days before Ransome’s suicide attempt, Sigrid McCawley emailed her asking her to identify a woman from Epstein’s flight logs. On October 4, one day before the attempt, Ransome responded in full identifying the woman, describing the island, describing the relationships. On October 5, 2018, she jumped from her balcony. She broke both feet and fractured her spine. She was hospitalized for three weeks. Pottinger was copied on emails about her condition, emails from her partner Peter describing the injuries, the casts, the physical therapy she would need to walk again. He responded to one of them: ‘Thanks for the info. This is all we need on this. Hope all is going well. I don’t know these particular drugs, but I can see that the ones you are taking now are totally different from the ones you were taking before. Best wishes for a speedy foot recovery.’

In November 2018, six weeks after the suicide attempt, Pottinger advised Ransome to settle. The email is in the record: ‘We are just on the verge of racking up larger costs as the case comes closer to trial, and there will be more depositions, more travel, the retention of expert witnesses, and the like. But right now, neither side has accumulated big costs. Which suggests this is a time to settle if settlement is a possibility.’

The case settled in mid December 2018. She was in a wheelchair at the time. She later wrote that she has no memory of signing the settlement agreement. She wrote: ‘I tried to commit suicide on 5th October 2018 because of how Boies Schiller, Brad and Stan Pottinger treated me.’ That sentence is in a sworn declaration filed in federal court. EFTA00145635.

On April 6, 2020, Ransome wrote to Pottinger directly, expressing her sense of betrayal. He did not respond. The documentation of the absence of a response is in her sworn record.‘Abuser’

On October 19, 2023, Sarah Ransome filed a sworn declaration as an objector in the JPMorgan class action — Doe v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft et al, consolidated with the JPMorgan case, Case 1:22-CV-10018/10019, SDNY. That declaration is EFTA00144588. It names J. Stanley Pottinger in paragraphs 16 through 30. It cites the New York Times hot list investigation. It asks the court directly whether it has investigated Pottinger per her prior objection. It describes him as ‘ever-present yet invisible in the Epstein scandal.’

In that same proceeding, Ransome addressed the court in person. The statement she delivered is in the federal record at EFTA00143492 and EFTA00143493. She addressed the lead attorneys directly: Boies, McCawley, Edwards, and Pottinger, by name. She called Pottinger an abuser. Not in the body of a written filing, not in a footnote. She said it in open court, in front of Judge Rakoff, in a statement recorded in the federal archive.

“Your Honour, Judge Rakoff, PLEASE MAY I ASK if the court has investigated Stanley Pottinger per my request in my Objection?”

The phrase she used in her objection declaration was this: ‘abuser, in some instances, or enabler.’ That is the language of a survivor who has been unable to be more specific in a public legal filing for reasons she explained across three years of documented correspondence. It is also the language of a woman who walked into a federal courtroom and asked a sitting federal judge, on the record, whether anyone had investigated the man she had described as her lawyer.

Judge Rakoff presided, the hearing concluded. JPMorgan’s settlements were administered. Pottinger’s name was quietly removed from the Edwards Pottinger LLC website. No public statement was issued, no bar proceeding outcome was announced, no federal investigation was opened, at least not publicly. Fourteen months later, on November 27, 2024, J. Stanley Pottinger died in Princeton, New Jersey.The Man Who Stopped the Stenographer

There is a detail in J. Stanley Pottinger’s biography that does not belong to the Epstein case directly but that tells you something important about how the man operated across his entire career. In 1977, while leading a grand jury investigation of illegal FBI break ins under the Carter administration, Pottinger questioned former FBI deputy director Mark Felt under oath. A juror asked Felt directly whether he had been Bob Woodward’s confidential source in the Watergate investigation — whether he was Deep Throat. Felt denied it, but appeared visibly unsettled. Pottinger was convinced, in that moment, that Felt was the source.

What Pottinger did next is the relevant detail. He stopped the stenographer from recording the exchange, reminded Felt he was under oath, and offered to withdraw the question, since it was outside the scope of the inquiry. Felt accepted. The exchange was not recorded. The secret held for 28 more years, until Felt confirmed his identity publicly in 2005.

This is the man who later sent encrypted messages to a hacker’s intermediary about a hot list of powerful men. The man who asked a trafficking survivor to send her email passwords so his firm could access her correspondence. This is the man who called her on a Saturday asking her to sign her name to an op-ed rehabilitating his partner’s reputation. This is the man who, when she wrote to him on April 6, 2020 telling him she felt betrayed, did not respond.

He knew, for his entire career, exactly what to stop from being recorded. And he knew exactly what to let pass without response.The Family

On September 9, 2018, the same day an anonymous New York Times op-ed titled ‘I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration’ was published, setting off a Washington guessing game about its author, Jeffrey Epstein and an unidentified contact exchanged iMessages from Epstein’s personal MacBook. The device identifier is NYC024328.aff4. The email address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. The messages are in the EFTA archive at EFTA00507900-EFTA00507916.

Epstein and his contact were analyzing who had written the op-ed, discussing the NYT’s use of a trusted intermediary, and theorizing about whether a White House official had used a legal or family cutout to maintain deniability. At EFTA00507906, the contact wrote: ‘They are saying it was more than one person. Brutus has Cassius. I think it’s Pottinger and Fuentes with sanction and cut out distance by and from Kelly.’

Epstein replied: ‘Coup. Pottinger? His whole family are rats.’

The Pottinger his contact was referencing was Matt Pottinger — Stan’s son, then serving on Trump’s National Security Council and who would later become Deputy National Security Advisor. The contact was speculating about whether Matt Pottinger had co-authored the anonymous op-ed. Epstein’s reply: ‘his whole family are rats’, is a comment on the Pottinger family broadly. The follow up exchange makes the connection clear: ‘His brother Stan would have written it... Pottinger’s brother (David Boies partner).’ The conversation then turns to the question of how a White House official could use a family member as a legal cutout to claim plausible deniability.

What this exchange confirms, independently of everything else in this investigation, is that Jeffrey Epstein, in September 2018, while Stan Pottinger was representing Sarah Ransome and remained attorney of record in multiple Epstein-adjacent proceedings, knew exactly who Stan Pottinger was, associated him directly with David Boies, and understood that the Pottinger family moved between intelligence and legal worlds with enough fluency to function as cutouts for people who needed deniability. What this confirms is the connection, the association, and the awareness, all in the federal record, all from Epstein’s own seized device.

What the Record Leaves Open

J. Stanley Pottinger died on November 27, 2024, without being criminally charged, without a public bar investigation, and without the court ever answering the question Sarah Ransome asked of Judge Rakoff out loud, on the record, in 2023.

What the documents show is a man who was Epstein’s business partner before Epstein became a household name, his neighbor in Palm Beach, the lawyer who wrote him a support letter after he was arrested for crimes involving children, the man who called Brad Edwards offering to help represent victims, who became attorney of record for Virginia Giuffre, who became direct counsel to Sarah Ransome, who drew up a list of powerful men whose sex tapes he believed could be monetized in texts his own law partner was never copied on, who told a trafficking survivor she was turning tricks during a phone call about her own litigation, and who advised her to settle while she was in a wheelchair with two broken feet and a fractured spine recovering from a suicide attempt she later said he helped cause.

A survivor named him an abuser in open federal court. SDNY never answered the Brady letter. His name was quietly removed from the firm website after he died. No statement was issued.

She called him ever-present yet invisible. It is, across the full length of the documented record, the most accurate description of J. Stanley Pottinger that exists.

Another man who died with the questions still open and the record still growing around him. 

June 11

The Parnas Perspective, Evening News and Commentary: Jarring Epstein-Trump Details Revealed, Major Epstein Testimony in Congress, Judges Refuse to Say Who Won in 2020, and More, Aaron Parnas, right, June 11, 2026. There have been major developments in the Epstein investigation. New reporting reveals that the White House has been holding secret emergency meetings to coordinate its response to the Epstein files, and the details are raising serious questions. At the same time, Bill Gates testified before Congress, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant confirmed that she arranged calls between Epstein and Donald Trump, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is now set to testify as well.

Meanwhile, inflation has climbed to its highest level in years, yet Trump told reporters that he “loves” the inflation. I break down all of it.

People keep asking me: What are we going to do about the Epstein story? My answer is simple. I am not going to stop. I will keep reporting, digging, and exposing the facts until the truth is fully known and those responsible are held accountable. I will not let this story disappear. I will not move on because others want us to. And I will not stop asking questions.

Today, Instagram heavily suppressed one of my videos about Epstein. Reaching people with this information is becoming harder, not easier. But with your help, we can keep pushing forward, keep growing, and keep making sure these stories reach the public.

Here’s the news:

According to a new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, White House aides were reportedly worried about the possible release of a document containing allegations that Donald Trump had a sexual “predilection for nipples” and had mistreated an Epstein victim. The book describes internal concern over the potential political fallout from the allegations. The excerpt focuses on how seriously staff viewed the threat posed by the document rather than on proving the underlying claims.

Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant, Lesley Groff, told Congress that she occasionally arranged phone calls between Epstein and Donald Trump before Trump entered politics. During her testimony, Groff denied knowing about or witnessing Epstein’s abuse and said she was unaware of the full extent of his crimes while working for him. Lawmakers questioned the credibility of those claims, arguing it was difficult to believe that a close aide could have been unaware of Epstein’s misconduct. The testimony is part of an ongoing congressional investigation into Epstein’s associates and activities.

Bill Gates told the House Oversight Committee that meeting with Jeffrey Epstein was a “grave error in judgment” and insisted he never witnessed criminal conduct by Epstein or harmed anyone himself. Gates said his interactions with Epstein were limited and focused on philanthropic fundraising, but acknowledged that Epstein later learned about his extramarital affairs and attempted to use that information to pressure him into renewing their relationship. He denied being friends with Epstein, denied visiting Epstein's private island or residences, and said no charitable partnership ever resulted from their discussions. The testimony is part of Congress's broader investigation into Epstein's network and whether he used relationships with powerful figures to gain influence or leverage.

According to Rep. Melanie Stansbury, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has agreed that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, right, should testify before Congress about the handling of Epstein-related records.

New York Times, The Big Questions About Jeffrey Epstein: What The Times Has Learned, Staff Reports, June 11, 2026. More than 60 Times journalists have delved into the life of the sexual predator whose secrets spurred an international reckoning over money, power and complicity.Some questions we’ve been pursuing:

What’s the latest? What did he do to girls and women? How did he get away with it for so long? Where did all his money come from? How did he build his network? What were his relationships with Trump and Clinton? Why weren’t more people charged? How did he die? What are the Epstein files?

Few, if any, figures in recent history have caused as much legal, political, financial and reputational upheaval as Jeffrey Epstein. A convicted sex offender, Mr. Epstein was connected to many of the world’s richest and most influential people and institutions. He died in prison in 2019.

The public fascination with Mr. Epstein intensified after President Trump initially refused to release federal investigative records after pledging to do so. In late 2025 and early 2026, Congress and the Justice Department did release millions of pages of documents related to Mr. Epstein that have helped answer questions, though many mysteries remain.

The New York Times has been investigating Mr. Epstein’s finances, enablers and possible co-conspirators since his arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019. Based on our continuing reporting, here is what we know.

The most recent revelations about Mr. Epstein include:The president’s top advisers gathered in a series of Situation Room meetings as they struggled to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself

Behind the scenes, the Epstein crisis was paralyzing the Trump administration to a far greater extent than the public knew. In their public statements, Trump’s advisers were full of bravado, dismissing the crisis. In reality, it was consuming the highest ranks of the administration.His long friendship with the restaurateur Stephen Hanson, a wingman who enjoyed the company of attractive women, and had the means to help manage and entertain them

Mr. Hanson’s New York City empire included Blue Water Grill and Ruby Foo’s. He performed an array of tasks for Mr. Epstein, including arranging jobs, visas and entertainment for women.How a prestigious arts school and camp is working to shed its connections to Epstein

The Interlochen Center for the Arts in northern Michigan is preparing to demolish a lodge that was once named for Mr. Epstein, a donor who had attended the center as a teenager. During some of his return visits to Interlochen, he is said to have met two of the earliest victims of his grooming and abuse.Other news

Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist, told a congressional committee that the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein exploited information about his extramarital affairs “to pressure me to re-engage with him” after Mr. Gates had begun to sever ties with him.What did he do to girls and women?ImageA man lies on his stomach on a mattress on a balcony outdoors. Two women, who are not wearing pants and with black boxes superimposed on their faces, are massaging his legs.Millions of pages of records related to Mr. Epstein include photographs of him.Credit...U.S. Department of Justice

Mr. Epstein has been accused by prosecutors and victims of raping, abusing and trafficking girls and young women. It was a vast, yearslong operation that involved:Recruiting girls who said they were raped or sexually abused

In the mid-2000s, federal and state authorities identified more than a dozen such teenage girls in Florida. In many cases, Mr. Epstein’s longtime companion Ghislaine Maxwell recruited them under the pretense that they would be masseuses for a wealthy man at his mansion in Palm Beach.Trafficking minors in both New York and Florida

Federal prosecutors later accused Mr. Epstein of abusing and trafficking dozens of girls at his townhouse in Manhattan, as well as in Palm Beach, from at least 2002 to 2005. He lured some by posing as a talent scout for Victoria’s Secret.Later shifting his focus to young women and aspiring models

After he served time in a Florida jail for soliciting prostitution from a minor, Mr. Epstein appears to have shifted focus from underage victims to young women. He was often surrounded by aspiring models from Russia and Eastern Europe, some of whom later said they felt trapped under his control.Introducing women to male friends and business associates

Some have accused several of those friends and associates of rape, though the men deny it.

Hundreds of women coming forward after his death in 2019

They have accused him of raping or abusing them, including when they were girls — allegations that in some cases date to the early 1990s. At least one of those women, Virginia Giuffre, has died by suicide.

The federal government repeatedly missed opportunities to fully investigate or charge Mr. Epstein, until 2019. The missteps and lost opportunities included:A tip about nude photos ignored by the F.B.I.

In 1996, Maria Farmer, shown in a file photo, called the F.B.I. to tell the agency that Mr. Epstein had stolen nude photos of her underage sister. It ignored the tip for roughly a decade.A sweetheart deal negotiated with federal authorities

In 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl told the Palm Beach police that she had been paid to give a sexual massage to Mr. Epstein. That set off a state and federal investigation. While the authorities identified dozens of underage victims, the Justice Department — including the U.S. attorney for southern Florida at the time, Alexander Acosta — negotiated a deal: Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from just one minor.An easy jail sentence that allowed him to work from his office

The agreement also shielded any “potential co-conspirators,” including his female assistants, from prosecution. Though Mr. Epstein served his sentence in the county stockade, he was allowed to spend much of his jail time working from his office.An ability to return to society after just 13 months

After being released early from his 18-month sentence, Mr. Epstein was welcomed back into elite society, attending parties, hosting dinners and continuing to do business with major financial institutions.Multiple secret federal investigations that bore no results

New York Times, Guest Essay: She Was One of Obama’s Top Lawyers. How Did She Get Tangled Up With Epstein? Ankush Khardori (former federal prosecutor who specialized in white-collar crime), June 11, 2026. One of the ways Jeffrey Epstein infiltrated America’s elite was by giving important people what they wanted — private plane travel for Bill Clinton, research funding for Harvard professors and donations for the leaders of world-renowned museums. He drew them into his orbit using the gravitational pull of his wealth and rarefied social network. They reciprocated not necessarily because they liked him, but because it was their business to know people like him.

In theory, Kathy Ruemmler — the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs and a White House counsel under President Barack Obama — should have been the last person to fall for Mr. Epstein’s charms. She had prosecuted white-collar criminals, risen to the highest levels of the Justice Department and built a sterling reputation as a defense lawyer in the private sector.

The Epstein files, however, paint a damning picture of their relationship. Among their emails were elliptical messages about “girls” (“careful i will renew an old habit,” he once wrote), sharp criticisms of the lawyers representing Mr. Epstein’s accusers (“Victim’s rights, my ass”) and discordant terms of endearment (“sweetie,” “Uncle Jeffrey”). He gave her gifts, including luxury handbags and a fur coat, and offered her career advice. At one point Mr. Epstein designated her as the backup executor of his will.

Ms. Ruemmler has been criticized by politicians and commentators for consorting with Mr. Epstein, but outside of the media spotlight (and off the record), most white-collar lawyers I know have been unwilling to condemn her. That is not because they are sympathetic to Mr. Epstein or friendly with Ms. Ruemmler, but because doing business with Mr. Epstein, and people like him, was business as usual for the top ranks of the legal profession. It most likely remains so to this day.

I recently sat down with Ms. Ruemmler for her first and only interviews since all of this became public. Years earlier, when I was still practicing law, we’d had a call to discuss opportunities in the public sector, and in March, she contacted me to ask if I’d like to hear her side of the Epstein story. For more than three hours over two interviews, we covered how she came to work with Mr. Epstein despite his questionable past and what she knew, or thought she knew, about the extent of his criminal misconduct.

The unsettling truth that emerges from these conversations and my reporting says less about the content of the emails and much more about the culture of big law firms. She looked past his 2008 conviction — for procuring a minor for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution — in the pursuit of business. Many other prominent criminal defense lawyers and former federal prosecutors would have made the same decision, and that tells you everything you need to know about how unreliable and corroded the legal world has become.

In the summer of 2014, Ms. Ruemmler was at the top of the legal profession.

At 43 years old, she had just stepped down as the White House counsel (“one of my most trusted advisers,” Mr. Obama said) after advising the president on some of his most consequential decisions: to seek to end the filibuster for lower court judges, get congressional approval for a military strike against Syria and accept the legal analysis that paved the way for gay marriage nationwide. Seen as one of the most impressive lawyers of her generation, she was in high demand. Large law firms had grown reliant on former high-ranking government officials to attract business and connect them to prospective clients.

After the White House, she returned to her old firm, Latham & Watkins. Her days were long and hectic. She regularly worked 12 hours a day — when she was handling a trial, it was more like 17 — and spent nearly half of her time traveling for clients. Some days, she might be finalizing a settlement with the Justice Department. On others, she might simply be supervising colleagues doing the day-to-day work.

But her principal responsibility was business development. She had been brought on to generate new work — to burnish the profits that have become standard at the largest law firms — and that required her to stay in regular contact with current and prospective clients.Editors’ PicksWhat Steven Spielberg Taught Me About Fear, Catharsis, and Being HumanIs Frozen Yogurt Better for You Than Ice Cream?7 Secrets for a Great Pasta Salad

She was “getting paid what seemed like an extraordinary amount of money” to do this, she told me, after a modest upbringing in a small town in southeastern Washington, a public-school education through college and a career spent working mostly in the public sector in Washington, D.C.

June 10

 

New York Times Magazine, Times Exclusive: Inside the White House Freakout Over the Epstein Files, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, (both White House reporters for The Times, they are the authors of the forthcoming “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump" from which this article is drawn), June 10, 2026.

On July 17, 2025, at around 6 o’clock in the evening, President Trump’s top officials filed into the White House Situation Room — the secure bunker where classified and high-stakes national security matters are discussed and decided. This was where President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the president’s national security team, watched the raid that ended with the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Now, however, Trump’s most senior advisers had gathered — without him — to figure out how to gain some measure of control over a very different kind of crisis threatening to engulf the presidency: the Epstein files.

Ten days earlier, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. had jointly released a memo that bluntly stated that their review had found no “client list” of powerful men for whom the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had allegedly procured underage girls and young women. Intended to put to rest years of speculation and end the pressure campaign to release the voluminous material in the department’s possession, the memo instead had the opposite effect, setting off a backlash that was notably loud among the MAGA base.

And it was about to get worse: The Wall Street Journal was preparing a damaging article about Trump’s relationship with Epstein. The president’s desperate attempts to kill the story had failed. His team now had to get everyone onto the same page about how to counter the growing swarm of attention. They needed a gesture of transparency to appease an increasingly angry base, but also a way to convey the message that the president was sympathetic to his supporters’ concerns. Which itself was a problem, because he clearly wasn’t.

Vice President JD Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy Conference Room of the Situation Room complex. “This is a huge problem,” he told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt; the deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich; the communications director, Steven Cheung; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward Jr.; and the deputy chief of staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, joined on speakerphone.

The vice president appeared panicked to others in the room about the way the subject of Epstein was already dividing the MAGA coalition. Some senior officials had the impression that Vance had bought into the darkest theories about Epstein and a cabal of predators hidden within the country’s ruling class. Wiles would tell others that the vice president had proved himself to be a major conspiracy theorist. Another top official said later that Vance had been pounding on the Epstein issue since the release of the memo. He was privately pressing for the administration to release all the Epstein files, everything in the Justice Department’s possession, even encouraging a congressional investigation.

Vance had also floated to colleagues an extraordinary P.R. gambit — that the White House enlist Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, in prison. It might help the president if Maxwell was willing to state that Trump had not been part of any wrongdoing with Epstein.

Vance told the group he believed all the files should be released as soon as possible. He argued that Congress was going to force the release of the files eventually. It was already clear that a bipartisan coalition in favor of such action was forming on Capitol Hill, and the momentum was going in one direction. If the administration got out ahead of this and released everything voluntarily — including whatever material existed about the president — it would at least get credit for transparency. The alternative was to let the story drag on for months as information dripped out, each new revelation renewing the cycle of suspicion and fury. Better to rip the bandage off and move on.Even the unsubstantiated allegations and anecdotes about Trump should go out, Vance argued. They were going to surface regardless, and if the administration published them first, it would demonstrate good faith and take the oxygen out of the conspiracy theories. His arguments fell on skeptical ears, but some advisers thought it would be a good idea to have Justice Department officials call a news conference to explain their position on the Epstein affair — going beyond the memo that precipitated the crisis.

At this point in the meeting, Blair spoke up. “With all due respect,” he said, “the communications strategy of this group got us here. I don’t know that it’s going to get us out. And if you’re going to go in front of the press, you’ve got a lot of work to do.” He began to ask pointed mock questions, demonstrating how difficult a news conference might be.

As the president’s former defense attorney, Blanche had a unique vantage point in the discussion. He was better equipped than anyone else in the room to weigh the ideas being discussed against Trump’s personal and political interests. Blanche laid out what he saw as their best options.

Option 1 was to petition Federal District Courts in Florida and New York to unseal the grand jury testimonies — the secret transcripts of prosecutors’ presentations of witnesses and evidence in their efforts to obtain indictments in past Epstein-related cases. As those were almost certain to contain no significant new information, everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the president.

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always inviolate, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. If the courts refused to unseal them — as Blanche predicted — they could shift the blame for withholding the Epstein material away from the Trump administration and onto the judges. And all the better if the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents. Blanche’s suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the materials released, when it was almost certain not to happen.

Option 2 was to have Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly release the transcript — a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Blanche offered to interview Maxwell himself.

“What if we got her to talk to Congress?” Vance suggested.

Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell’s lawyer might expect something in return for her candor.

Warrington, the White House counsel, responded by laying out the available choices, without advocating any of them. Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced.

At that, several around the table spoke up to register their strong disapproval.

“Pardoning Maxwell, a trafficker of young girls, would create a huge P.R. problem,” Cheung said. He predicted that in the wake of a pardon, the Epstein accusers would be fanning out on TV, telling their stories and ripping the administration to shreds.

Blair was also adamantly opposed to a pardon. “We can’t offer Ghislaine Maxwell anything,” he said. “A, I don’t know why we would. And B, if we give Ghislaine Maxwell any sort of break whatsoever and then she turns around and says nice things about us, or says nice things about us and we give her a break, it will undermine the entire point of her saying good things. That will feed the conspiracy theory, period. If there’s nothing for her to say that hurts us, we shouldn’t have to offer her anything.”

The consensus was that calling for the release of the grand jury material was the best course of action. Wiles told the group she would discuss the matter with Trump and ask if he would send a Truth Social post calling for the release of the sealed grand jury documents

Just then, The Wall Street Journal article they had been trying to kill was published online. Cellphones are forbidden in the Situation Room, so a staff member brought in printed copies of the explosive report, which detailed how Trump, and many others, had created birthday cards and letters to be assembled by Maxwell into a special birthday book for Epstein in 2003. The birthday card attributed to Trump depicted a nude woman, hand-drawn and inscribed with an imagined dialogue between the two men about a “wonderful secret.” The drawing was signed with what appeared to be Trump’s distinctive jagged Sharpie signature in place of the woman’s pubic hair.

In the days before publication, Trump, in the effort to quash the story, had called News Corp.’s chief executive, Robert Thomson; News Corp.’s owner, Rupert Murdoch; and The Journal’s editor in chief, Emma Tucker. Practically shouting, the president told Tucker, who is British, that she must “hate America.” He told her he would file a lawsuit.

But none of his bullying had worked, and now, as the group sat quietly reading the full story in the Situation Room, Wiles readied a public denial for the president, which he soon posted on social media.

Shortly after this, the president posted again. He was going along with the plan his advisers had hashed out in the Situation Room, though it was clear he didn’t like having to do it: “Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!”

In response to a request for comment, a White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, repeated Trump’s claims that he was innocent in all Epstein-related matters, adding that “by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”\

Authors’ noteThis article is adapted from reporting for our book “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” The bulk of the reporting took place from the spring of 2023 to the spring of 2026. During that time, we conducted more than 1,000 interviews with a wide range of people close to President Trump, including campaign officials, White House staff members, officials serving in government departments and agencies, former aides, donors, lawmakers, friends and business associates.

Many of our interviews were conducted on the journalistic ground rule of “deep background,” agreed to in advance, which meant we could use the information but not identify who gave it to us. Throughout the reporting process, we made extensive efforts to contact the individuals named and give them ample opportunity to offer their perspective. When we use direct quotes, those quotes came either from the person speaking, from someone who heard that person directly or from contemporaneous notes, recordings or transcripts. When we paraphrase, it’s because witnesses or participants in the dialogue could not recall the precise wording but were confident about the thrust of the message expressed. Where there were discrepancies between the accounts of participants in meetings, we generally erred on the side of removing the disagreed-upon material; in some instances, we relied on our own judgment of various sources’ reliability, based on our long histories of covering Trump and his inner circle. Over the course of these past three years, during our daily reporting for The New York Times, each of us has spoken to Donald Trump multiple times, and the president sat for an hourlong interview with us on March 16, 2026.

New York Times Magazine, 6 Takeaways From the Story of How the Epstein Files Paralyzed the White House, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, June 10, 2026. Senior officials clashed in a series of meetings as they struggled to manage a crisis over the president’s refusal to release the documents.

Last summer, as pressure mounted on the Trump administration to release material it held on Jeffrey Epstein, the president’s top advisers gathered in a series of meetings, many of them in the White House Situation Room — typically used during national-security crises — as they struggled to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself. The discussions included the vice president, JD Vance; the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, among others.

The reporting, which documents many previously undisclosed conversations and conflicts, is drawn from our forthcoming book “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” We discovered how the Epstein files consumed and often paralyzed the highest levels of the Trump administration, far more than the public knew.

Here are six takeaways from the article in The Times Magazine.The government’s national-security bunker became an Epstein war room.

The secure Situation Room complex, where President Obama and his team monitored the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, became the setting for a string of meetings in which the Trump administration’s most senior officials gathered — without the president — to manage the fallout from public fury over their failure to release the Epstein files. To their surprise, much of that backlash was coming from what they had considered the reliably loyal MAGA base.

As the calls for disclosure grew louder, Trump’s inner circle spent more and more time in the Situation Room, which became inseparable from the crisis — a guarded space used not to weigh a foreign threat but to steer the president around a political problem concerning a notorious dead pedophile.

The officials knew that prominent people, including Trump, were named in the records of F.B.I. agents’ interview notes with witnesses, some of whom were Epstein’s victims. While many of the claims made in the notes were not corroborated evidence, releasing them was, for most of the president’s advisers, a nonstarter.

Trump made clear to his aides that he had no interest in releasing anything related to Epstein. He snapped at anyone who raised the issue, and his staff mostly learned to avoid the subject in front of him. They were left to worry and plan among themselves. The president’s refusal to acknowledge that a crisis existed, let alone that it was growing, complicated every path his team wanted to take.

As The Wall Street Journal prepared a damaging article about his relationship with Epstein, the president tried to kill it. He called News Corp.’s chief executive; its owner, Rupert Murdoch; and the paper’s editor in chief, Emma Tucker. The president, practically shouting as he threatened to sue, told Tucker, who is British, that she must “hate America.” When his efforts to stop the article failed and his advisers settled on a limited gesture of transparency, the president went along grudgingly.Vice President JD Vance wanted to release all the files — even the unsubstantiated material about Trump.

Within the White House itself, no one was more vocal about releasing the Epstein material than the vice president. “This is a huge problem,” Vance told colleagues in the Situation Room. Others thought he appeared panicked about how the issue was splintering the MAGA coalition. Wiles would later describe the vice president to associates as an Epstein conspiracy theorist.

Vance pressed repeatedly for the administration to release everything — even unsubstantiated material about Trump — arguing that Congress would force the issue eventually and that getting ahead of it would earn the White House credit for transparency.

He floated the idea of enlisting Tucker Carlson to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, in prison, and fretted to colleagues about how the crisis was alienating the young, low-propensity voters who had backed the Trump-Vance ticket in 2024. But the vice president’s suggestions were far from popular with the core Trump team, and most of them went unheeded.Expletive-laden blowups fractured the top of the Justice Department.

The lingering distrust between Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, and the F.B.I.’s top two officials — Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, then his deputy — exploded over the Epstein controversy.

The day the Justice Department released a memo intended to put the Epstein matter to rest, Bongino marched into a daily meeting and erupted at Bondi. He and Patel told White House officials that Bondi should resign; at a later meeting, the two said they suspected that she had leaked damaging stories about them. When Wiles accused Bongino of a leak of his own, he stormed out of the Situation Room complex. Bongino privately warned associates that the Epstein crisis would become “President Trump’s Iran-contra.”Advisers found themselves having a surreal debate over an unverified allegation about Mr. Trump.

At an August meeting in the Situation Room, one of the president’s senior aides raised an uncorroborated and secondhand claim that had been made nearly a decade earlier, about Trump aggressively flicking and sucking a young woman’s nipples until they “looked incredibly painful.”

The claim about Trump had surfaced in 2024 in unsealed court filings from a civil suit unrelated to him, and when the matter was raised by another official, Vance argued for including this and many other accusations on the Justice Department’s website, saying that it would show maximum transparency and that Trump wouldn’t mind, given that he had been accused of worse. Wiles shut that down, saying the president would not, in fact, be fine with releasing it. One official later said it was “surreal” to be debating the nipple accusation in the White House Situation Room.More than a year later, the files were still damaging the president.

In late March 2026 — a full year into the White House efforts to manage the fiasco — a confidential memo from Trump’s pollster, Tony Fabrizio, summarized responses from focus groups conducted with voters earlier that month, in which the Epstein files ranked as the sixth most important political issue, ahead of crime, the military and being pro-working class. The memo flagged the Epstein issue as “a real negative with some of these voters.”

New York Times, Bill Gates Says Epstein Tried to Use His Extramarital Affairs Against Him,  Matthew Goldstein, June 10, 2026. The billionaire philanthropist testified on Wednesday in a closed-door congressional hearing about the Justice Department’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist, told a congressional committee on Wednesday that the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein exploited information about his extramarital affairs “to pressure me to re-engage with him” after Mr. Gates had begun to sever ties with him.

Mr. Gates made his comment in an opening statement to the House Oversight Committee, which asked him questions about his dealings with Mr. Epstein at a closed-door hearing. The committee has been investigating the Justice Department’s handling of its investigations into Mr. Epstein and those associated with him.

A representative for Mr. Gates released a copy of his statement on Wednesday ahead of the hearing, which was expected to last for four hours.

In his statement, Mr. Gates repeated his prior comments that he regretted having anything to do with Mr. Epstein but had never seen him engage in any “criminal conduct.” Mr. Gates also said he had “never victimized anyone.”

Revelations about Mr. Gates’s interactions with Mr. Epstein began to surface not long after Mr. Epstein was arrested by federal authorities in 2019 on sex trafficking charges. The revelations have tarnished Mr. Gates’s reputation, contributed to the erosion of his marriage and prompted his charitable foundation this year to authorize an external review of his ties to Mr. Epstein.

“In the work I do, reputation is the basis for developing partnerships that save lives. Meeting with Epstein was a grave error in judgment and put this work at risk,” Mr. Gates said in his statement. “His behavior was antithetical to all my efforts to contribute to a world where everyone has a chance to live a healthy and productive life.”

Mr. Gates’s dealings with Mr. Epstein began in 2011, about three years after the disgraced financier pleaded guilty in Florida to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The guilty plea followed a controversial nonprosecution agreement with federal prosecutors, which short-circuited an investigation into allegations that Mr. Epstein had regularly sexually abused dozen of teenage girls — some as young as 14.

When he was introduced to Mr. Epstein in 2011, Mr. Gates said, he should have done more homework on the man he was meeting.

“I recall being aware that Epstein had faced prior legal issues, but I did not fully understand the extent of the crimes he committed,” he said. “I accepted the introduction without applying the scrutiny I should have.”

Up until 2014, Mr. Gates had several meetings with Mr. Epstein, mainly to discuss the possibility of setting up a so-called donor-advised fund — a type of tax-advantaged charitable fund. Mr. Epstein also had conversations about the fund with bankers at JPMorgan Chase, and he had hoped to earn a fee in connection with his work. But the fund never came about, and by the end of 2014 Mr. Epstein’s conversations with Mr. Gates over it had largely ended.

Mr. Gates said he had learned after he stopped dealing with Mr. Epstein that the disgraced financier had been trying to use his marital problems to gain leverage over him.

The sex offender had a pattern of trying to gather personal information on some of the people he dealt with to put himself in a position of making them aware he knew things about them.

“As the public can now see, based on what has been released in the files, Epstein was working to use information about my infidelities,” Mr. Gates said in his statement.

The House committee has already interviewed a number of people in Mr. Epstein’s orbit, including former President Bill Clinton and the retail magnate Leslie Wexner. The committee has also scheduled interviews with James Staley, a Wall Street executive who for years was Mr. Epstein’s main advocate at JPMorgan, and Leon Black, the private equity billionaire, who paid Mr. Epstein $170 million for tax and estate services.

PoliticusUSA, Democrats Have All The Info They Need To End Trump And Vance With A Real Epstein Investigation, Jason Easley, right, June 10, 2026. An upcoming book spells out how the Trump administration colluded to hide the Epstein files because Trump didn't want anything released.

A new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan (two Trump-friendly authors) who withheld all of this reporting to make money off a book detailed the extensive cover-up by the Trump administration to bury the Epstein files.

The New York Times Magazine published an excerpt of the book that laid out how all of the top members of the administration colluded together to try to get out in front of the story while also giving Trump what he wanted, which was to bury the Epstein files.

According to the book excerpt:

Vice President JD Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy Conference Room of the Situation Room complex. “This is a huge problem,” he told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt; the deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich; the communications director, Steven Cheung; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward Jr.; and the deputy chief of staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, joined on speakerphone.…

But there was one major obstacle in the path of a solution: The president himself still had no interest in transparency. He wanted the whole Epstein issue buried, and he was snapping at anyone who mentioned it. His staff largely avoided the subject in their conversations with him, forced to worry among themselves.

House Democrats responded to the details in the story by making it clear that if they win the majority, the Trump cover-up will be investigated.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) responded to the news that House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) will finally bring in acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify in the Epstein investigation.

Stansbury said:

 We are all glad to hear that Mr. Comer has had a change of heart in making sure that Todd Blanche is brought before this committee. We wanna make clear that he must be brought before this committee under oath in a deposition that is recorded for the American people to see, and this is separate from his confirmation process. Todd Blanche is at the heart of the cover-up of this case, as was revealed, especially in The New York Times explosive reporting today about Situation Room meetings that were held in which Todd Blanche, as the president's personal attorney and deputy AG, was working with others, including the vice president, to help to try to cover up this case.

Now, with regards to Bill Gates' interview today, what we have learned is that Mr. Gates saw this as an opportunity to interact with a financial advisor who had access to vast amounts of wealth, that Mr. Gates was interested in potentially forming partnerships to bring donors into his global health work.

And so he saw his relationship and conversations with Jeffrey Epstein as a means to potentially get wealthy donors to donate philanthropically to Mr. Gates' global health work. He admitted that he knew of Mr. Epstein's reputation. He admitted that he knew that he had been convicted of sexual crimes.

But ultimately, in his words, he viewed this narrow relationship as being an acceptable means to access wealthy donors. So obviously, we have a lot of questions, but we're glad that he's cooperating with the investigation.

June 9

Miami New Times, Epstein file says Trump “knew and funded underage sex parties” at his golf course, Natasha Yee, June 9, 2026. An FBI tip memorialized in the Epstein files alleges Trump knew about underage sex parties at a Trump golf course.

An FBI document from the U.S. Department of Justice Jeffrey Epstein files contains extraordinary allegations involving President Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and a Trump-owned golf course — claims that appear to have originated from a single tipster who contacted federal authorities in 2021.

The FBI intake report does not identify the golf course referenced by the caller. However, the allegation appears in files connected to Epstein, whose sprawling Palm Beach mansion served as the center of many of the activities that ultimately led to his conviction and the federal sex-trafficking investigation that followed.

The document, dated June 21, 2021, summarizes a call received by the bureau’s National Threat Operations Center from an individual who claimed to have firsthand knowledge of criminal activity involving Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Trump. 

May

May 31

 

Last Page First, Investigative Commentary: George B. Tonks: Named In The Files, Jana,left, May 31, 2026. Convicted felon on fed supervision appears in Epstein files 46 times. Farmer reported him to DOJ, Chicago PD, NYPD. 2023 judge banned him from mentioning Epstein victim online.

This piece is part of the ongoing Last Page First series on the federal Epstein archive. See also: The Harassment Network: What Maria and Virginia Filed About the People They Said Were Destroying Them, which documented EFTA01652628, Maria Farmer’s41-page FBI dossier, and placed Tonks within the broader network Maria filed as evidence five days before Virginia Giuffre’s death.

A convicted felon on federal supervised release appears in the federal Epstein archive nearly 50 times. Maria Farmer reported him to the DOJ, the Chicago Police Department, and the NYPD. In 2023, a federal judge found he was harassing an Epstein victim while under court supervision and issued an order forbidding him from mentioning her anywhere on the internet. The record is documented and it does not require interpretation.What Was Filed

Four separate documents in the federal Epstein archive: EFTA01652187, EFTA01652134, EFTA01652208 and EFTA01652050, contain the same statement filed by Maria Farmer (shown at right as a teen) with federal authorities:

GEORGE B TONKS IS A felon WHO STALKED ME FROM PRISON, and I have reported to DOJ/Chicago Police/NYPD/and you! Do something!

She reported him to the Department of Justice, the Chicago Police Department, and the New York Police Department. She put it in the federal Epstein archive many times. She was begging federal authorities to act.

Maria Farmer’s April 20, 2025 email to attorneys Jennifer Freeman, David Boies, and Sigrid McCawley, filed in the federal Epstein archive as EFTA01652208. She writes that she was gaslit during cancer treatments while Lady Victoria Hervey attacked her, and that she had to use her settlement funds to serve Hervey with legal papers in the UK. “Everything was optics for BSF. All broth, no meat.”

Hervey is on an active campaign to protect Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Maria filed in her emails regarding Tonks, Hervey, Krauss and others. EFTA01652208

On April 20, 2025, five days before Virginia Giuffre’s death, Maria Farmer filed a 41 page evidentiary dossier with the FBI. That document is EFTA01652628. It placed George Bing Tonks,  shown at left in a Tik Tok photo, within a network she believed was coordinating a campaign to discredit Epstein survivors. It named him alongside Lady Victoria Hervey as operating together, Hervey providing platform and social legitimacy, Tonks providing distribution of private survivor communications.

A deeper dive into Maria’s dossier and what it contains about Tonks, Hervey, and the broader network is documented in the Last Page First investigation "The Harassment Network." This piece focuses on the federal court record that sits alongside that filing.

Three Convictions, Three Jurisdictions, Thirty Years

The federal record on George Bing Tonks spans three decades and three jurisdictions.

By 2009, Tonks was appealing a federal conviction under yet another name. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, No. 08-3821.

In September 1993, he pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to mail fraud, money laundering, and criminal contempt — United States v. Dupont, 2:93-cr-00192

He operated a network of fraudulent modeling agencies under the name David L. DuPont, defrauding approximately 1,800 people out of advance fees for placements that did not exist. A $2.3 million civil judgment was entered against him and his company, DuPont Model Management. He violated a federal injunction barring him from operating modeling agencies by immediately opening a new agency in Chicago — the criminal contempt charge. Sentence: 37 months, five years supervised release.

In May 2008, he was sentenced to 115 months in the Southern District of New York in United States v. Stone, 1:06-cr-00771. The case originated under the alias Ian Stone. The scheme defrauded over 250 victims of more than $1 million through false promises of adult film roles. A $1.5 million forfeiture judgment was entered.

In November 2008, he was sentenced to 78 months consecutive in the Northern District of Iowa in United States v. Tonks, 1:07-cr-00086, before Chief Judge Linda R. Reade, for a lottery advance fee scheme that extracted $264,872 from a single elderly Iowa woman across 16 wire transfers. He pleaded guilty to Counts 6 and 17.

His confirmed alias roster, drawn from the April 2019 SDNY Final Order of Forfeiture, Document 123, signed by Judge Crotty, and confirmed in the case caption of United States v. Catalano, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 2010, is:

• George Bing Tonks
• David L. DuPont
• Ian William Stone
• Alex Michael Hausner
• Mike Kaplan
• Michael Warner
• David Luiz Silva
• Jorge Crespo
• Jorge Tonks
• Patrick Kessler

10 confirmed names across the federal court record.

New York Time, Notre Dame Students Abused by Priest in ‘Weighing Scheme,’ Report Finds, Stephanie Saul, May 31, 2026. An investigation commissioned by Notre Dame found that the Catholic university could have done more to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct.

A blistering report issued last week accuses the University of Notre Dame of failing to take action against a former priest despite years of alleged sexual misconduct against students while he was a dorm rector and while he worked at nearby Holy Cross College.

The investigation, which was led by the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton at Notre Dame’s request, found that Rev. Thomas King conducted a coercive “weighing scheme” at Notre Dame during the 1980s and 1990s. As part of the scheme, he expressed worry over the health of male students and insisted that they go to a locker room and undress to be weighed.

“Once in the locker room he would direct students to undress fully before they stepped onto a scale,” the report said. “Multiple individuals, some of whom were weighed, were sexually touched or assaulted by Fr. King, both at Notre Dame and after he left.”

The law firm’s 25-page report concluded that Notre Dame, one of the nation’s leading Catholic universities, should have done more to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct in the case of Father King. The report noted that witnesses said they had complained to university employees about him as far back as the 1990s.

The report also noted that these instances were not the first time that the university had to confront allegations of sexual abuse by priests, and listed two other instances when priests had been accused.

The law firm interviewed staff in two separate departments that supposedly received the complaints, but no one could remember having received them, the report said. In other cases, the report said, university employees who heard the complaints did not understand the sexual implications of the “weighing.”

The investigators also said they requested an interview with Father King through his attorney, but it was declined.

In 1997, Father King left Notre Dame for Holy Cross College, then a two-year institution that served as a feeder school to the larger university. He remained there for about 10 years, where he held sway over students because he was instrumental in recommending students for transfer to Notre Dame. The report said there were at least 15 cases of the “weighing scheme” across the two schools.

In addition to his time at Notre Dame and Holy Cross College, Father King served at parishes near Lakeville, Indiana, and Niles, Michigan. Following complaints there, he entered a senior home for priests in the Order of the Holy Cross, the report said. He could not be reached for comment.

The law firm said that during the course of its investigation, it was told of other priests who were accused of misconduct. Its report detailed claims against one of them, the Rev. David Porterfield, the rector at another Notre Dame dormitory, Sorin Hall.

Father Porterfield resigned in 1983 after Notre Dame learned of a complaint against him, but was later rehired, the report said. The investigators criticized the university for continuing to allow him access to the Notre Dame community in various capacities.

The report said Father Porterfield, who died last year, was rehired as an assistant rector at Grace Hall and assistant director of admissions.

Following another complaint against him, he entered an alcohol treatment program, but returned to the South Bend area, where he served in various capacities at parishes and, later, served as a substance abuse counselor.

The allegations against Father King, a former rector at Notre Dame’s Zahm Hall, came to light following complaints from a group of former students at Notre Dame and Holy Cross College, both located in South Bend, Ind.

One of the students, David Tybor, said in a telephone interview on Sunday that he remained dissatisfied with the report.

“I think the report raises as many questions as it answers,” said Dr. Tybor, a professor at Tufts University who received a degree from Notre Dame in 1998. “And I think this is not the first situation like this at Notre Dame. These are the same things they said 25 years ago in other situations where they said it’s never going to happen again.”

In a statement, the Rev. Robert A. Dowd, Notre Dame’s president, said the university was “deeply disturbed” by the findings, thanking those who had come forward to “share their painful stories.” Father Dowd said that Notre Dame had created a counseling support program for former students who were the victims of sexual abuse.

The university also said it was establishing a new process for promptly sharing information about reports about misconduct by priests, including those previously employed by the university.

Some complaints to the university had arrived following Father King’s departure.

Notre Dame had announced last year that it had requested the law firm’s report. The university has referred the allegations against Father King to state and local police in Indiana, the report said.

The findings come nearly 25 years after reports of widespread clergy sexual abuse first emerged in extensive reports by The Boston Globe. Hundreds of cases are still pending in courts in more than 20 states across the country. 

NBC News, Graham Platner’s wife ‘angry, disappointed’ her past disclosure of his extramarital sexting was made public, Alexandra Marquez and Julie Tsirkin, May 31, 2026. Amy Gertner said it was “shameful” that media outlets and others had “spread gossip” instead of focused on the “real issues” her husband is running on in Maine.

The wife of Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Senate in Maine, said she is “really angry” about reports that she previously told her husband’s campaign he had exchanged sexually explicit texts with other women.

“It makes me really angry, disappointed,” Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, said in a direct-to-camera video Platner’s campaign released Saturday night. “And I find it really shameful that there’s a group of media outlets and people who are willing to spread gossip instead of talking about real issues that Graham is running on.”

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that Gertner told Platner’s campaign about the sexually explicit texts last year, near the start of his Senate bid. Her disclosure came during a conversation with campaign officials about potential opposition research into Platner, the two outlets reported, with the Times citing a former senior official in Platner’s campaign and the Journal citing people familiar with the matter.

Platner’s campaign confirmed he sent multiple women sexually explicit texts at the beginning of his marriage.

“Amy and I went through something hard — because of me,” Platner, right, said in a statement. “We did the work, and I’m grateful for her every hour of every day. I’ve learned throughout this campaign is that people don’t care about gossip or headlines, they care that you’re fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids. This campaign is about the ideas that will move Maine forward and past a broken politics of the past. Our opponents want politics to be empty of content and empty of actual change — and beating that is exactly what our movement is about.”

In addition, NBC News verified a Kik account tied to Platner after it visually matched the tattoos visible in the profile photo to tattoos on his torso and arms. Kik is a popular platform that allows anonymous messaging. The platform indicates that the account was created 3,610 days (nearly 10 years) ago and provides no record of Platner’s activity, contacts or actions.

A spokesperson for Platner’s campaign confirmed the account belongs to Platner but said he deleted the app and hasn’t used the account in years.

In the video she recorded Saturday, Gertner said: “Graham and I have a great marriage. Being married is hard. Being newly married is hard. Being newly married and going through infertility is hard. Being newly married, going through infertility and a Senate campaign is hard.”

“Our marriage counselor helps,” she added. “My personal counselor helps. Graham’s personal counselor helps.”

The pair married in 2023 and have been open about their infertility struggles, including sharing that they traveled to Norway for in vitro fertilization treatment this year.

Platner’s campaign has been dogged by revelations about his past since he launched his bid for the Senate last year, but so far that has not slowed the momentum of his campaign.

In October, Platner apologized for resurfaced Reddit posts in which he minimized the challenges faced by members of the military who have been sexually assaulted, called white rural people racist and stupid, referred to himself as a “communist” and encouraged people to limit their intake of certain substances to avoid being raped.

“For those of you who have read these things and been offended, have read these things and seen someone that you don’t recognize, I am deeply sorry,” Platner said in a video he posted on X.

The same month, Platner covered up a tattoo on his chest that resembled a Nazi symbol, saying he got the tattoo while in the Marines in 2007 and had no idea the skull-and-crossbones figure was associated with Nazis.

In her video Saturday, Gertner added: “No marriage is perfect, and I don’t want a perfect marriage. I want my marriage, and I want to be married to Graham. ... I knew the man that I married is wonderful and dynamic, and probably a genius.”

In a separate written statement distributed by the campaign, Gertner also blamed “someone I considered a friend,” without naming the person, for divulging her disclosures about her husband’s texts.

“I confided deeply personal details about my marriage to someone I considered a friend. In the months since, I have had to watch as she spread malicious gossip to anyone who would take her call,” she said in the statement. “I trusted this person with the most private chapter of our lives — the early days of our marriage before any campaign was on our mind — and I am deeply hurt by her betrayal and the invasion of our privacy.”

Maine Gov. Janet Mills launched her own campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Senate last year but dropped out in April after she struggled to raise money and trailed Platner in the polls.

Platner, a veteran and oyster farmer, has been endorsed by a slate of national progressive leaders, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.

After reports of Platner’s sexual texts to other women emerged Saturday, Khanna re-emphasized his support and advertised a campaign rally he’ll be attending alongside Platner in June.

“I am proud of @grahamformaine for having the character to stand up against the war in Iran, against genocide, and against an unfair & lopsided economy. I am proud of him for having a vision for a new deal for our time. Excited to campaign with him June 5!” Khanna wrote on X.

Platner is challenging longtime Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who is running for a sixth term.

While Maine has trended toward Democrats in presidential elections — Vice President Kamala Harris won the state by 7 percentage points in 2024 — Collins has outperformed other Republicans in recent elections to keep her seat. She won her 2020 re-election race by 9 points.

May 30

 

 New York Times, Platner’s Texts With Women Concerned Campaign as Senate Race Took Off, Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer, May 30, 2026. The wife of Graham Platner, above, the Democratic candidate in Maine, told the campaign he had sent sexual messages to other women.

Graham Platner’s insurgent bid for Senate in Maine was gathering steam last summer when his campaign was confronted with some potentially explosive information.

Mr. Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, told a senior campaign aide that he had been exchanging sexual messages with multiple other women.

It was the kind of revelation with the potential to damage the political newcomer just as his campaign to unseat Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, was beginning to resonate with voters, especially in a state where female voters make up a large share of the electorate.

Mr. Platner’s exchanges with women were confirmed by current and former campaign officials, who gave different accounts of some of the details. Ms. Gertner said the couple, who had married in November 2023, according to the town clerk of Sullivan, Maine, was working through his indiscretions in marriage counseling.

Genevieve McDonald, a former state legislator who was the Platner campaign’s political director before leaving in October, said Ms. Gertner reached out just days before a big Labor Day rally with Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, and was concerned her husband’s behavior could become a political liability.

Ms. McDonald said Ms. Gertner told her that her husband had been exchanging sexual messages with as many as a dozen women.

A current Platner campaign official said Mr. Platner had been communicating with up to six women. The conduct had stopped, the official said, before the campaign launched.

The current official said that the messages surfaced when Ms. McDonald asked Ms. Gertner if there was anything she wanted to share amid an internal vetting process. Ms. Gertner told the campaign that the couple had dealt with the issue in counseling, according to the official.

The revelation threatened to add to Democratic anxieties about the state of the Maine race, which the party sees as critical to its chances of winning control of the Senate in November.Editors’ PicksHow to Get Grandparents and Grandkids to Connect More OftenHe Wanted to Kiss a Million Times. Could We Do It?17 Food Items You Should Buy When They’re on Sale

In a statement released by the campaign, Ms. Gertner suggested that she had been betrayed by Ms. McDonald, saying she was “deeply hurt” and bothered by “the invasion of our privacy.”

“I confided deeply personal details about my marriage to someone I considered a friend,” she said. “I trusted this person with the most private chapter of our lives — the early days of our marriage before any campaign was on our mind.”

“Our marriage today is stronger than ever before,” she added. “I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.”

Ms. McDonald’s account of Ms. Gertner’s discovery of the messages and alerting the campaign to them last summer before the rally with Mr. Sanders was confirmed by another person who was told about the messages at the time. The Wall Street Journal earlier reported the existence of the messages on Saturday afternoon.

Ms. McDonald shared with The New York Times what she said was a screenshot of a text message exchange with Ms. Gertner that started in the early hours of Aug. 27, 2025. Ms. Gertner had sent a message to a broader group, asking someone from the campaign to contact her, and Ms. McDonald offered to talk. In their conversation, Ms. Gertner told her about the messages, which she described as “sexting,” according to Ms. McDonald.

“The United States Senate is not a training ground for redemption,” Ms. McDonald said. “It is a place for proven leaders with moral clarity and integrity.”

Ms. McDonald was one of three campaign officials who resigned in October after revelations about controversial social media posts by Mr. Platner and scrutiny of a tattoo widely recognized as a Nazi symbol.

In the months since then, despite a barrage of headlines about inflammatory remarks Mr. Platner made about women online years ago — remarks for which he has apologized — the candidate went on to have a stunning rise to become the presumptive Democratic nominee in one of the nation’s marquee Senate races.

His campaign has become a movement in Maine, and some Democrats are already discussing Mr. Platner, a fiery populist running on his working-class credentials, as the future of the party.

May 21

The Institute for Primary Facts and Defiance.org, The Institute for Primary Facts and DEFIANCE.org Launch National Campaign to Bring the Trump-Epstein Memorial Reading Room to Every American, Scott Goodstein, May 21, 2026. Partnership unveils a mobile installation to tour the country with 3.5 million pages of evidence.

The Institute for Primary Facts (IPF) and DEFIANCE.org today announced a joint campaign to take the Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room on the road. The mobile installation — a touring "bookmobile" version of the Tribeca exhibition that has drawn national media coverage over the past two weeks — will travel to cities, landmarks, and communities across the country, putting the physical weight of the DOJ's Epstein files in front of Americans who can't fly to lower Manhattan to see them.

DEFIANCE.org has committed $100,000 to kickstart the effort by building the bookmobile. The two organizations are launching a public crowdfunding campaign tonight to take it on a national tour at DEFIANCE.org/bookmobile.

"The reading room in Tribeca proved something important: when you put 17,000 pounds of evidence in front of people, they can't look away," said David Garrett, lead organizer of the Institute for Primary Facts. "Now we're putting it on wheels. We're going to drive this to every city we can afford to reach. The DOJ stopped investigating. The public hasn't."

The two groups have worked closely together with Epstein survivors, their families, and sexual assault groups to use the transparency campaign to keep the controversy in full public view.

"This is what civic infrastructure looks like in 2026," said Miles Taylor, Executive Director of DEFIANCE.org and a former Trump official who has been a vocal critic of the president. "An administration that puts Donald Trump's name on passports, battleships, and ballrooms is hoping Americans forget what his name is actually attached to. We're not going to let them. The Trump-Epstein 'Bookmobile' is going to be impossible to ignore — and so are the survivors it honors."

The mobile reading room will feature curated volumes of the partially redacted Epstein files released by the Department of Justice under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a detailed timeline of the documented Trump-Epstein relationship, and a tribute to the more than 1,000 victims and survivors of Epstein's trafficking network. Visitors will be able to engage with the material in small groups, capture content on their own devices, and connect with survivor advocacy organizations.

The crowdfunding campaign launches tonight at DEFIANCE.org/bookmobile to bring the installation to cities around America. Tour stops will be announced via social media in the days leading up to each arrival. The organizers are hoping to launch the bookmobile around America's 250th birthday.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE FOR PRIMARY FACTS

The Institute for Primary Facts is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit advancing civic literacy through immersive, traveling museum exhibits designed to provide accessible, fact-based explorations of the foundational elements of American democracy. The Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room is its inaugural installation.

ABOUT DEFIANCE.ORG

DEFIANCE.org is a pro-democracy 501(c)(4) civic action organization that mobilizes Americans to counter abuses of power and corruption through lawful, peaceful, and defiant action. Founded in 2025, DEFIANCE.org operates weekly civic campaigns and crowd-sourced nationwide action to hold the Trump administration accountable.

May 15 

New York Times, On Capitol Hill, a Sexual Harassment ‘Minefield’ Persists, Annie Karni, Michael Gold and Jill Cowan, Annie Karni and Michael Gold, May 16, 2026. Nearly 10 years after Congress instituted measures to make it easier for women to lodge harassment complaints, lawmakers and aides say the behavior is still rampant.

Jillian McLaughlin felt trapped.

“I feel like there’s no way out,” she wrote in her journal in 2024, after a year of working for former Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, as his driver and assistant.

Ms. McLaughlin, who was in her early 30s at the time, had landed in Mr. Swalwell’s orbit about a year earlier when she had been hired for a weekend to drive him to the Super Bowl. That led to a full-time job in Washington, where she became a fixture by the side of the powerful and charismatic congressman, in charge of getting him to votes on time and helping to keep his schedule running.

There were other aspects of the job that made her uncomfortable. Mr. Swalwell invited her to spend a weekend with him in Miami (she did not go). He would ask her to join in when he was out drinking with colleagues (she sometimes did, limiting herself to one drink). Late at night, the congressman would text her his feelings about his day.

Ms. McLaughlin never had a physical relationship with Mr. Swalwell, who resigned last month facing multiple accusations of sexual assault and harassment, charges he denies. But the experience soured her on Washington, prompting her to leave for good and to conclude that Capitol Hill was a toxic work environment for a young woman.

“These people are, in their personal and professional time, taking advantage of people,” she said of members of Congress. “There was no system, and no one cared.”

Mr. Swalwell may have been on the extreme end of boundary-blurring behavior fueled by alcohol, proximity to power and tribal loyalty, all of which are common on Capitol Hill. But what Ms. McLaughlin went through was not unusual.ImageRepresentative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, during a hearing in 2024. He resigned last month, facing accusations of sexual assault and harassment.Credit...Michael McCoy for The New York Times

Nearly 10 years after Congress instituted measures to crack down on sexual harassment by lawmakers and make it easier for women to lodge complaints about it, lawmakers and aides say the behavior is still rampant among Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill and often goes unaddressed.

In more than a dozen interviews over the past month, current and former lawmakers and congressional staff members — many of them women who discussed sensitive workplace conditions on the condition of anonymity — said the power structure on Capitol Hill created a culture where questionable behavior by lawmakers was common, and reporting harassment was difficult.

There is no public data available about the number of sexual harassment complaints in Congress, but confidential settlements and two recent resignations speak to what female staff members say is a broad issue with behavior ranging from lawmakers making suggestive or inappropriate comments to clear instances of misconduct.Have You Experienced Sexual Harassment on Capitol Hill? Share Your Story.May 16, 2026

They pointed to several factors that enable such behavior: a small workplace with a lopsided power dynamic in which the principals are highly influential and subordinates fear limiting their employment options; leaders who have political incentives to distance themselves from scandal; and a broken complaints process.

And they noted that the very nature of Congress — a place dominated by supremely confident men who are away from their families for weeks on end — lends itself to bad behavior.

“Let’s be really honest,” said Marjorie Taylor Greene, the former Republican representative from Georgia. “What happens in Congress is not at all anything like what regular Americans have to go through in their places of employment. The same standards just don’t apply.” 

May 8

The Independent, Jeffrey Epstein’s brother claims released suicide note is a ‘forgery’: report, Josh Marcus, May 8, 2026. A federal court on Wednesday released an alleged suicide note Epstein wrote in prison in 2019 before his death a month later.

Jeffrey Epstein’s brother believes his brother’s purported suicide note, released this week in court, is fake.

Mark Epstein, speaking with The National Enquirer, called the document a “forgery.”

“I’ve known Jeff all my life. If he was going to kill himself, if he was going to write a suicide note, he would’ve written it ‘to somebody,’ not just a blanket statement saying goodbye,” Epstein said. “I don’t buy that.”

Jeffrey Epstein’s former cellmate claims to have discovered the document in July 2019, after Epstein was found unresponsive but alive in his cell. Epstein died by suicide the following month.

“It’s bulls**t and let me explain why,” Epstein’s brother added in the National Enquirer interview. “In the July incident, Jeffrey’s cellmate attacked him, he reported it as such, he told his lawyer as such, and then he recanted that story saying he couldn’t remember what happened because he was fearful of retaliation.”Jeffrey Epstein’s brother doesn’t believe an alleged suicide note released in court is realJeffrey Epstein’s brother doesn’t believe an alleged suicide note released in court is real (New York State Division of Criminal Justice)

“It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye,” the note, released in federal court on Wednesday, reads. “Watcha want me to do — Bust out cryin!!”

“NO FUN," the message concludes. “NOT WORTH IT!!”

Epstein’s cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, claims he discovered the message inside a book in July 2019 after the first incident.

Epstein initially claimed that Tartaglione, a former police officer convicted of leading a murder plot, tried to kill him, but the disgraced financier did not subsequently repeat the claim after he was moved to another cell.

The note was initially sealed in court records, but Tartaglione later described it to The New York Times and reporter Jessica Reed Kraus. The paper then petitioned for the document to be released publicly.Epstein’s former cellmate claimed he found the alleged suicide note wedged in a bookEpstein’s former cellmate claimed he found the alleged suicide note wedged in a book (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York)

On Monday, the Justice Department backed the request.

Though officials determined that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, his brother has long argued that this is incorrect.

Mark Epstein told The National Enquirer that a forthcoming review of his brother’s autopsy would prove the death wasn’t a suicide.

“Anybody who still thinks it’s a suicide after the report comes out; they should be declared brain dead,” he said.

Nearly seven years after Jeffrey Epstein’s death, the scandal around his sex ring continues.

On Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick answered questions about his past ties to Epstein during a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee.

May  5

 

Morning Shots via The Bulwark, Political Opinion: Trump’s Lose-Lose Abortion Dilemma, Andrew Egger, May 5, 2026. One of the million strange things about our political moment is how abortion politics has all but dropped out of it.

But abortion politics may be coming back. Red states with active abortion bans have been suing to end the chief federal policy blunting their anti-abortion efforts: a substantial Biden-era expansion of clinics’ ability to mail abortion drugs to patients without a physical visit. This Food and Drug Administration policy has meant that even living in a total-ban state is hardly a barrier to access: Women seeking abortions can simply request drugs from an out-of-state clinic and receive them discreetly by mail.

Last week, a federal court upended that uneasy status quo. In a case brought by the state of Louisiana, a New Orleans-based appeals court ruled unanimously that the FDA’s authorization of the telehealth prescription and nationwide mailing of mifepristone—one of two drugs typically taken in tandem to induce abortion—violated the state’s right to regulate the practice within its borders.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court placed that decision on a short-term hold to give the parties time to appeal. Mifepristone’s two manufacturers, Danco and GenBioPro, are arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s decision is a recipe for “immediate chaos” since it “renders inoperable an agency action that has already been in effect for years.” But the current conservative Court, which already issued the most significant anti-abortion decision in history in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, may prove sympathetic to Louisiana’s argument that the current FDA posture amounts to complicity in facilitating large numbers of abortions that are illegal under state law.

Reproductive-rights groups see this as a nightmare scenario. Ironically, so does President Trump. His administration has been doing everything it can to kick the can down the road while keeping the mifepristone status quo frozen quietly in place. Last September, amid a barrage of pestering from Republican state attorneys general, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that the FDA would conduct a “review” of mifepristone’s authorization. But they seem to be in no hurry to complete it—and meanwhile, the Trump administration has consistently asked courts to delay weighing in on the subject until that review is completed.

Trump’s political bind here is obvious. He sees abortion policy as political deadweight, a loser of an issue with an electorate that he’s in no position to press at the moment. But it also happens still to be the central issue for the social conservatives who still constitute a non-trivial portion of his base. Any action he or his government might take on the matter would infuriate some group of voters that he can ill afford to infuriate. But his attempts to slow-walk the process are no longer working, either.

Meanwhile, antiabortion groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America—which Trump essentially bludgeoned into silence during his 2024 campaign—are getting tired of waiting quietly in the hope the president will throw them a bone. “Trump is the problem. The president is the problem,” SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Wall Street Journal this week. The status quo, whereby abortion policy is decided at the state level beneath an umbrella federal policy that permits unlimited abortion pills by mail, is no longer acceptable to Dannenfelser and her allies. If Trump’s stance on abortion becomes the broader Republican stance, she said last week, “then the movement as we know it is finished.”

If the Supreme Court throws out the mifepristone-by-mail status quo, it will dramatically sharpen the salience of abortion as a political issue—one that currently favors Democrats. But if they decline to throw it out, the pressure from pro-lifers on Trump and Kennedy to simply change the rules in question will become astronomical.

In 2016 and again in 2024, Trump unified the GOP’s various factions and interest groups more or less through sheer force—he made himself the only game in town. But as his presidency founders and electoral catastrophe looms, Trump is making it far easier for various types of conservative to start planning for how to survive in what comes next—in other words, to start taking a good, hard look at what comes after the Trump Era for the first time in years. Pro-life groups won’t be the last rats off this sinking ship. 

May 2

 

Representatives Nancy Mace, Anna Paulina Luna and Lauren Boebert (New York Times photo by Alyssa Schukar).

New York Times, These G.O.P. Women Want Congress Members to Pay a Price for Abuse. Will It Work? Annie Karni, May 2, 2026. Three Republican women who had a hand in forcing the resignations of lawmakers accused of sexual misconduct said they are out to name and shame more offenders. It is not clear how far they will go.

When former Representative Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas, admitted in March to a long-rumored affair with a staff member who later killed herself, a pair of Republican women immediately called for him to be formally censured, and a third became the first in the G.O.P. to demand that he resign.

The men at the helm of the party, President Trump and top Republican congressional leaders, were still standing by Mr. Gonzales, whose vote they needed to maintain their narrow majority in the House.

But among the small minority of G.O.P. lawmakers in the House who are women, an outspoken trio on the hard right — Representatives Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado — went on the war path and ultimately helped force Mr. Gonzales’s resignation in May under the threat of expulsion.

It was part of an unlikely campaign by three MAGA women to call out what they say is a culture of rampant sexual harassment and misconduct on Capitol Hill, and to dismantle the unwritten rules of political expediency and tribal loyalty that for decades have helped to keep such behavior under wraps.

“His staffer lit herself on fire and killed herself in the worst possible way, and he got a hall pass?” Ms. Mace said on Wednesday during a lengthy group interview with Ms. Boebert and Ms. Luna, who shared a couch across from her, to discuss their efforts. “I don’t think so.”ImageRepresentative Nancy Mace withstood immense pressure earlier this year from President Trump when she signed on to a petition that forced the release of the Epstein files.Credit...Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

The three lawmakers, all of whom have notably said they do not believe the allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct against Mr. Trump, added that they were bent on naming and shaming predators in Congress in both parties.

“This place only operates on pressure and pain,” said Ms. Luna, who led the charge to push out Mr. Gonzales. “The best way to change it is with pressure and pain.”

“Group” is an unusual word for these independent rabble rousers who have proven to be more successful at generating headlines about their own antics than at building alliances. But the women — who began to refer to themselves during the interview as the “three musketeers” — have forged a small caucus that has had an impact in recent months on how men accused of sexual wrongdoing have been treated by Congress.

Ms. Mace and Ms. Boebert, along with former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also withstood immense pressure earlier this year from Mr. Trump when they signed on to a petition that forced the release of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.

“It’s not easy having the president come down on you,” Ms. Boebert said.

Still, they said that they saw nothing wrong with the behavior of the president — who was found liable of sexual abuse in 2023 and was caught on tape boasting about pushing himself on women — and dismissed the accusations of sexual misconduct against him.

“I’ve only ever gotten grandfather vibes,” Ms. Boebert said of Mr. Trump.

They are far less forgiving of their colleagues on Capitol Hill.

 

New York Times, Supreme Court Asked to Restore Access to Abortion Pill by Mail, Ann E. Marimow and Pam Belluck, May 2, 2026. A federal appeals court temporarily halted a Food and Drug Administration regulation that has greatly expanded access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

A manufacturer of the abortion pill mifepristone asked the Supreme Court on Saturday to immediately restore full access to the medication, putting the contentious issue of abortion back before the justices in an election year.

The request came after a lower court on Friday temporarily restricted abortion providers nationwide from prescribing the pills by telemedicine and sending them to patients by mail. That process is one of the main ways women seeking abortions have obtained the medication in recent years.

If the order on Friday by a federal appeals court is upheld, it could sow confusion and upend a major avenue for abortion access across the country — not just in states with abortion bans. About one-fourth of abortions in the United States are now provided through telemedicine.

Louisiana officials had sued the Food and Drug Administration to restrict access to mifepristone, saying the availability of the medication by mail had allowed abortions to continue in the state despite its near-total ban on abortion.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday sided with Louisiana and essentially reimposed an F.D.A. requirement that health care providers prescribe mifepristone only after seeing patients in person. That rule was first lifted in 2021. The Fifth Circuit ordered that in-person dispensing of mifepristone be reinstated until the Louisiana lawsuit made its way through the courts.

Two mifepristone manufacturers, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, are also defendants in the Louisiana lawsuit. On Saturday afternoon, Danco filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to lift the lower court’s order, which applied to patients across the country. GenBioPro said it would file a similar request later on Saturday.

In its filing, Danco said the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions,” and forces Danco, providers, patients and pharmacies “all to guess at what is allowed and what is not.”

In a filing on Friday night asking the Fifth Circuit to pause its order, Danco said that the ruling would cause “chaos.” The court had not responded to the request by Saturday afternoon.

The Trump administration has defended the F.D.A. in court, but has not said in this case, or in public statements, whether it supports keeping in place the regulations that allow for pills to be mailed. Rather, it has said that the F.D.A. is conducting a review of mifepristone. It has also asked the court to delay the lawsuit proceedings until that review is complete.

Administration officials recently told The New York Times that the review would not be finished until the end of this year, a time frame that would fall after the midterm elections.

The mifepristone case puts the Trump administration in a politically tricky position, given that many of President Trump’s supporters oppose abortion. The Justice Department has not responded to requests for comment about whether they would appeal to the Supreme Court.

On Saturday, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the F.D.A., declined to comment, citing “ongoing litigation.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to eliminate the nationwide right to abortion, Republican-led states like Louisiana imposed strict bans on abortion. In response, many Democratic-led states passed shield laws that protect abortion providers who prescribe pills by telemedicine and send them to patients in states with abortion bans.

Medication is now the method used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States, and is typically delivered in the form of a two-drug regimen through the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The first of the drugs is mifepristone, which was approved in 2000.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the F.D.A. lifted its requirement that patients visit a medical provider in person to obtain mifepristone. That decision, which was made permanent in 2023, led to the creation of numerous telemedicine abortion services.

Louisiana has claimed in its lawsuit that the F.D.A.’s decision to remove the in-person dispensing requirement was based on inadequate or flawed data — an assertion medical organizations dispute, pointing to more than 100 studies that have found that mifepristone is safe, and that serious complications from taking it are rare.

In addition, Louisiana said that the regulations had resulted in numerous illegal abortions in the state, and that it had paid thousands of dollars in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone.

In April, a district court judge in Louisiana said the state was likely to win its challenge to the regulation, but declined to pause the availability of pills by mail. Instead, the judge gave the F.D.A. time to complete the safety review of mifepristone.

In its ruling Friday, the Fifth Circuit sided with Louisiana, echoing the state’s arguments that the F.D.A.’s regulations were “undermining its laws protecting unborn human life” and also “causing it to spend Medicaid funds on emergency care for women harmed by mifepristone,” according to the order written by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee. He was joined by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, another Trump appointee, and Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Other litigation over access to abortion medication has been making its way through the federal courts.

In 2024, the Supreme Court declined to limit access to mifepristone in a case brought by anti-abortion doctors and groups that sought to have its approval revoked. The court unanimously sided with the Biden administration and the manufacturer of mifepristone, and said the plaintiffs did not have legal grounds to bring the challenge.

The case was revived later that year, and is pending before a federal court in Missouri. Another similar case was filed against the F.D.A. last year by Texas and Florida.

New York Times, Swalwell Used Social Media to Build His Career. His Accusers Used It to Warn Others, Madison Malone Kircher, May 2, 2026 (Print ed.). Eric Swalwell used social media to boost his image and meet women, accusers said. Some of those same women used apps and influencers to join forces years later.

Eric Swalwell was once hailed as “the Snapchat king of Congress” for his prolific use of the app with disappearing messages.

Mr. Swalwell had developed a reputation as a digital native, a person who seemed to have a deep understanding of how to harness the power of social media.

In the end, social media would also play a critical role in his undoing.

It was on social media where early whispers of sexual misconduct accusations against Mr. Swalwell swirled after he entered the California governor’s race last year. After hearing similar chatter and allegations directly from women, two Democratic influencers built a network using some of the same platforms that his accusers said he had used to connect with them.

Cheyenne Hunt, one of the influencers, said she connected some of the accusers with one another. She also told the former aide who eventually alleged in news reports that Mr. Swalwell had sexually assaulted her in a New York hotel that other women were preparing to come forward. The content creators later used social media to collect stories from the women and generate interest online.

On April 10, The San Francisco Chronicle and CNN published the detailed accounts that ultimately ended Mr. Swalwell’s political career after interviewing the accusers for weeks and working to try to verify their allegations.

Mr. Swalwell has denied he committed any sexual misconduct.The Influencer NetworkImageA woman with her hands in the pockets of her dress stands near an open French door.Arielle Fodor, known online as “Mrs. Frazzled.” Last year, she received several private messages warning her to stay away from Mr. Swalwell and began to try to find out more.Credit...Ariana Drehsler for The New York Times

Mr. Swalwell entered the governor’s race in November, hoping to capitalize on his national image as a Democratic attack dog and his ability to reach voters on social media. He invited several influencers to a kickoff meeting on Zoom last year, recognizing their power in the modern era.

Among the content creators Mr. Swalwell won over was Arielle Fodor, known online as “Mrs. Frazzled.” Ms. Fodor, a former teacher who posts about Democratic politics, promoted Mr. Swalwell to her audience, hailing him as “a politician who acts like a normal human and not a robot.”

Almost immediately, Ms. Fodor received several private messages warning her to stay away from him, she said in an interview. She said she wanted to find out more.

She heard rumors of sexual misconduct as she began inquiring among Capitol Hill staffers, political acquaintances and a member of Congress, whom she declined to name.

For months thereafter, the chatter lingered but largely went nowhere. Mr. Swalwell, meanwhile, was gathering endorsements in California and assuaging the fears of potential backers by emphasizing that there had been no news reports with allegations.

Eventually, at the end of March, Ms. Fodor decided to post on Threads about Mr. Swalwell. Behind the scenes, a top Swalwell aide, Yardena Wolf, messaged Ms. Fodor and blamed a vengeful ally of an opposing candidate for the rumors, Ms. Fodor said.

Other people were watching, too.

Annika Albrecht saw the posts and reached out to Ms. Hunt, a friend of hers, to describe her own experience with Mr. Swalwell.

Ms. Albrecht said she had met Mr. Swalwell on a trip to Washington as a college student in 2019. Later, on Snapchat, he invited her to meet him at a hotel. She did not oblige. Sara Azari, a lawyer for Mr. Swalwell, disputed Ms. Albrecht’s account and said her story was uncorroborated.Ms. Fodor said she heard that Ms. Hunt was planning to post about Mr. Swalwell, too, and reached out to her in an Instagram direct message in March. Though they had never met, the two women, with Ms. Albrecht, began bringing together other women and directing them to a lawyer and, finally, to reporters at CNN, they said.

In a statement, the network said, “CNN always maintains its editorial independence while obtaining information from a multitude of sources through a rigorous editorial process.”ImageA woman sitting at a desk with a laptop on a stand in front of her. She is crossing her arms on the desk.Cheyenne Hunt, a content creator and a lawyer who previously ran for Congress as a Democrat in California, spoke to several women about their experiences with Mr. Swalwell.Credit...Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times

At the same time, reporters at The San Francisco Chronicle were talking to a former Swalwell staffer, who told them that the congressman had sexually assaulted her, including at a New York City hotel in 2024. The Chronicle explained afterward that it had independently found the woman and gained her trust over several weeks, and that it had looked for witnesses, public records and contemporaneous conversations to try to verify her claims.

The newspaper also said that “the influencers’ posts lent urgency to our efforts,” spurring them to investigate and contact the influencers themselves.

The parasocial relationships influencers cultivate with their followers may have helped some women feel comfortable with contacting Ms. Hunt and Ms. Fodor before going to a media outlet.

“Content creators build their platforms on being so accessible,” said Jessica Maddox, an associate professor at the University of Georgia who researches social media. “That accessibility makes people think they are closer to them than they actually are, or, even, that if they reached out, they could be heard.”

 

Occupy Democrats, “MAGA to the core” influencer Craig Long, ARRESTED in human trafficking sting! Staff Report, May 2, 2026.Tampa-area gym owner Long, 41, who boasts 560,000 TikTok followers, frequently praised the local sheriff, but was nonetheless busted for allegedly soliciting the services of a prostitute.

Long, shown above left with President Trump, allegedly reached out to an undercover Polk County Sheriff's Office detective online and arranged to meet at a hotel in Bartow for a sex act, where he was caught. He was arrested along with over 200 others in an operation targeting sex buyers, traffickers, and facilitators. He’s married, of course.

Despite Long’s support, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, shown above right, didn’t return the favor. At a press conference after the arrest, he quipped:“Well I’m going to give him some content for his social media today. He was a previous felon who straightened up. . . Now he’s an influencer, he moves in big circles [shows photo with Trump] even with the president. He likes the cops, and he just got a chance to see them up real close. You got arrested in a human trafficking sting. Influence that for a while.”

Lol. Here we have yet another example of the “family values” MAGA crowd showing their true colors. They lecture far and wide about morality, post endless praise of their great leader Trump, and then have the rotten luck to get caught in stings such as this.

The hypocrisy is off the charts. So very often, sex creeps attempt to mask deviances with righteousness, which makes their arrests abound in delicious irony. It's not hard to connect the dots from rings like this to the more sinister machinations of Epstein and his Girl Friday Maxwell.

We’re not saying he was looking for an underage hooker, but even if he was looking for an adult to consent to his proposed tryst, Long’s behavior is far from . . . righteous.

 Todd Blanche being sworn in as Deputy Attorney General.

The Red Letter with Tara Palmieri, Opinion: A Simple Question About Epstein Triggered Todd Blanche's Security Detail, Tara Palmeri, April 28, 2026. The only thing standing between you and answers on Jeffrey Epstein? Todd Blanche’s security.

I asked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche a question he didn’t like. The conversation ended quickly. In a town obsessed with security, he was just as quick to lean on his detail to shut it down.

It was a brief exchange—but a revealing one, offering a glimpse into how the country’s top law enforcement official understands both power and policing, at a moment when his “interim” status is beginning to look less temporary.

It was Wednesday evening in Washington, D.C. At the bar of a private event to which I had been invited, I posed a few questions to Blanche, another guest who had accepted an invitation just like I had.

Thank you for reading The Red Letter. Please consider supporting my independent journalism with a paid subscription:

“Mr. Blanche, are you concerned about a potential conflict of interest between US Attorney Jay Clayton at the Southern District of New York and Leon Black, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault?” I asked. “Clayton was appointed by Black to chairman of Apollo when he was pushed out.”

Blanche didn’t hesitate.

“That’s not what happened,” he said.

I provided some context he seemed to lack:

“It’s an established fact that Clayton took a top position at a company founded by Black, who is mentioned in the Epstein files and has faced multiple accusations of sexual assault,” I said.

Black appointed Clayton to his role as chairman when he had to step down from Apollo Global Management for paying Epstein $150 million for accounting and estate planning. Clayton had more than $1.5 million in holdings from the private equity firm Black founded before he left for the DOJ in 2025, according to his financial disclosure. This is a glaring conflict of interest that I’ve reported on in The Red Letter but that the mainstream media hasn’t picked up. To me, it may explain why Black and so many other powerful men who have been accused by survivors under oath have not been prosecuted.

“No, you’re wrong, it was something else,” Blanche said.

I calmly pushed back: “Black announced it himself in a statement that Clayton would be replacing him as chairman and Black is accused by many women in the files of sexual assault.” (Black denies this.)

This was the moment that our exchange became less cordial.

“How can you say that? What files are you referring to?” Blanche said.

“The Epstein files. The FBI’s own materials reference Black as a potential co-conspirator,” I said. “There’s a presentation that names him.”

“You shouldn’t be talking about things you don’t understand,” he shot back. “I’ve seen the files. You haven’t. You can’t just make things up.”

“Everyone has seen the Epstein files. They’re public,” I said.

As acting Attorney General, Blanche was primed to have special insight about my areas of inquiry. As a former prosecutor in New York and personal attorney for President Trump, my areas of inquiry would be particularly familiar.

Blanche made like his name in response. While standing under purple lights at the terrace bar, his wife dressed head to toe in black with her blonde hair pulled back said to me, “You’ve ruined our beautiful night.”

Before I could explain, a member of his security detail moved between us and said if I didn’t move away, he would remove me for trespassing.

I had not arrived at the French Ambassador’s residence with explicit plans to learn more about the Justice Department. I was there for the Amethyst Ball, a glitzy confab hosted by members of the Washington perma-class: Steve Clemons, Heather Podesta, Kellyanne Conway, and Ambassador Laurent Bili. The event, nominally an annual celebration of the French-American alliance, was attended by other members of the media as well as officials from the Trump administration and various Beltway creatures.

May 1

 

During a 2022 New Year's gala, the recently deported mother Amanda Ungaro is shown at left, with the her former partner Paulo Zampolli, at right, the modelling guru and longtime Trump family friend. Shown also are President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump. Ungaro, now living in Brazil after a brutal deportation process that separates her from her son with Zampolli, is well-acquaintained with the modeling world that included trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, the Trumps and Zampolli, and disputes the latter's assertion that he introduced the Trumps.

Vicky Ward Investigates, Epstein's Path Of Death And Destruction Goes All The Way To The White House And Far Beyond, Vicky Ward, May 1, 2026. Paolo Zampolli's Former Partner, Amanda Ungaro Explains Why She Thinks The First Lady Gave Her Impromptu Press Conference About Jeffrey Epstein.

The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein hovers over everything, still, seeming to tarnish and destroy everything in its path.

There’s tragic news from Norway (where I was two weeks ago). Edward Rød-Larsen, the 25-year-old son of Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul, two Norwegian diplomats severely impacted by the Epstein files, died a couple days ago by suicide. The family lawyer appears to have blamed the media in a public statement.My Norwegian friends tell me this is likely to become a massive debate in the coming days and weeks. Of course, the press reported hard on the couple’s dealings with Epstein (Rod-Larsen borrowed a considerable sum of money from Epstein without declaring it), and the government is investigating the couple, who are elderly.

So, should the media have done anything differently? The focus was not on the couple’s son.

But, as we know, Epstein’s wingspan was enormous. And the amount of collateral damage in this hideous story continues to pile up.

I was in DC over the weekend because of another horrendous suicide that is Epstein-related; I attended a powerful, moving memorial service for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, to mark the one year anniversary of her tragic death. The Family of Virginia Roberts Giuffre At Her Memorial Service in Washington, DC

Virginia’s two brothers and their wives were present along with her publicist Dini Von Mueffling. So too were several of the Epstein survivors who paid homage to the one amongst them whose bravery was pivotal in bringing both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to justice.

Props to Rep. Jamie Raskin for his poignant oratory contextualizing Virginia’s life. A snippet:

The world is filled with injustice, especially towards women and girls, because the world is organized much more around power than it is around justice. The only thing that ever tips the scales towards justice, towards freedom, is the courage of brave leaders and the activism of thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of people engaged in solidarity and movement forward demanding change. Virginia Roberts Giuffre was a leader. Generations to come will marvel at her toughness and celebrate her personal conviction and her moral determination to change American society and to change the world. And she’s now not just a hero to this movement, but she’s a hero to the ages who dwells with other great leaders and heroes of our history, like Dolores Huerta, like Rosa Parks, and like Frederick Douglass.

Beautifully put.

Where though, I wondered were other members of congress? It was a busy weekend in DC, as we all know. But surely this service ought to have taken priority on our politician’s calendars? I was disappointed not to see more of them there.

Yesterday, I spoke with someone else who has had her life turned upside down, she believes, because of Epstein. Amanda Ungaro

Amanda Ungaro, a Brazilian ex-model and former longtime partner of Paolo Zampolli, right, A Trump-appointed UN ambassador, who once introduced Melania Knauss to Donald Trump, has experienced a living hell, in the wake of an acrimonious child custody battle with Zampolli. Paolo Zampolli with Donald Trump

Last year Ungaro and her new husband, a Brazilian doctor who runs a medical spa in Miami, were suddenly arrested, charged with practicing procedures like Botox and butt injections without a license. They pled not guilty.

Ungaro’s husband, who has a green card, was released on bail. Amanda, however was picked up from jail by ICE and detained for three and a half months before being deported to Brazil, all at the behest, she says of Zampolli, who is currently the Special Envoy of the President of the United States for Global Partnership. (Whatever that means).

Zampolli, left, tells me that he didn’t push for ICE to deport Ungaro but that he did “check” in with a senior ICE official, David Venturella, to find out what was going on. “I was super concerned about the safety of my son because he was alone when those two were in jail,” he said. The New York Times recently confirmed that Zampolli spoke to Venturella, who made a phone call to ensure Ungaro was picked up at the jail by ICE before she could be released on bail. A source told the New York Times that Venturella said on the phone that the case was important “to someone close to the White House.”

When she was initially detained by ICE, Amanda says she of course reached out to Melania Trump through a friend in DC, to ask for her help. She points out she has known the First Lady for twenty years. They have spent Christmas, Easter and Thanksgivings together. The First Lady even emailed her son, Giovanni on his birthdays.

She was told that Melania was in London at the time and “looked shocked” but did nothing. The White House did not respond to my inquiry, but a spokesman said in a statement to the New York Times that the First Lady “has no knowledge of, nor involvement in, the personal affairs of Mr. Zampolli and Ms. Ungaro,” and that Mrs. Trump “has had no contact or engagement with” ICE.

Ungaro says she was devastated.

So, months later, on April 8th, Ungaro let loose on X, writing:

“I have nothing left to lose in my life. I will tear down the entire system - be careful with me bitch.”

Maybe you should be afraid of what I know….of who you are, and who your husband is.”

“I have known you for 20 years. You knew I was detained in ICE. You were present in my life - every year on my son’s birthday, even sending Secret Service and being the first to congratulate him, back in 2016.”

“Do you know what I think about you after 20 years???”

The posts went viral and she later deleted them, she says “because there was too much noise.” The next day, April 9, Melania Trump gave her bizarre impromptu, emotional press conference emphatically denying that she was an Epstein victim.

Even the pundits at Fox News were stumped as to the thought process behind it.

Ungaro’s theory is that the First Lady read her X posts and became scared. Ungaro says she believes it’s possible Zampolli did not in fact introduce Melania to Donald Trump, as he has claimed and that Jeffrey Epstein did. (Zampolli’s riposte: “I mean, after 30 years, you still guys ask me the same question, man.”)

Both couples have documented history that overlaps with Epstein. Epstein flew Ungaro to New York from Paris when she was just seventeen. When she landed in New York, she met Zampolli, then 32 and the owner of ID Models Management, with whom she signed. The two became romantically involved. (Zampolli says Ungaro was 19 when that happened.) Zampolli’s biggest client at the time was Victoria’s Secret, then owned by Leslie Wexner, Epstein’s main benefactor. Epstein and Zampolli reportedly considered buying a modeling agency together.

But it also emerged in the Epstein Files that Epstein was wary of Zampolli: In one 2011 email, Mr. Epstein warned an Emirati businessman: “Be careful, zampoli [Sic] is trouble. Lots.” He added, “He sells stories to the press.”

Zampolli’s relationship with the Trumps did not appear to hit similar speed bumps. Ungaro claims that Melania Trump grew even closer to Zampolli once her husband was elected President. During Trump’s first presidency, Zampolli was appointed to the board of the Kennedy Center. And In Trump’s second presidency, Zampolli was given his “special envoy” position.

He and Ungaro, who had stopped working under a diplomatic visa at the UN, moved with their son to Washington, DC. But their relationship was already souring, according to Ungaro. Zampolli was widely reported to be a lover of night-life and parties. At one point she says she told the First Lady of their difficulties. According to her, Mrs. Trump replied: “Men are all the same. Paolo doesn’t change”. [The First Lady’s Office did not respond to my request for a comment]. Zampolli with Melania Trump

In 2022 Ungaro left Zampolli and drove to Miami. She says one of the contentious issues between them was her immigration status, and that Zampolli used this as leverage. According to a legal document they both signed, he was supposed to help her with a visa.

She began working with her new husband at his spa, and hired a lawyer to help her sue Zampolli for child custody so that their son, Giovanni, who had gone to boarding school, could live with her in Miami. As part of that case, she says, her lawyers sued Zampolli for back-dated child custody payments. According to Ungaro, a judge threatened to incarcerate Zampolli if he did not pay child custody he owed. [Zampolli says this claim is “unfounded” and a breach of confidentiality].

But two days before that deadline Ungaro and her husband were arrested. She paid $20,000 bond, but before she was released, ICE agents took her and put her in a facility for three and a half months, before flying her back to Brazil. Zampolli says that the arrest had nothing to do with him. “I was told that he [Ungaro’s husband] has a license for veterinary in Brazil, and he also was doing Botox in Brazil, which you don’t need to be licensed. But in the state of Florida to practice medicine…you need a license.”

Ungaro says she was treated inhumanely. “I was handcuffed everywhere: my feet, the waist, my hands like for 24 hours without food, without water,” she said.

“Melania knew it…. and she didn’t do anything,” she told me.

Now Ungaro says she is working on a book about what happened.

“I could say more, but now is not the right moment,” she says.

Her son Giovanni, 16, flew to Brazil to be with his mother after the deportation but is now back in the US, living with his father. Ungaro is not optimistic she will see her son anytime soon.

Like I said, the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein wreaks havoc everywhere you look.

April

April 28

 

Then-Attorney Gen. Pam Bondi, center right, joins other Trump administration officials in falsely boasting in February 2025 outside the White  House that they had the Epstein Files in their hands and were about to release them.

New York Times, Epstein Scandal Looms Over King Charles’s U.S. Visit, Amelia Nierenberg, April 28, 2026. The king is not planning to meet with victims of Jeffrey Epstein during his state visit because of “ongoing police inquiries” in Britain. The king’s brother was close to Mr. Epstein, a convicted sex offender.

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal has ripped through the highest levels of Britain, prompting the firings of two top officials and a rupture in the royal family. Now it looms over the state visit of King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

Mr. Epstein, the convicted sex offender, cultivated ties with political and business elites on multiple continents, including with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the king’s brother. Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his titles over his connections to Mr. Epstein and was arrested this year over accusations of misconduct in public office, after reports that he may have shared confidential information with Mr. Epstein while serving as a British trade envoy. He has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged.

After his brother’s arrest, the king made a rare and direct public statement expressing support for an investigation. Since then, he has limited his public comments on the issue.

The king and queen will not meet with Mr. Epstein’s victims while in the United States, despite a request from Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. Lawyers representing Charles and Camilla said that they were unable to do so because of “ongoing police inquiries” in Britain.

Family members of Virginia Giuffre, a woman who said that Mr. Epstein had trafficked her to Britain and forced her to have sex with Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, expressed their frustration. “This is a missed opportunity,” Sky Roberts, Ms. Giuffre’s brother, told Britain’s Sky News.

Ms. Giuffre died by suicide last year before her memoir was published. Over the weekend, her family held a vigil in Washington to observe a year since her death.

“It means something to look into a survivor’s eyes and say: ‘I promise to give you a fair and thorough investigation in this, and that does not matter if it’s my brother or if it’s other perpetrators out there. I, the King of England, stand with survivors,’” Mr. Roberts added.

The Epstein scandal has also unraveled the career of Peter Mandelson, right, who was fired from his post as Britain’s ambassador to the United States last year after a batch of files showed the depth of his friendship with Mr. Epstein.

Mr. Mandelson was arrested this year over accusations that he had passed on confidential government information to Mr. Epstein in the late 2000s.

Mr. Mandelson is not accused of sexual misconduct. He remains under investigation but has not been charged with a crime and has denied any criminal wrongdoing.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, right, also fired Olly Robbins, the top civil servant in the Foreign Office, after it emerged that the department did not tell ministers that Mr. Mandelson had failed top-level vetting checks before he became ambassador. On Tuesday, during the royal visit, British lawmakers back in London heard testimony from other officials over the Mandelson case. 

 

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein partying together at Mar-a-Lago, along with an artist's rendering of a birthday card that the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein in 2003 boasting of their shared secrets. 

April 13

 

 

Occupy Democrats, Advocacy: : Trump HUMILIATED as judge tosses $10 billion Epstein letter lawsuit for failing basic legal test, Staff Report, April 13, 2026. Donald Trump has always routinely used lawsuits as a method of intimidating — and ultimately controlling — his critics and other perceived adversaries. Until recently, it’s been proven to be quite an effective strategy, forcing his opponents to choose between long and costly litigation and humiliating submission to the Orange Narcissist’s will.

Now, however, Trump’s tried and true tactic has hit a major speedbump.

Last year, Trump sued The Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over a story about a lewd birthday card he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. A federal judge just threw Dementia Donnie’s suit out of court — and the Journal's lawyers made one argument that deserves to be read twice: the story couldn't be defamatory because the conduct described was "consistent with Trump's reputation."

BOOM! That’s the sound of Trump’s head exploding after realizing that he won’t be able to use frivolous lawsuits to bully his antagonists into compliance with his wishes much longer.

Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed Trump's lawsuit Monday, ruling that Trump had failed to "plausibly allege" that the Journal published the story with actual malice — meaning the paper had no reason to believe it was false and in fact did its due diligence before publishing.

The Journal reached out to Trump for comment before publication. They noted his denial in the article. They investigated the claims. They published anyway, because the evidence supported the story.

The article, published last July, described a letter in a 2003 birthday album compiled for Epstein — apparently from Trump — featuring a drawing of a naked woman with Trump's signature filling in for pubic hair and the message: "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret."

Trump said he "never wrote a picture in my life" and called it "a fake thing." He filed the lawsuit the day after the article was published, seeking $10 billion — the same amount he's seeking from the IRS in a separate lawsuit he is filing against essentially himself as the head of government.

A copy of the birthday book, including the letter, was subsequently released to the House Oversight Committee by lawyers for Epstein's estate. Which is to say: the physical evidence of the letter's existence is now in congressional hands.

The case has been dismissed without prejudice, meaning Trump can refile. His legal team immediately announced they would bring back what they called "this powerhouse lawsuit," which is quite a creative description of a complaint a federal judge just ruled didn't plausibly allege the basic elements of defamation.

Here is the full picture of Donald Trump's relationship with the legal system right now.

He is suing the Wall Street Journal for reporting on his Epstein birthday letter. He is suing the IRS for $10 billion in a case he is negotiating against himself. He is seeking $230 million from the Justice Department over the January 6th and Mar-a-Lago cases. His pardoned allies are filing hundreds of additional claims seeking taxpayer money. His own pardon attorney is claiming executive privilege to escape ethics charges.

And Pam Bondi is still not sitting for her Epstein files deposition.

"May every day be another wonderful secret." Unfortunately for Donald Trump, some secrets have a way of getting out.

New York Times, Hollywood Heavyweights Sign Letter Opposing Paramount’s Deal for Warner Bros., Benjamin Mullin, April 13, 2026. The letter warns that the deal will result in fewer jobs for creatives, along with higher costs and less choice for audiences.

More than 1,000 writers, actors and directors released a letter on Monday opposing Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, saying the deal would harm Hollywood’s already distressed entertainment industry.

The letter, which was signed by well-known performers and directors including Bryan Cranston, Joaquin Phoenix, Tiffany Haddish, Lily Gladstone and Yorgos Lanthimos, warns that merging two of Hollywood’s major studios will result in “fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world.”

“We have witnessed a steep decline in the number of films produced and released, alongside a narrowing of the kinds of stories that are financed and distributed,” the letter said. “Increasingly, a small number of powerful entities determine what gets made — and on what terms — leaving creators and independent businesses with fewer viable paths to sustain their work.”

The letter comes months after Paramount and its chief executive, David Ellison, prevailed against Netflix to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery for $111 billion. Mr. Ellison has said that the deal will be good for the creative community, pledging to release at least 30 movies in theaters annually and invest in both studios. He has also argued that a deal with Netflix would have created a subscription streaming behemoth twice the size of its nearest competitor.

The letter was organized by a coalition of advocacy groups including the Committee for the First Amendment, the free speech group led by the actor Jane Fonda; Democracy Defenders Fund, an organization co-founded by Norm Eisen, an ambassador in the Obama administration; and the Future Film Coalition, a group of independent film professionals.

Paramount’s deal with Warner Bros. Discovery is expected to close later this year pending approval from shareholders and government regulators. The company has said that it does not expect any significant impediments to closing in the United States and that some countries like Germany and Slovenia have already given their approval to proceed.

But concerns about the deal loom over Hollywood. Michael O’Leary, chief executive of Cinema United, a trade organization that represents 30,000 movie screens in the United States, said in an interview that he was opposed to the acquisition, warning that any decrease in film production could result in more theater closings.

Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said that the acquisition was “not a done deal” but he expressed skepticism that the federal government would conduct a rigorous review.

In the letter, the signatories urged Mr. Bonta to continue scrutinizing the deal, saying they were prepared to support efforts to “ensure a vibrant future for our industry.”“Competition is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy,” the letter said. “So is thoughtful regulation and enforcement. Media consolidation has already weakened one of America’s most vital global industries — one that has long shaped culture and connected people around the world.”

Popular Information, Accountability Journalism: Coachella performers are funding the MAGA movement, Judd Legum, right, April 13, 2026. Following the money from Sabrina Carpenter, Justin Bieber, and Karol G to the politicians advancing Trump’s agenda.

Sabrina Carpenter, the headlining act of Coachella 2026, is an outspoken critic of the Trump administration and MAGA politics. The proceeds from her performance, however, will help get more MAGA Republicans elected.

Last December, when the Trump administration used her hit song “Juno” in an online video of ICE arrests, Carpenter issued a harsh rebuke. “This video is evil and disgusting,” Carpenter posted on X. “Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”

Carpenter’s progressive advocacy goes well beyond objecting to the appropriation of her tracks. In June 2025, as ICE raids intensified across the country, Carpenter encouraged her 50 million Instagram followers to donate to the National Immigration Law Center, which is fighting the Trump administration’s deportation agenda in court.

Since 2024, Carpenter has set aside $1 for every ticket sold to support a variety of causes, including LGBTQ rights. After Trump won a second term, Carpenter added the Transgender Law Center to the list of beneficiaries. In June 2024, Carpenter partnered with Van Leeuwen Ice Cream to create an Espresso flavor, donating a portion of the sales to an organization supporting LGBTQ youth.

In June 2025, Carpenter signed an open letter protesting the Trump administration’s decision to end federal funding for suicide prevention for LGBTQ youth. During her September 2025 performance at the MTV Video Music Awards, performers held signs reading “Protect Trans Rights,” “In Trans We Trust,” and “Support Local Drag.”

Carpenter’s performance came as Republican governors across the country signed anti-trans legislation and Trump issued multiple anti-trans executive orders.

Whether or not Carpenter is aware, the proceeds from her 20-song headlining set at Coachella — along with the other musical acts at Coachella — will help elect more MAGA Republicans and advance their “inhumane agenda.”

Here is how it works: Coachella is run by Anschutz Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of The Anschutz Corporation, which is owned by right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz. Money from The Anschutz Corporation’s treasury, which includes the profits from Coachella, is funneled directly to right-wing organizations that support key politicians funding ICE, undermining LGBTQ rights, and restricting abortion.

Republican governors, for example, have been signing legislation and taking other action to require local law enforcement to assist in ICE deportation raids. This has been a key lever to accelerate ICE’s crackdown.

The Anschutz Corporation donated $125,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) on April 3, 2025.

The company also donated $125,000 to the RGA in 2024, $100,000 in 2023, and $100,000 in 2022. (The RGA, which is organized as a 527 organization, has not yet had to disclose any 2026 donations.) This money is used to ensure as many Republicans as possible are elected governor. Over the same time period, the Anschutz Corporation has not donated any money to the Democratic Governors Association.

Republican attorneys general have also acted aggressively to assist ICE. In December 2025, for example, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R), a Trump loyalist, wrote a letter to the New Orleans Police Department demanding the department “fully cooperate” with a Trump administration ICE raid. Murrill suggested the failure to do so would be illegal.

The Anschutz Corporation donated $100,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) on April 1, 2025. This is the company’s first donation to RAGA since 2022, when it donated $125,000. Democratic attorneys general are fighting the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in court, but The Anschutz Corporation has not donated any funds to the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

The Republican-controlled Congress has provided tens of billions of dollars in additional funding for ICE. The Anschutz Corporation donated $250,000 to the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), a Super PAC devoted to maintaining Republican control of the Senate, on April 3, 2025. The company donated $500,000 to the SLF in 2024 and $500,000 in 2023. In 2023 and 2024, The Anschutz Corporation donated a combined $375,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the Super PAC supporting Republicans in the House. If Republicans lose control of either the House or the Senate, it will be much more difficult for the Trump administration to fund its immigration crackdown. The Anschutz Corporation has not donated any money to Super PACs supporting the election of Democrats.

Candidates and officials who are supported by RGA, RAGA, SLF, and CLF have also worked to undermine other issues important to Carpenter, including LGBTQ rights. Republican governors signed dozens of anti-LGBTQ laws last year, Republican attorneys general are filing lawsuits to restrict LGBTQ rights, and Republicans in Congress are pushing anti-LGBTQ legislation.

Carpenter is not the only prominent musician taking the stage at Coachella this year to speak out against the MAGA agenda. Justin Bieber, another 2026 headliner, wore an “ICE Out” pin to the Grammy Awards in February 2026. Jack White called Trump an “obvious fascist” in 2024 and sued the Trump campaign to prevent the use of “Seven Nation Army” in a campaign video. White specifically called out Trump’s “gestapo ICE tactics.” During the ICE raids of 2025, Karol G wrote, “I am Latina, and what is happening to my community is deeply painful. Being Latino shouldn’t generate rejection or fear.” Addison Rae also condemned the ICE raids, writing, “I’m so disappointed and disturbed by what is happening across our nation. This country could not exist without immigrants.”

Karly Hartzman of Wednesday, an indie band, closed its 2026 Coachella set by declaring, “Fuck ICE’ and free Palestine.” David Byrne, the lead singer of Talking Heads, projected images of anti-ICE protests as he performed the song, “Life During Wartime.”

All of these artists, and others who have made similar statements, are now generating profits for Anschutz, which he is using to support MAGA politicians.

In 2022, Popular Information reported on The Anschutz Corporation’s support of RAGA in light of the group’s efforts to restrict abortion rights. Representatives of The Anschutz Corporation told Popular Information the donations should not be considered an endorsement of the organization’s views on any issue. “Mr. Anschutz makes contributions to numerous organizations, usually for specific reasons,” a spokesperson said. “He does not review or support each of the positions taken by such organizations.”

In 2017, Anschutz faced scrutiny after his foundation donated to anti-LGBTQ groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council. He denied he was financing anti-LGBTQ causes, calling the claims “fake news.” Anschutz declared that he “unequivocally” supports “the rights of all people without regard to sexual orientation.”

Anschutz claimed in 2017 to have “immediately ceased all contributions” to groups that oppose LGBTQ rights. Anschutz, however, continues to support groups like the RGA and RAGA, which support politicians who are restricting LGBTQ rights.

First Lady Melania Trump delivers remarks at the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, Tuesday, March 24, 2026, at the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. ( Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks via Flickr).

Lincoln Square, Opinion: The Melania Files, Kristoffer Ealy. April 11, 2026. The First Lady wants us to buy that she didn't know Jeffrey Epstein. Let's take a deep dive into her history and her character.

On April 9, 2026, Melania Trump walked into the Grand Foyer of the White House, stood at a podium, and asked the American public to believe her. She never knew Jeffrey Epstein. She never visited his island. She never boarded his plane. The email she sent to his convicted child sex-trafficker girlfriend — the one that opened with “Dear G!” and closed with “Love, Melania” and included warm thoughts about a magazine profile of the man she claims was practically a stranger — was just casual correspondence. A trivial note.

She spoke for five minutes, read from a prepared statement, plugged her book, told Congress what investigations to conduct, and walked away without taking a single question. A press conference where you don’t take questions isn’t a press conference. That’s a hostage video with better lighting.

I want to be very clear about something before we go any further: I do not believe this woman. I have not believed this woman for a long time. And it is not because of anything Jeffrey Epstein-related. It is because I have been watching Melania Trump operate for the better part of fifteen years, and what I have observed is a person who lies the way most people breathe — reflexively, efficiently, and without apparent discomfort. The difference between Melania Trump lying and Melania Trump telling the truth is not something you merely hear. It is something you feel. It settles into the room like humidity. And what settled into the White House Grand Foyer on April 9, 2026 was very, very familiar.

The media will spend the next several days debating whether her denial was credible. I am not interested in that debate. I am interested in the record. Because the record is long, it is documented, and it has more receipts than a Whole Foods on a Saturday afternoon. Let’s go through it.1996: She arrives in the United States on a tourist visa and immediately starts working.

Melania Knauss entered the country in August 1996 on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa — the kind of visa that permits networking and business meetings but explicitly prohibits paid employment. According to reporting by the Associated Press, she accepted at least ten modeling jobs in the United States after that entry, before her work authorization was officially approved.

Her lawyer claims she obtained H-1B status in October 1996, conveniently plugging the gap. Now, you would think that a woman married to a man who has built his entire second act on screaming about illegal immigration would have airtight documentation proving she followed every rule to the letter. You would think she would have held that promised press conference, released those documents, and put the whole thing to rest. You would be wrong. The press conference never happened. The documents were never released. The public was simply expected to take her word for it.

The irony of an undocumented worker becoming the First Lady of the most aggressive anti-immigration administration in modern history is the kind of thing that would be funny if it weren’t so catastrophically on the nose.

Kristoffer Ealy is a political scientist, political analyst, and professor in Southern California. He teaches American Government and political behavior, with a focus on political psychology, voting behavior, and political socialization.  

April 12 

New York Times, Swalwell Suspends Campaign for California Governor Amid Sexual Assault Accusations, Jill Cowan, April 12, 2026. In a social media post, the representative said he was “deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past,” but promised to fight what he called “false allegations.”

Eric Swalwell, right, a Democratic congressman from the San Francisco Bay Area, said in a social media post on Sunday evening that he is suspending his campaign for California governor in the wake of allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staff member and engaged in sexual misconduct with other women.

The accusations, published Friday in articles by The San Francisco Chronicle and CNN, prompted rescinded endorsements, a criminal investigation and, now, his withdrawal from the race. Mr. Swalwell has repeatedly denied the accusations and continued to do so Sunday evening.

“To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past,” Mr. Swalwell said in a post on X. “I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.”

The post did not mention his role in the House.

Mr. Swalwell, who beat an 80-year-old incumbent for his seat in 2012 and briefly ran for president in 2019, had benefited from higher name recognition than many of his competitors, but the field was — and still is — wide open.

A former prosecutor and local politician in the East Bay suburb of Dublin, Calif., Mr. Swalwell, 45, had in recent years raised his profile as a frequent and vocal critic of President Trump, becoming a fixture on cable news.

On Saturday, one day after the news investigations published, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said it was investigating Mr. Swalwell. According to The Chronicle and CNN, a former staffer of Mr. Swalwell’s alleged that he sexually assaulted her in a New York hotel.

Several Democratic officials — and more than 50 of his former staff members — had called for him to step aside. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker whose word carries perhaps the most weight of any Democratic leader in California politics, said in a statement on Friday afternoon that she had spoken with Mr. Swalwell and told him that the “extremely sensitive matter” should be investigated thoroughly.

“It is clear that is best done outside of a gubernatorial campaign,” she said.

Ms. Pelosi, who has said she will retire at the end of the year, has not backed a candidate.

Later on Friday, House Democratic leaders issued a joint statement calling on Mr. Swalwell to drop out. None of them said he should resign from Congress, though other candidates for governor did, and a Republican congresswoman, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, said she would file a motion to expel him from the House.

When Mr. Swalwell jumped into the crowded race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, he amassed support from other elected officials, including Senator Adam Schiff, as well as some of the state’s biggest unions. The endorsements helped propel him to a leading spot in polls — albeit by a thin margin — among the many Democratic candidates leading up to the primary on June 2.

But a few days before the news reports containing the allegations, online rumors swirled that Mr. Swalwell had behaved inappropriately toward staff members after two liberal influencers posted that they had been told about sexual misconduct by him. On Tuesday, he forcefully denied ever having had inappropriate relationships with staffers.

Then, on Friday, The Chronicle published the account of the former staff member, who accused Mr. Swalwell of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions, including while she was too intoxicated to consent. Just hours later, CNN published a report in which four women, including one who appeared to be the same former staffer, described sexual misconduct by Mr. Swalwell. The New York Times has not confirmed the sexual assault accusations.

Ally Sammarco, who was named in the CNN report, spoke to The Times and said Mr. Swalwell had sent her inappropriate messages on Snapchat in 2021, including unsolicited nude images.

April 11

San Francisco Chronicle, Investigation:Ex-staffer says Eric Swalwell, candidate for California governor, sexually assaulted her, Alexei Koseff and  Sophia Bollag, April 10-11, 2026. Rep. Eric Swalwell denied allegations by a former staff member that he had sexually assaulted her, once when she was working for his office and years later when she was no longer an employee. “These anonymous election eve claims are categorically false,” his campaign said.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, right, denied allegations by a former staff member that he had sexually assaulted her, once when she was working for his office and years later when she was no longer an employee. “These anonymous election eve claims are categorically false,” his campaign said.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press

A woman who worked for nearly two years for Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading candidate for California governor, said she had sexual encounters with him while he was her boss and alleged he twice sexually assaulted her when she was too intoxicated to consent.

Swalwell did not respond to any of the former staffer’s specific allegations, made in a series of interviews with the Chronicle, and provided a statement Friday:

“These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the frontrunner for governor,” he wrote. “For nearly 20 years, I have served the public — as a prosecutor and a congressman and have always protected women. I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action. My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies.”

Late Thursday, an attorney for Swalwell sent a cease-and-desist letter to the woman, saying she had “made false statements accusing Mr. Swalwell of sexual assault and nonconsensual sexual encounter,” and threatening to sue her if she did not retract her allegations.See more S.F. Chronicle on GoogleMake us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.Add Preferred Source

On Friday afternoon, shortly after the Chronicle published an initial version of this story, Swalwell allies including both chairs of his campaign — Democratic Reps. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles and Adam Gray of Turlock (Stanislaus County) — began withdrawing their endorsements and calling on him to drop out of the gubernatorial race. Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, one of Swalwell’s most powerful allies, also called on him to leave the race.

The woman said Swalwell began pursuing her within weeks after she was hired at age 21 to work in the Democrat’s district office in Castro Valley in 2019. Swalwell messaged her on Snapchat, she said, sending images of his genitals and seeking nude pictures of her in return.

She said Swalwell, who is married and 17 years her senior at age 45, tried to kiss her in her car when she drove him home from a donor meeting one night. Driving him to another event weeks later, she said Swalwell pulled out his penis in the car and asked her to perform oral sex on him. She said she did so in a parking lot.

In September 2019, the woman said, Swalwell invited her out for drinks and she became so severely intoxicated that she does not remember the rest of the night. She said she woke up naked in Swalwell’s hotel bed and could feel the effect of vaginal intercourse. She said Swalwell distanced himself from her afterward and the relationship faded.

Five years later, the woman said, she attended an April 2024 charity gala where Swalwell was honored. The woman, who no longer worked for Swalwell, said they met for drinks afterward, during which she became so inebriated that she remembers only snippets of the night, including pushing Swalwell away and telling him, “No,” while he allegedly forced himself on her.

The woman texted a friend three days later that she was “sexually assaulted” by Swalwell. She wrote in a series of messages reviewed by the Chronicle that she had “blacked out” but “woke up once during it and even told him to stop at one point.”

“This happened one other time when I was working with him, but I convinced myself I was an equal party in it even though same pattern: I blacked out and he had sex with me,” she wrote, referring to the 2019 incident.

The Chronicle spoke with the friend and the woman’s then-boyfriend, whom she said she told about the alleged 2024 assault when she got home the next day. Both described her as still disoriented that morning, and her then-boyfriend said he encouraged her to report Swalwell to the police.

The woman said she did not go to the authorities because she was afraid they would not believe her. Medical records show she obtained pregnancy and STD tests a week after the incident.

The Chronicle shared a detailed summary of the woman’s account with Swalwell’s campaign Thursday.

Swalwell’s attorney, Elias Dabaie, wrote in the cease-and-desist letter that the woman had exhibited “the conduct of a loyal and supportive colleague, not a victim” and that “the credibility of your accusations is fatally undermined by your voluntary and cooperative relationship with Mr. Swalwell over the course of many years following the period in question.”

The letter mentioned the woman’s use of Swalwell as a professional reference and her recent outreach to the Swalwell campaign about social media posts alleging his misconduct.

An attorney representing the woman, Gerald Singleton, responded to Dabaie on Friday, writing that her “statements are 100% factually accurate, and she will not be withdrawing them.”

In recent weeks, political influencers and other social media accounts have alleged sexual misconduct by Swalwell. The online posts have not included any specific evidence, but gained enough attention that Swalwell issued a public denial, saying he had never behaved inappropriately toward or slept with female staffers during his seven terms in Congress.

“No, no, it’s false,” Swalwell told reporters after a town hall in Sacramento on Tuesday evening, characterizing the posts on social media as political attacks less than a month before people begin voting in the primary election, in which the top two candidates will advance to November’s general election.Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Castro Valley, denied claims by a former staff member that he had sexually assaulted her. “These anonymous election eve claims are categorically false,” his campaign said.

Politico, Jeffries, Pelosi and other Democrats call on Eric Swalwell to end governor campaign, Riley Rogerson, April 11, 2026. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi headlined a growing list of Democratic lawmakers called on Rep. Eric Swalwell Friday to withdraw his campaign for California governor amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

“This extremely sensitive matter must be appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability,” Pelosi said in a statement. “As I discussed with Congressman Swalwell, it is clear that is best done outside of a gubernatorial campaign.”

In a joint statement with other elected House Democratic leaders, Jeffries, right, called for a “swift investigation” as well as the end of his pending campaign.

“This is unacceptable of anyone — certainly not an elected official — and must be taken seriously,” the leaders said.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that a former congressional aide accused the congressman of two sexual encounters without her consent, beginning in 2019. CNN later reported that four women allege that Swalwell has committed sexual misconduct, including one former staffer who accuses Swalwell of rape.

Swalwell denied the allegations in a statement.

“These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the frontrunner for governor,” he said. “I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action.”

Key backers of Swalwell’s governor bid swiftly revoked their support after the Chronicle’s story was published, including Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) and Adam Gray (D-Calif.), who served as campaign co-chairs.

New York Times, Swalwell Faces Sex Assault Accusations and Calls to Quit Governor’s Race, Laurel Rosenhall and Madison Malone Kircher, Updated April 11, 2026. Eric Swalwell, a Democratic congressman, denied the accounts published by CNN and The San Francisco Chronicle. Nancy Pelosi was among those who said he should withdraw from the California governor’s race.

Representative Eric Swalwell of California, right, faced accusations of sexual misconduct on Friday, prompting immediate calls for him to drop out of the governor’s race as key Democratic supporters abandoned him.

The San Francisco Chronicle published an account Friday from a woman who was not named but gave detailed descriptions of several sexual encounters she said she had with Mr. Swalwell, including two instances in which she said he had assaulted her when she was too intoxicated to consent.

Hours later, CNN published a report with four women accusing Mr. Swalwell of a range of misconduct, including a former staff member who appeared to be the same person in The Chronicle’s account. CNN’s report also described allegations from a Democratic activist who said Mr. Swalwell had touched her thigh and tried to kiss her in the booth of a bar before bringing her to his hotel room, and from two women who said he had sent them unsolicited photos of his penis.

Mr. Swalwell immediately denied the accusations and said later on Friday that he would continue to fight them.

“These allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the front-runner for governor,” he said in his initial statement Friday. “For nearly 20 years, I have served the public — as a prosecutor and a congressman and have always protected women. I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action.”

The New York Times has not confirmed the accusations of sexual assault.

The allegations were already upending Mr. Swalwell’s campaign, with senior officials quitting and powerful interest groups retracting their endorsements. Representative Jimmy Gomez, a California Democrat who had been his campaign chairman, said he was stepping down immediately and called on Mr. Swalwell to withdraw from the race. Mr. Gomez called the accounts of misconduct the “the ugliest and most serious accusations imaginable.”

“My involvement in any campaign begins and ends with trust,” Mr. Gomez said, adding that Mr. Swalwell should leave the race “so there can be full accountability without doubt, distraction, or delay.”

The House minority leader, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, as well as other Democratic leaders in Congress, asked Mr. Swalwell to drop out of the California governor’s race. They did not demand his resignation from the House but called for a swift investigation into the sexual assault allegations.

“This is unacceptable of anyone — certainly not an elected official — and must be taken seriously,” they said in a statement.

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker who continues to wield tremendous influence over California politics, said that she told Mr. Swalwell to drop out of the governor’s race.

One of the four women in the CNN report, Ally Sammarco, said in an interview with The Times on Friday night that Mr. Swalwell sent her inappropriate messages on Snapchat in 2021.

Ms. Sammarco, a 28-year-old content creator, was working as a field organizer for the Democratic Party of Virginia on behalf of Terry McAuliffe, a candidate for governor, when she reached out to Mr. Swalwell on Twitter that August.

After some conversation, he offered to connect Ms. Sammarco, then 24, with his team and gave her his personal cellphone number, asking her to text him. The conversation shifted from her work to “more friendly” chatting, she said, providing screenshots of text messages to The Times. Later, he asked her if she had a Snapchat account. (She said she did not have records of those exchanges because Snapchat content disappears after a period of time.)

On Snapchat, Mr. Swalwell sent her messages she felt were “inappropriate,” asking her personal questions, discussing alcohol and telling her she was attractive.

“A lot of it was like photos of him going on trips, on airplanes, in hotels, him laying in bed, and then like things like, ‘What would you do if I was, like, with you’ or, like, ‘Wish you were here,’” Ms. Sammarco said.

Once, unprompted, Mr. Swalwell sent her a photo of his penis, Ms. Sammarco said. “It made me feel gross and uncomfortable,” she said. “I didn’t ask for that.”

About three months after Ms. Sammarco’s text exchanges with Mr. Swalwell began, his wife gave birth to their third child. While he was posting photos of the baby on public social media platforms, he was writing Ms. Sammarco in private. “He would send me messages like, ‘When am I going to see you?’” she said.

The messages, she said, were off-putting, and she slowly stopped responding, realizing that he was not going to help her find a job. By December 2021, they had fallen out of touch.

The allegations have prompted some of Mr. Swalwell’s closest allies in Congress to abandon him. Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who had been the most prominent state leader to have endorsed Mr. Swalwell, called on Mr. Swalwell to drop out.

Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, also pulled his endorsement. It was a significant withdrawal, as the men are close friends and Mr. Gallego often has attended Little League games with Mr. Swalwell’s children. The senator said he regretted that he had come to Mr. Swalwell’s defense in recent days before specific allegations were published.

“What is described is indefensible,” Mr. Gallego said. “Women who come forward with accounts like this deserve to be heard with respect, not questioned or dismissed.”

Mr. Swalwell had begun to harness support in recent weeks from labor unions and professional associations that hold sway in the State Capitol, and he was starting to separate himself in polls from other prominent Democrats as the primary, in June, drew closer.

Mr. Swalwell is among eight prominent Democrats and two well-known Republicans competing in California’s nonpartisan primary to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run again because of term limits. If he were to drop out, the race would become scrambled.

Among the candidates likeliest to benefit from the fallout would be Katie Porter — a Democrat who once represented an Orange County, Calif., district in Congress — and Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has courted union members and emphasized his progressive agenda.

Groups that had endorsed Mr. Swalwell’s campaign were scrambling to put together emergency meetings to reconsider next steps on Friday. One of the state’s most powerful labor unions, the California Teachers Association, quickly rescinded its endorsement.

“We withdraw all support,” David Goldberg, the group’s president, said in a statement. “The disturbing allegations by multiple women cannot be ignored.”

Another major labor union, Service Employees International Union California, which had put $5 million into an account to support Mr. Swalwell, announced that it had suspended its campaigning for him and would meet to discuss next steps. The state’s doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Association, was also rushing to discuss whether to withdraw its endorsement of Mr. Swalwell.

An independent committee that had raised $7.7 million from the medical association, Uber and other donors to run ads supporting Mr. Swalwell suspended its campaign activity Friday. And a Hollywood fund-raiser planned for this month was suddenly “postponed until further notice,” according to an email from the hosts that was obtained by The Times.

“We will see how things shake out, but if true it’s a huge disappointment,” read the note, from Lucy Stutz and Jared Levine.

Mr. Swalwell, who is married and has three young children, was elected to Congress in 2012 after challenging an 80-year-old Democratic incumbent in a campaign that highlighted generational change. He represents a suburban district east of San Francisco, and is known for a punchy social media presence and frequent appearances on cable news programs.

In a video released Friday night, Mr. Swalwell insisted the sexual assault allegations were false but apologized to his wife.

“I do not suggest to you in any way that I’m perfect or that I’m a saint,” he said. “I have certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past, but those mistakes are between me and my wife and to her, I apologize deeply for putting her in this position.”

Late Thursday night, a lawyer for Mr. Swalwell sent cease-and-desist letters to women who had made accusations against him, threatening to sue them for defamation if they allowed their claims to be published. Those letters were sent after CNN and The Chronicle approached Mr. Swalwell’s campaign with specific allegations, the outlets said.

“We learned from press outlets that there are multiple allegations made against the congressman. We believe those allegations are baseless and continue to seek the truth,” Elias Dabaie, Mr. Swalwell’s lawyer, said in an email to The Times. “We also want to understand why these allegations would suddenly arise on the eve on an election against the front-runner in what appears to be a coordinated effort to undermine his candidacy.”

The accusations against Mr. Swalwell, who briefly ran for president in 2019, were the first specific claims to emerge after speculation had circulated online for weeks.

At first, Mr. Swalwell ignored social media posts from two liberal influencers who said that they had spoken with women who had experienced or had knowledge of sexual misconduct by the congressman. The posts did not include any specific claims.

But this week — before The Chronicle and CNN reports were published — he forcefully denied ever having had inappropriate relationships with female staffers. He also denied the existence of nondisclosure agreements, which the social media posts had said was a reason that victims were reluctant to come forward.

“It’s false,” he said Tuesday, as he answered questions from reporters at a campaign event in Sacramento. “There’s never been an allegation, and there’s never been a settlement.”

With ballots being mailed to voters in less than a month for the election, Mr. Swalwell on Tuesday chalked up the allegations as the kind of dirty politics that play out when campaign season heats up. He said he was addressing the unfounded rumors because “I don’t want there to be any question in the minds of Californians.”

 

PoliticusUSA, Political Opinion: Eric Swalwell Needs To Go Right Now, Jason Easley, right, April 11, 2026. Rep. Swalwell is accused of everything from sexual misconduct to rape. Top California and House Democrats are calling on Swalwell drop out of the gubernatorial primary, but that's just the start.

There are two points about the allegations against Rep. Eric Swalwell. The allegations are vast. They span multiple women over several years. Not all allegations are anonymous and have been verified by media reports.

CNN reported:

A former staffer of Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading Democratic candidate for California governor, says that the congressman raped her when she was heavily intoxicated and left her bruised and bleeding, an allegation Swalwell strongly denies.…She said it was the second time Swalwell had nonconsensual sexual contact with her while she was drunk. In 2019, when she was still working for him, she said she woke up naked with him in a hotel room after a night of heavy drinking. She said she had no memory of what happened but could feel physically that they’d had sexual contact.Three other women who spoke with CNN also alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by the Democratic congressman – including Swalwell sending them unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos.

Rep. Swalwell released a video late Friday night denying all of the allegations, but he did make general references to not being perfect and making mistakes.

MS NOW has confirmed some of the allegations independently, and reported on Saturday morning, and one of the women making the allegations explained why she came forward now, “ One more thing I wanna read that the woman told me last night, I really felt the responsibility to, to protect younger staffers because no one protected me and I really didn't want to go on knowing this information, wondering of another person could be hurt by him.”Video: Eric Swalwell is only thinking about himself and his campaign, but this is about women, abuse of power, and who Democrats and the country want to be.What I found most troubling about the allegations against Rep. Swalwell is that people knew and did nothing. I am not talking about the women making the accusations.

The statement by one of the victims that there was no one there to protect them. She had no support and did not feel like she could come forward.

Sadly, this is the norm for women rather than a unique feeling. Epstein survivors have been trying to get justice for decades, but there are rich and powerful people protecting other rich and powerful people.

The Democratic Party proclaims itself to be different. Democrats have made a political issue out of Epstein and justice for the survivors, but the dynamic of a powerful man allegedly using his power to prey on women is not limited to Republicans, Trump, and Epstein.

If Democrats want to show that they are different from Trump and his party, they can start by getting rid of Swalwell. There is talk that the party is pressuring Swalwell to end his gubernatorial campaign, and then they are going to demand that he resign from Congress.This doesn’t need to be a two-step process.

So far, Swalwell is pulling from the Trump playbook and denying everything while vowing to fight. He has referenced “mistakes” and “not being perfect,” but he has taken zero responsibility.

Multiple women are telling the same story about Swalwell, but it shouldn’t take multiple women before they are believed. It should only take one verified allegation.

There doesn’t need to be a wait-and-see period to find out if Swalwell does the right thing. The women who were allegedly sexually assaulted and raped didn’t get to “wait and see.”

The issue here is greater than politics. It is about women being treated as equals and feeling safe in the workplace and in life.

Actions speak louder than words, and Democrats must act immediately on the Swalwell allegations.

US Weekly, Who Is Eric Swalwell’s Wife? What to Know About Brittany Watts After His Apology for ‘Mistakes,’ Miranda Siwak, April 11, 2026. Congressman Eric Swalwell issued an apology to his wife, Brittany Watts (shown together previously on a Facebook photo), after he was accused of sexual assault by multiple women.

“I do not suggest to you in any way that I’m perfect or I’m a saint,” Swalwell said in a social media video shared in April 2026, addressing the claims. “I have certainly made mistakes and judgment in my past, but those mistakes are between me and my wife.”

He continued, “To her, I apologize deeply for putting her in this position.”

Several hours earlier, four women — including one of Swalwell’s former staffers — accused the politician of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and rape. Swalwell has vehemently denied the accusations, vowing to “fight” them “with everything” he has.

Swalwell is a democratic congressman representing California’s 14th congressional district. He is the frontrunner in the 2026 race for California governor.

Watts, for her part, has not publicly addressed Swalwell’s scandal. 

Swalwell and Watts met in September 2015 by mutual friends, whom the politician set up on a date 12 years earlier.

Brittany Watts keeps a low profile amid her husband Eric Swalwell’s political career. She is a small business owner in hospitality, according to an entry on his congressional website.

News Updates

The Parnas Perspective, News and Commentary: White House Desperately Scrambles to Move on From Epstein, China Set to Help Iran Militarily, Trump Invokes Allah Again While Launching Operation to Reopen Strait of Hormuz, Aaron Parnas, right, April 11, 2026. Right now there is a clear and renewed push by the White House to move on from the Epstein files. Even aides close to Donald Trump were reportedly confused and caught off guard by why Melania Trump suddenly addressed Epstein this week. I am still working to track down exactly what triggered that move, but one thing is certain: this story is not going away, and it will not be buried again.

At the same time, negotiations over the war with Iran are now underway, with reports that China could soon supply new military equipment to Iran. All of this is unfolding while Trump continues posting unusual rhetoric, including praising Allah on Truth Social.

If you value this kind of reporting, I’m asking you to subscribe and support my work. This is not easy journalism. It takes time, persistence, and a willingness to pursue stories others avoid, especially when it comes to Epstein and the powerful networks surrounding him.Subscribed

My commitment is simple: the truth, and standing with survivors, no matter how uncomfortable that becomes. Your support directly sustains independent journalism like this and helps ensure these stories continue to be investigated and exposed.

Here’s the news:

The White House had been trying to move past the Jeffrey Epstein controversy as focus shifted to foreign policy and elections, with officials believing the issue had largely faded. However, Melania Trump abruptly brought it back into the spotlight with a public denial of any ties, driven by her frustration with ongoing media coverage. Her statement caught aides—and even Donald Trump—off guard, as it had not been fully coordinated and revived a politically damaging narrative. The move disrupted the administration’s efforts to move on and left officials concerned about renewed scrutiny and prolonged fallout. And now, the White House is scrambling to move on again.

Melania Trump’s decision to publicly deny ties to Jeffrey Epstein has been widely framed as a self-inflicted PR disaster. Instead of shutting down rumors, the sudden press conference dragged the issue back into headlines and intensified scrutiny of her past connections and the broader Trump circle. Critics describe it as a classic “Streisand effect,” where trying to suppress a story only amplifies it, and some speculate it may have been an attempt to get ahead of potential new revelations. The episode has complicated efforts by Donald Trump’s administration to move on, fueling renewed political pressure and prolonging the controversy.

April 9 

 

From left: American real estate developer Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, February 12, 2000. Getty Images.

New York Times, Melania Trump Says She Was Not a Victim of Jeffrey Epstein, Shawn McCreesh, April 9, 2026. Responding to what she said were smears, the first lady said she never had knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of victims. She called on Congress to continue investigating.

Melania Trump said on Thursday that she was not a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and that she had no knowledge of the abuse of his victims. She said she wanted to clear “my good name.”

“Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been percolating for years now,” Mrs. Trump told reporters at the White House in a rare public statement.

It was not clear why she chose to speak out now or to what reports in particular she was referring. She called on Congress to give a hearing to the victims. A spokesperson for Mrs. Trump said that the president was aware that his wife was going to make the statement.

She addressed cordial emails she had sent to Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime companion of Mr. Epstein, but hit out hard at insinuations that she was in any way connected to Ms. Maxwell’s or Mr. Epstein’s crimes. And she called on Congress to keep investigating the financier.

PoliticusUSA, News and Commentary: Melania Trump Has Given Herself A Giant Epstein Problem, Sarah Jones, April 9, 2026. First Lady Melania Trump has watched her approval rating plummet, so she went before the nation and told America to stop connecting her to Jeffrey Epstein.

First Lady Melania Trump is historically unpopular. First Ladies are normally popular. They are not elected officials. First Ladies are usually not overly political and it is not uncommon for them to have higher approval ratings than their husbands.

CNN’s Harry Enten laid out how unpopular Melania Trump is:

 We got her at 12 points underwater. Look at the rest of these first ladies on the board right here. They're all way above water. 42 points above water for Michelle Obama. 46 above water for Laura Bush. 25 points above water for Hillary Clinton, who always was not always the most popular and 50 points above water for Nancy Reagan. And I even looked at Jill Biden's numbers at this point in that presidency. Of course, that was term one. She was above water as well, so this is the worst at this point in a presidency as well.

The First Lady decided that now is the perfect time to yell at the American people and demand that they stop linking her to Jeffrey Epstein.

Melania Trump said at the White House:

 The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein. Need to end today, the individuals lying about me, a devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.

I never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach, to be clear. I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice Maxwell.

My email reply to Maxwell cannot be characterized as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than a tribal note. I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband by chance at the New York City party in 1998. This initial account with my husband is documented in a detail in my book Melania.

On the good side of this very strange ledger, she did call for a hearing to be held featuring the Epstein survivors, “Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony. Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the congressional record. Then and only then, we will have the truth.”

The First Lady also said that the unindicted Epstein co-conspirators should face prosecution. 

All in all, the press conference was bizarre, and it seemed like an attempt by Melania Trump to get out in front of potential news that may soon be coming out. While trying to distance herself, Melania Trump created a new headache for her husband, his administration, and herself.

 

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein partying together at Mar-a-Lago, along with an artist's rendering of a birthday card that the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein in 2003 boasting of their shared secrets.

Daily Mail, Melania Trump: 'I am Not Epstein's Victim,' Ross Ibbetson, Jon Michael Raashand Nikki Schwab, April 9, 2026. Trump makes astonishing claim he was BLINDSIDED by Melania's Epstein bombshell. Donald Trump has claimed he was blindsided by Melania's surprise White House address blasting 'smears' linking her to Jeffrey Epstein.

The President told MS Now he 'didn't know anything about' the First Lady's statement before she appeared on camera.

Trump added that 'she didn't know [Epstein]' before hanging up on the reporter.

Melania had earlier sent shockwaves through Washington with a surprise address denying she was an Epstein victim or that the pedophile financier had introduced her to her future husband.

The reason for the announcement was not immediately clear as there have not been any recent revelations or reporting linking Melania to Epstein.

'I am not Epstein's victim,' the First Lady said from the Cross Hall of the White House. 'Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband by chance at a New York City party in 1998.'

Melania said that she had 'never been friends with Epstein' and also denied any intimacy with Ghislaine Maxwell after an email to the British socialite appeared in the files released by the Justice Department.

The First Lady, a model when she first met Trump, said she and the President encountered Epstein only within the New York-Palm Beach social set, calling such overlap 'common.' 

April 8

 

 

 

Attorney Gen. Pam Bondi, center right, joins other Trump administration officials in boasting in February 2025 outside the White House that they held in their hands "The Epstein Files" in binders that they would soon release -- a year ago. Shown below: Victims in February raised their hands during Bondi testimony when they were asked if the Justice Department had failed to follow up on their complaints.

The Parnas Perspective, Evening News and Comment: Congress Set to Force Pam Bondi to Testify

Occupy Democrats, Opinion and Advocacy: Fired AG Pam Bondi defies congressional subpoena to testify on Epstein files — but only Trump’s DOJ can prosecute her, Staff Reports, April 8, 2026. Before Pam Bondi unceremoniously got fired, she got hit with a congressional subpoena. But now she's unilaterally decided that she doesn't have to show up.

The former Attorney General of the United States — the woman Rep. Robert Garcia accused of "leading a White House cover-up of the Epstein files" — will not appear before the House Oversight Committee for her April 14th deposition, the Justice Department announced. Her excuse? She's no longer Attorney General, so the subpoena doesn't count.

There's just one problem with that argument: it's wrong.

Democrats on the committee have pointed out that Bondi was subpoenaed by name — not by title — just as other former attorneys general have been. A subpoena doesn't expire when you get fired. That's not how subpoenas work. That's not how any of this works.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) saw this coming. "For those keeping track, Pam Bondi is about to be out of compliance with not one but two lawful subpoenas if she fails to show up for a sworn deposition next week," she wrote on Monday. "Even after being fired, she's still legally obligated to show up."

And here's the part that should make every American's blood boil: defying a congressional subpoena is a crime. The committee could vote to refer Bondi for criminal prosecution. But that referral would go to the Justice Department — the same Justice Department now run by acting AG Todd Blanche, who on Tuesday refused to say whether Bondi would comply and floated the possibility of invoking privileges to help her avoid testifying altogether.

It’s a confounding situation. Pam Bondi defied a subpoena related to covering up the Epstein files. The only people who can prosecute her for defying that subpoena work for the man she was allegedly covering up for.Let's remember what this investigation is actually about. Jeffrey Epstein's files. The client list. The names of the powerful men who allegedly abused children and have never faced consequences. Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically to force the disclosure of all of the files. Bondi slow-walked it, dodged it, and held off-the-record meetings with members specifically to avoid being questioned under oath. Rep. Summer Lee walked out of one of those meetings in protest.

Now Bondi has been fired, subpoenaed, and is refusing to appear. The survivors of Epstein's abuse are still waiting for answers. And the Justice Department is weighing whether to help her avoid accountability entirely.This is what a cover-up looks like in broad daylight.Please like and share this article if you believe no one — not even a fired Attorney General — is above a congressional subpoena. 

Alisa Writes, Investigative Commentary: The Terrifying Real Reason For Jeffrey Epstein's Remote Zorro Ranch Emerges When You Examine the Ranch Next Door, Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, April 8, 2026. Part 2 of a series of articles looking at the relationship between Epstein and the San Cristobal Ranch, owned by former OSS member Henry Singleton.

Please note: What follows is analysis and hypothesis based upon available facts. To “prove” all of it would require a level of security clearance and access to classified intelligence documents I do not possess.

United States President Harry Truman signing Executive Order 9621 to abolish the Office of Strategic Services on September 20, 1945.

In September 1945, President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9621 and abolished the Office of Strategic Services — the wartime intelligence agency that had run covert operations across Europe and Asia for the duration of World War II. Truman was a plain-spoken man from Missouri who did not believe a democracy needed a secret intelligence apparatus in peacetime. He dissolved the OSS and sent its men home.

Not all of them were happy about it.

The OSS had attracted a particular kind of American — young, educated, ambitious, comfortable with secrecy, thrilled by consequence. Many had, for the first time in their lives, felt both the specific gravity that comes from operating outside normal rules in service of large stakes. It was addictive, as was the sense of belonging this secret brotherhood conferred. Some of these men were brilliant. Some were ruthless. Many had to be both. What most of them shared was that the war that horrified the world had given them something they’d never had before: Importance. And they did not want it to end.A group of OSS men in 1944.

So they did not let it end. Not in reality. In law, sure. But they continued on, likely with a certain bitterness towards Truman. They reorganized. They planned. In secret. As they’d been trained to do. And as soon as they saw an opening, they took it.

The opening came when Truman had created a new organization called The Central Intelligence Group. He saw it as a small presidential newspaper of sorts, that could brief him, personally, on important issues of the day. The OSS veterans — who had never really stopped working — flooded back in, to make themselves indispensable. What Truman had envisioned as having 100 employees soon had 1,800. He watched, somewhat helplessly, as the men of the OSS outmaneuvered him.

The Cold War gave them the justification they needed. Within four years of Truman abolishing the OSS, OSS veterans Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles effectively controlled the new CIA’s covert operations, and the agency had reassembled everything Truman had tried to dismantle, and more. But the formal CIA was only part of what emerged from the dissolution of the OSS. The other part was informal — a network of men who had trained together, trusted each other, and understood that the real levers of postwar American power would run through not through government, but through the defense industry. Through weapons science. And through land.

They knew exactly where the land was, and it wasn’t Washington D.C..

They had watched, in July 1945, as the early morning sky over the New Mexico desert turned white as a second sun.

The Ground

The Trinity Site, where the world’s first nuclear weapon was detonated, sits in the high desert of south-central New Mexico, roughly equidistant between Albuquerque and El Paso. Los Alamos National Laboratory, where the bomb was designed and built, sits on a mesa above Santa Fe. Sandia National Laboratories, where nuclear weapons components are engineered and tested, sits on the eastern edge of Albuquerque. Kirtland Air Force Base, which houses the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, occupies the same footprint. To this day, the world’s largest collection of nuclear warheads is based here, beneath Kirtland Air Force Base, next door to Sandia Labs.

No other geography on earth concentrates so much of the infrastructure of American nuclear and intelligence power in so small an area. The newly created and unleashed men of the OSS understood this. After the war, some of them began to acquire land in New Mexico. Others followed. Political figures. Newsmen. All intelligence adjacent. Not all at once. Over decades. Quietly.

In the 1960s, a man named Carl H. Ingwer Jr. acquired 9,150 acres in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of San Miguel County, near Las Vegas, New Mexico. Ingwer was not a rancher by background. He was a former fighter pilot from Cleveland. He ran Mercury Aviation in Phoenix and Tucson — a fixed-base operation with documented ties to the Flying Tigers network, which after the war became the backbone of CIA proprietary aviation. He owned a decommissioned Navy PBY amphibious bomber he told the press he had converted for “personal use,” and traveled extensively through regions of Cold War intelligence interest: North Africa, the Middle East, India, Australia. His New Mexico land sat in mountain country, well-positioned relative to the national laboratories corridor.

In May 1981 — two months after Dan Rather replaced Walter Cronkite as anchor of CBS Evening News, making him the most powerful broadcast journalist in America — Ingwer sold and transferred his New Mexico acreage to an entity called Tecolote Partnership. County deed records show no reception number on the transaction, an anomaly in standard property transfers.

The partners in Tecolote Partnership were Donald Rumsfeld, who had served as Gerald Ford’s Secretary of Defense and was by 1981 a senior figure in Ronald Reagan’s national security orbit, and Dan Rather, who was simultaneously covering the Reagan administration’s foreign policy on CBS. Rumsfeld and Rather held that land together — through Iran-Contra, through Gulf War I, through September 11, through the Iraq War that Rumsfeld ran and Rather reported — until September 2007, within months of both men losing their respective positions. In journalism school, I was taught it was unethical to even accept so much as a cup of coffee from a source. The ethical violation of the nation’s top news anchor owning a secret ranch with the architect of the Iraq war is mind-boggling.

This is all documented in San Miguel County deed records.

Robert Maxwell Comes to New MexicoRobert Maxwell

In 1984, a British media mogul named Robert Maxwell — a Czech-born WWII veteran who had worked in parallel intelligence structures to the OSS and who former Mossad officers have described as a long-standing Israeli intelligence asset — traveled to New Mexico on behalf of his company Pergamon International.

According to declassified FBI documents, Maxwell’s purpose in New Mexico was to sell a piece of software called PROMIS to American defense installations.

The FBI’s Albuquerque field office, alerted to the problem by three whistelblowers at Sandia Labs, opened a foreign counterintelligence investigation. According to those same documents, Maxwell successfully sold an Israeli-modified version of PROMIS — which contained a surveillance backdoor — to Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory. United States Dept. of Justice officials in Washington, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, quickly shut down the Albuquerque investigation.

PROMIS did not just track criminals and intelligence targets. Whoever held the backdoor key could surveil whoever was using it — reading their files, their cases, their contacts. Planted in the computers of the two most important nuclear weapons facilities in the United States, it was among the most consequential intelligence penetrations of the Cold War era.Ronald Reagan

Which means: The Reagan Justice Department opened an investigation into the sale of Israeli-backdoored software to America's most sensitive nuclear weapons laboratories — and then closed it without charges. The documents were later reclassified when a private party tried to obtain them under the Freedom of Information Act. Israel had been secretly developing nuclear weapons since the late 1950s, diverting American weapons-grade uranium as early as the 1960s. By the mid-1980s — the same Reagan-era period when Maxwell was selling surveillance software into Sandia and Los Alamos — Israeli scientists were visiting those same laboratories at an extraordinary rate, treated, according to a government watchdog report, more openly than visitors from other allied nations. By 1986, a former Dimona technician revealed that Israel possessed not just fission bombs but thermonuclear weapons.

In 1990, the Maxwell Foundation endowed a $300,000 professorship at the Santa Fe Institute — a private research organization founded six years earlier, primarily by scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory. The chair was named for Robert Maxwell.

Robert Maxwell died in 1991, his body found floating near his yacht off the Canary Islands. His death has never been conclusively explained.

Two years later, his daughter, Ghislaine Maxwell, convinces her “boyfriend” Jeffrey Epstein to buy a ranch 65 miles from Los Alamos National Laboratories and 45 miles from Sandia Labs.

Henry Singleton and the Ranch Next Door

In the mid-1980s, a man named Henry Singleton began quietly assembling one of the largest private land portfolios in the American West. Starting with his 81,000-acre San Cristobal Ranch south of Santa Fe — a property that would eventually share nearly two miles of fence line with what would become Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch seven years later.

Singleton ultimately purchased more than 28 ranches in New Mexico, most of them strung along the U.S. Route 285 corridor from Santa Fe to Roswell, accumulating nearly one million acres in total. People in the ranching industry noticed. The American Quarter Horse Association, in giving Singleton Ranches its most prestigious award, noted that people who knew Henry Singleton were puzzled by the ranch purchases. He was an engineer who ran a defense conglomerate. The land didn't fit the pattern.

During World War II, Singleton served with the OSS in Europe, remaining until the organization was disbanded in the fall of 1945. After the war, he worked at Hughes Aircraft, then helped found Litton Industries before departing to establish Teledyne, the defense and aerospace conglomerate that would become (and continues to be) one of the most powerful contractors in the American military-industrial complex. Teledyne’s product line included inertial navigation systems — the guidance technology at the heart of ballistic missiles and precision munitions. Singleton’s National Academy of Engineering citation honors him specifically for his contributions to “lightweight inertial navigation systems.”

Singleton was also, while running Teledyne, a co-trustee of Ronald Reagan’s personal blind trust — meaning he held discretionary control over the president’s financial assets while simultaneously holding hundreds of millions of dollars in federal defense contracts. The enormous conflict of interest this arrangement represented was noted at the time and never fully investigated.

In 1989, two years after Singleton bought San Cristobal Ranch, Teledyne pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud as part of Operation Ill Wind — the FBI's massive investigation into Pentagon procurement corruption — having bribed a senior Navy engineer to steer defense contracts worth up to $174 million to Teledyne's electronics division. In a separate case, Teledyne's relays unit later admitted to falsifying test results on components supplied to the U.S. military.

Sandia National Laboratories, the same labs to which Maxwell had sold the compromised PROMIS software, designs the non-nuclear components of America's nuclear weapons stockpile — the very systems Teledyne's electronics divisions supplied.

Henry Singleton's defense conglomerate had been caught defrauding the Pentagon while its founder's new ranch sat an hour's drive from the laboratories his company supplied.

Ghislaine Delivers Epstein to the Scientists

In 1993, Jeffrey Epstein purchased Zorro Ranch — 7,600 acres in southern Santa Fe County, directly adjacent to Henry Singleton’s San Cristobal Ranch, sharing nearly two miles of fence line. Epstein bought the property from Bruce King, who was the governor of New Mexico at the time. The purchase price was approximately $12 million, and the property was a portion of the larger ranch the King family still owns to this day.

According to a deposition Ghislaine Maxwell gave the FBI, found in the latest DOJ files, it was she herself who found the New Mexico ranch for Epstein and encouraged him to purchase it.

Ghislaine Maxwell is Robert Maxwell’s daughter.

In the deposition, Ghislaine Maxwell stated that it was she who connected Epstein to the Santa Fe Institute and to its co-founder Murray Gell-Mann — through her father, Robert Maxwell, who had endowed a professorship there three years earlier. Santa Fe Institute records confirm the Maxwell Foundation’s $300,000 gift. Gell-Mann, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, acknowledged Epstein’s financial support in his 1994 book. Financial records in the DOJ files show Epstein donated at least $680,000 to the Santa Fe Institute over the following decade, though the institute has publicly acknowledged only $275,000.Epstein with two girls or very young women and priceless petroglyphs located at Zorro Ranch

Epstein was direct, on the record, about why New Mexico interested him. In a 2019 interview with Steve Bannon, included in the DOJ files, he explained that after 1990, scientists who had worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia Labs were dispersing into private research firms in the Santa Fe area — what locals called the “info mesa.” That, Epstein said, was the attraction.

He arrived in New Mexico through Robert Maxwell’s daughter, onto land adjacent to Robert Maxwell’s former intelligence network partner’s neighbor, to cultivate scientists from the laboratories where Robert Maxwell had planted a surveillance backdoor a decade earlier.

By 1996, victims, survivors and witnesses to child sex trafficking and, in one former employee’s case, murder, at Zorro Ranch, were pouring into New Mexico police departments. Nothing was done. The police investigated nothing. This is likely related to the fact that then governor Bill Richardson was among those the survivors named as their rapists. Also, then Santa Fe County Sheriff Greg Solano and then attorney general Gary King were both recipients of campaign financing from Epstein.

A local New Mexico investigation into Zorro Ranch only arrived, however briefly, after an investigative series by Julie K. Brown was published about Epstein’s pedophile ring in the Miami Herald in 2018. After reading it, then-New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas opened an investigation. But he halted it shortly afterwards at the request of federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and gave them all his files. This was likely done as a professional courtesy, but Balderas was never legally required to halt his department’s investigation and he could have reopened it at any time. He didn’t.

The ranch remained untouched by law enforcement, unsearched and uninvestigated until this year, when the New Mexico state legislature created the Epstein Survivors’ Truth Commission, with $2.5 million in funding and subpoena power, to try to get to the bottom of what happened at Zorro Ranch and why it was never properly investigated. The commission plans to release its first report in July 2026. Whatever is left to be found might be long gone, however, as the Epstein estate held onto the property for four years after his death and the new owners, who are Trump allies, have been conducting massive excavation projects and unlicensed construction there in the past year.

What it Was All For

My opinion, stated plainly: None of this is coincidence. I fully believe Epstein’s operation was, and possibly remains, a tool of an intelligence operation, likely rooted in the men of the OSS during WWII, expanding over time to include more than one government, with continuity of purpose across decades and generations.

The former OSS men and their heirs appear over and over again in the Epstein saga, including former OSS man Donald Barr, who offers Epstein his first real job, as a teacher at a prestigious prep school in Manhattan, despite Epstein lacking a college degree. Later, is is Donald Barr’s son, William “Bill” Barr, who in 2009 joins the same legal firm representing Epstein in his Florida case at that time.

Bill Barr goes on to become United States Attorney General under Donald Trump, overseeing all federal prosecutors investigating Epstein in 2018. He is still in that role when Epstein dies in prison.

• Continuity of purpose.
• But what is that purpose?

That purpose, I believe, for many of the original OSS men and their heirs, is a perpetual continuation of the American war machine and its nuclear military industrial complex that made and continues to make them rich beyond their wildest dreams, off of government contracts that use our taxpayer dollars.

And adjacent to that purpose was another purpose, for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Their purpose was likely to do whatever it took — even using a pedophilia blackmail operation — to wrench the nuclear military industrial machine endless weapons technology secrets from the New Mexico based scientists who held them, and pass those secrets to Israel, while making sure the county, state and federal government looked the other way.

Perhaps I am just delusional and paranoid in my conclusions. I wouldn’t be the first. After all, that’s what everyone said about Truman’s secretary of defense, James Forrestal, too.James Forrestal

In his review of Douglas Waller’s biography of Forrestal in The Nation, March 11, 2025, Adam Hochschihld wrote: “Convinced that he was being pursued by a mix of White House officials, Zionists, and communists, [Forrestal] told friends, ‘They’re after me.’ When a fire engine’s siren sounded, Forrestal rushed out of his house screaming, ‘The Russians are attacking!’ He was eased out of his job in 1949 and, several months later, jumped out of a hospital window to his death.”

Suicide shows up a lot in the world the former OSS men made. Remember Frank Wisner, who created the CIA along with Dulles?

Yeah. Him too.

Epstein’s Neighbor and His ModemHenry Singleton

Henry Singleton died in 1999, six years after Epstein arrived next door. In the years they were neighbors, something unusual was documented: Epstein’s personal address book — portions of which are included in the DOJ files — contains a listing for San Cristobal Ranch that includes a modem number. A review of comparable entries found no other listing in Epstein’s address book that included a modem number for any other person or property. Neighbors do not typically share modem access. Epstein, who ran a child pornography operation that collected compromising evidence of powerful people’s participation in serious crimes, was notoriously careful about his communications.

It should be noted that the Singleton Ranches in New Mexico were and are used for large-scale cattle ranching. They were once among the top cattle producers in the state, and are also known for a specific breed of cattle horse raised there, Singleton horses. Whatever else might or might not have been going on there, the San Cristobal Ranch was and is a cattle operation — though it has expanded to offering a complete old-west movie set on site, too, most recently used for filming the Michael Ricigliano movie, GODLESS.

The modem number share suggests a data connection between Zorro Ranch and San Cristobal Ranch that predates emails from 2016, released the DOJ Epstein file dump in 2026, that more clearly establish efforts by Epstein to share a communications network with San Cristobal Ranch.

That 2016 negotiation is documented in internal emails now part of the DOJ files. As the Southern District of New York deepened its investigation of Epstein, his ranch manager Brice Gordon contacted a man named “Vito” at San Cristobal — by then managed by the Singleton family heirs — to discuss sharing the cost of a major communications buildout. The proposed system was not residential internet. A contractor later involved in its construction described it as military and industrial grade. Gordon also contacted Epstein’s Little St. James island property to obtain technical specifications for the microwave system already operating there. Epstein’s reply to Gordon’s updates was unusually terse: “please push. dont wait, call again.”

A fiber feed site — a technical installation where fiber terminates and connects to wireless transmission equipment — already existed on San Cristobal Ranch, predating the 2016 negotiation. It had been built by the Singleton operation. Epstein’s people discovered it and sought to formalize a cost-sharing arrangement. Given that Epstein had nearly limitless funds, the request is striking.

The negotiation apparently stalled. Gordon pivoted. In July 2016, FCC licenses were issued to Zorro Development Corp. for a bidirectional military-grade microwave system linking Zorro Ranch to the Sandia Crest tower. Sandia Crest is unrelated to Sandia Labs. It’s just the top of the Sandia Mountains that flank Albuquerque’s eastern border. Many radio and communications towers are located there.

Those FCC licenses remain active today, in Brice Gordon’s name, maintained by the Huffines family — Trump allies from Dallas who purchased the Zorro Ranch property in 2023 and whose son Russell currently holds a position in the Trump administration. At the time the Huffines purchased the ranch, there were 5 FCC licenses listing Zorro Development Corp. and Brice Gordon still active. The Huffines terminated all but two. This seems to indicate they knowingly kept the massive industrial-grade microwave radio communications towers operating, in the Zorro name.

The Infrastructure Remains

In December 2025 — the same month the first batch of Epstein files was released under the newly passed Epstein Files Transparency Act — the Singleton heirs sold 937,000 acres of New Mexico ranchland to billionaire Stan Kroenke, almost their total New Mexico holdings. They retained only one parcel: the 81,000-acre San Cristobal Ranch, the property that shares nearly two miles of fence line with what was Jeffrey Epstein's Zorro Ranch. Three million more pages of Epstein files followed on January 30, 2026.

The fiber feed site is still there. The FCC licenses are still active. The fence line between San Cristobal and what is now the Huffines family’s San Rafael Ranch still runs for nearly two miles through the high desert outside tiny Stanley, New Mexico.

And Teledyne, according to a simple Google news search of financial markets updates, is still one of the best global investments a person can make. This quote from a March 24, 2026 Trading View article sums it up perfectly:

“Teledyne is witnessing strong demand from the defense sector, particularly in Europe, driven by rising regional defense spending. A favorable macroeconomic environment and the current U.S. administration’s inclination toward increased defense spending, with the nation being the largest weapons exporter, have been aiding the growth.”

In my next installments, I will look at the legal tactics used by Singleton, King, Ingwer and others, to forcibly purchase (or, in some people’s view, steal) their massive ranchlands from local Hispano families in New Mexico who had owned the lands communally for centuries, and who’d been guaranteed the security of their land ownership under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I will also look at the relationship between Hollywood, Bill Richardson, Jeffrey Epstein, and the San Cristobal Ranch. 

April 3

 

Redacted Report, Jeffrey Epstein, Leslie Wexner, and the Victoria’s Secret Pipeline How a Trans Teenager Named Maximilia Cordero Exposed the Trafficking Network in 2007 — and Was Silenced for $28,000, Staff Report, April 3, 2026. "Cordero v. Epstein" named Wexner & Victoria’s Secret as defendants nineteen years before this week’s survivor lawsuit. The New York Post outed her. The court dismissed her. Epstein’s lawyers paid her.

On April 1, 2026, eleven survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation filed a lawsuit against Leslie Wexner, left, the Wexner Foundation, and Nine East 71st Street Corporation in New York Supreme Court. The suit alleges that Wexner provided Epstein with approximately $200 million in financial support that enabled decades of sexual abuse and trafficking — and that survivors were assaulted inside the East 71st Street mansion between 2000 and 2016, three of them as minors. The case is expected to transfer to federal court in the Southern District of New York.

This is being reported as breaking news. It is not. A transgender Latina teenager named Maximilia Cordero, shown above, filed the same case, against the same defendants, at the same address, nineteen years ago. She was sixteen when Epstein assaulted her. She was twenty-two when she sued. She was silenced for $28,000.

Who Is Maximilia Cordero?

Maximilia Cordero, also known as Ava Cordero, was a teenager in New York City in 2000 when she was lured to Jeffrey Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse at 9 East 71st Street — the same mansion that would become the most notorious private residence in modern criminal history. She was sixteen years old. The lure, according to court filings, was a modeling career with Victoria’s Secret.

Epstein told her he was a money manager for Victoria’s Secret and could advance her career. According to the amended complaint filed in New York Supreme Court, Epstein told the teenager:

“I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby.” He encouraged her to bring friends, telling her: “I love girls your age.” He promised Victoria’s Secret work if she returned.

The complaint alleged that during 2000 and 2001, Epstein “violently sexually assaulted” Cordero by forcibly touching her and forcing her to perform oral sex on him. She was a child. He was a billionaire financial manager with the weight of the world’s most famous lingerie brand behind his promises.The Victoria’s Secret Recruitment Pipeline

What made Cordero’s lawsuit extraordinary — and what makes it more relevant today than ever — is that she did not sue Epstein alone. Her October 2007 complaint named Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands and owner of Victoria’s Secret, as a defendant. It named Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management. It named Nine East 71st Street Corporation, the entity Wexner established to purchase the Manhattan townhouse. And it named Jeffrey Epstein and Co.

The complaint alleged that Wexner “knowingly allowed” Epstein to use the glamour of the Victoria’s Secret brand to “harass and trap young models and teenage girls in performing sex acts.” This was not a peripheral claim.

It was the central theory of the case:

that Epstein weaponized the Victoria’s Secret brand as a recruitment tool, and that Wexner, who retained Epstein as his personal financial manager from 1987 to 2007, enabled it.

Wexner’s relationship with Epstein (shown above right together in a collage) was, by any standard, extraordinary. Wexner granted Epstein sweeping power of attorney. He transferred the 9 East 71st Street mansion to Epstein. Epstein was described as Wexner’s “main client” and operated with access to Wexner’s fortune, his brand, and his social infrastructure. Congressional investigators have since stated publicly that Epstein would have been “nothing without Wexner.”

Cordero put all of this in a legal filing in 2007. She was twenty-two years old.

Instead of prompting an investigation into how a billionaire’s financial manager was using one of the world’s most recognized brands to recruit minors for sexual abuse, Cordero’s lawsuit was met with something worse than silence. It was met with destruction.

The New York Post published her story — and outed her as transgender. The coverage fixated on her gender identity, using transphobic language and sensationalist framing designed to discredit her. The substance of her allegations — that a sixteen-year-old was sexually assaulted by a billionaire who promised her a modeling career with Victoria’s Secret — was buried under headlines engineered to make readers laugh rather than investigate. (See also, New York Magazine: How the System Destroyed Maximilia Cordero.)

The court dismissed the claims on statute of limitations grounds. The alleged assaults occurred before November 2001. The lawsuit was not filed until October 2007. The law said she was too late. The law did not ask why a teenager who had been assaulted by one of the most powerful men in New York might not have felt safe coming forward for six years.

Then came the settlement. Buried in the millions of pages of Epstein-related documents that have since been released is a draft settlement agreement dated October 2009, marked “Confidential & Inadmissible.” The case caption reads: Ava a.k.a. Maximilia Cordero v. Jeffrey Epstein, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management Inc. a.k.a. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Leslie Wexner, Nine East 71st Street Corporation, and Jeffrey Epstein and Co.

The settlement amount: $28,000.

For $28,000, Cordero agreed to a comprehensive release of all claims. She agreed to a strict confidentiality clause. She agreed to a non-disparagement provision that forbade her from making any public statements “that impugns or attacks the reputation or character” of Epstein or any defendant. And she agreed to never encourage or cooperate with any other civil claims against Epstein.

Days after that document was prepared, her lawsuits were withdrawn by her attorney — with prejudice. Meaning they could never be refiled. For the price of a used car, Epstein’s legal team bought the permanent silence of a survivor who had identified the Victoria’s Secret pipeline, named Leslie Wexner as a knowing enabler, and described the recruitment mechanism that would not become public knowledge for another decade.What Leslie Wexner Knew and When He Knew It

Wexner has maintained for years that he was deceived by Epstein and severed ties in 2007 after learning of the criminal investigation in Florida. His spokesperson said this week that the Wexners “have tremendous sympathy for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes” but characterized the new lawsuit’s claims as baseless, stating they “appear to be based upon ownership of a house Mr. Wexner sold years prior to the time of the allegations.”

March

March 24