When a scandal weakens superpower's influence
Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced teacher-turned-financier with ties to some of the world's most powerful elites, was convicted of trafficking of minors and died under highly suspicious circumstances while in federal custody in 2019. His case seemed buried, until now. In mid-2025, major US media outlets confirmed that the FBI had alerted President Donald Trump that his name appears in the sealed Epstein documents. The news shook an already divided nation and ignited a firestorm among both supporters and critics of the current administration.
President Trump's reaction has followed a familiar script: Deny, distract, discredit. From threatening lawsuits to dismissing the news as a political hoax, his team has gone into full damage-control mode. However, this time, it might not be enough.
What makes this moment different is the dissent rising from within Trump's own conservative base. Influential Republican commentators, legal experts, and even some key donors have expressed concern over the President's lack of transparency. They're not just worried about the legal implications, they fear political collapse. The Epstein Files risk becoming a national wake-up call, not just for Trump, but for the broader political establishment that has long insulated itself from accountability.
Here's where the international significance comes in.
Trump's foreign policy, often called the 'Trump Doctrine,' has been marked by unilateralism, economic extortion, and an unrelenting push to extract strategic and financial concessions from allies and adversaries alike. From China to Europe, the Global South to SWANA - South West Asia North Africa, US diplomacy has too often been replaced by tariffs, sanctions and threats. Many in these regions see a pattern of bullying, one driven more by domestic political calculations than by coherent international strategy.
With the Epstein scandal threatening to implode whatever is left of Trump's moral authority, that bullying stance may finally soften. Internationally, there is growing hope that America will be forced to retreat inward to clean up its own house before it can continue exerting pressure on others. The US, distracted by scandal and divided by distrust, may soon find it harder to command obedience abroad.
This doesn't mean a complete pivot to diplomacy overnight. Nevertheless, it could mean a reduced appetite for foreign adventurism. As domestic investigations into the Epstein Files widen, potentially implicating other prominent figures across party lines, the bandwidth for aggressive foreign policy will shrink.
Winners and Losers from the Epstein Files Fallout
Winners:
Global South economies including the AGCC: Nations previously targeted by US sanctions or trade pressure may find temporary relief and room to recalibrate.
Multilateral institutions: With US distraction, bodies like the UN, BRICS and Asean may have more space to operate independently and broker regional solutions.
Whistleblowers and victims' advocates: The public attention on Epstein may empower new calls for transparency and justice across borders.
Losers:
The US foreign policy establishment: Long accustomed to operating with impunity, evident in the genocide in Palestine, the scandal could weaken its grip on global influence.
Allies of convenience: Governments that hitched their strategy to Trump's aggressive policies, such as the Israeli Occupation, may find themselves isolated.
Wall Street hawks: A distracted or discredited administration could rattle financial markets tied to defence, surveillance and foreign interventions.
In the end, the Epstein Files are not just a domestic scandal. They are a political earthquake whose aftershocks could be felt in every capital around the world. For those seeking a fairer and more balanced international order, this may be the unexpected turning point.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
2 hours ago
- Observer
Global shift towards recognising Palestine
The diplomatic landscape of the Israel-Palestine conflict is undergoing a major shift, following announcements by Canada, the United Kingdom and France to formally recognise a Palestinian state by September 2025. As longtime advocates of a two-state solution, this move by three G7 nations signals growing frustration with Israel's conduct and a revived international push for justice. While not a final resolution, it offers hope for a process long stalled by Israel's continued occupation and military aggression. The Palestinian demand for statehood is rooted in a history of dispossession. The 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed separate Arab and Jewish states, was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab nations, triggering the 1948 war. What followed was the Nakba — a catastrophe during which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes. Israel exceeded its allotted territory, and scholars such as Ilan Pappé have described this as an act of ethnic cleansing. In 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) declared independence, gaining recognition from much of the Global South. Western powers, however, withheld recognition, arguing that statehood must result from negotiations. This allowed Israel to entrench its occupation while avoiding meaningful accountability. A recent High-Level International Conference on the Two-State Solution, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia at the UN, reflected rising international discontent. The conference reaffirmed 'unwavering support' for Palestinian statehood. Yet Israel refused to engage meaningfully, and the US, under President Trump's renewed administration, dismissed the effort as 'unproductive and ill-timed.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio's response highlighted America's ongoing role in shielding Israel. The conference had been delayed due to Israel's intensifying confrontation with Iran, illustrating its destabilising role in the region. The new positions of the UK and Canada signal a departure from this status quo. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has tied recognition to halting military operations in Gaza and freezing settlement expansion in the West Bank. Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, while supportive, has called for reforms within the Palestinian Authority. These conditions indicate a genuine effort toward a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. They reflect international frustration over Israel's repeated obstruction of peace and the severe humanitarian toll in Palestine. Failed peace efforts — sabotaged by settlement expansion and Israel's refusal to negotiate in good faith — make clear the need for a new path. The United States, by contrast, remains aligned with Israel. Rubio has criticised his allies' moves as 'clumsy' and imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority while continuing to send billions in military aid to Israel. This double standard enables Israel to avoid its obligations under international law and perpetuate occupation with impunity. Public sentiment underscores the urgency of change. A June 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that only 21 per cent of Israelis believe peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state is possible — reflecting deep disillusionment. Still, other polls suggest most Israelis would support mutual recognition under a comprehensive peace deal. Among Palestinians, hope endures. A May 2025 PCPSR poll showed that 68 per cent believe an independent state will eventually be realised. Yet many also recognise that symbolic recognition without actual freedom from occupation is insufficient. What they seek is justice and liberation, not empty declarations. In the countries recognising Palestine, public opinion is largely supportive. A 29 July 2025 YouGov poll found that 45 per cent of Britons back UK recognition, compared to just 14 per cent opposed. Though recent polling is limited in Canada and France, their governments' decisions reflect wider humanitarian concern and political will. Human rights organisations have long championed Palestinian statehood as essential to international law. Reports from Human Rights Watch (A Threshold Crossed, 2021) and Amnesty International (Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians, 2022) conclude that Israeli policies meet the legal definition of apartheid and constitute crimes against humanity. This new diplomatic momentum is not a final solution, but it is a pivotal moment. For Palestinians, it renews hope and validates their struggle for dignity. For Israel, it delivers a clear message: the world is no longer willing to ignore its violations. If global pressure continues — and justice becomes the guiding principle — this could mark the beginning of a long-overdue reckoning. History teaches us the cost of silence. The question is whether the world is finally ready to act. Badr al Dhafari The writer is head of proofreading, translation at Oman Observer
Times of Oman
14 hours ago
- Times of Oman
Court upholds block on Trump's asylum ban at US-Mexico border
Washington: A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday (local time) reaffirmed a lower court ruling that limits President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the US-Mexico border, effectively blocking a key order issued by Trump on his first day in office, The Hill reported. Trump had sought to end asylum access for all migrants except those who entered the US at official ports of entry, claiming the change was necessary to stop what he described as an "invasion" at the southern border. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in February on behalf of nonprofit organizations. In July, US District Judge Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled against the Trump-era ban, saying it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), The Hill reported. Moss concluded that the former president overstepped his authority by severely restricting asylum for migrants fleeing danger and persecution. While the DC Circuit panel--comprising Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard, and Gregory G. Katsas--initially paused Moss's decision, it has now lifted the stay and allowed parts of the district court's ruling to take effect. However, the panel also narrowed the scope of Moss's decision, allowing the government to continue using elements of Trump's proclamation to bar certain migrants from accessing the asylum system, The Hill noted. Reacting to the decision, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News, "The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions." "The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system," McLaughlin added.
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Trump orders subs repositioned in rare nuclear threat to Russia
President Donald Trump said on his social media feed on Friday that he had 'ordered two nuclear submarines' to be repositioned in response to online threats from Russia's former president, Dmitry Medvedev, a rare case of potential nuclear escalation between the superpowers. Trump said he had ordered the submarines 'to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' He added: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Medvedev, who often serves as something of an online attack dog for the Kremlin, had said in a social media post of his own on Thursday that Trump should picture the apocalyptic television series 'The Walking Dead' and referred to the Soviet Union's system for launching a last-ditch, automatic nuclear strike. Because nuclear submarine movements are among the Pentagon's most closely held tactical maneuvers, it will most likely prove impossible to know if Trump is truly repositioning the submarines or just trying to make a point. But in Trump's sudden and escalating confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, it is the first time he has referenced the US nuclear arsenal, much less threatened to reposition it. Trump said on Thursday that he intends to impose new sanctions on Russia over its unwillingness to wind down its war in Ukraine, the latest step in his gradual shift toward a more antagonistic stance toward the Kremlin. Trump said last month that he would give Russia 50 days to begin serious peace talks with Ukraine. The Russian response was to ramp up attacks, including one on Kyiv, Ukraine's capital, on Thursday night that killed more than 30 civilians. This week, Trump said his deadline was being shortened to 10 to 12 days, and Thursday he said he had decided to impose 'secondary sanctions' on countries that buy Russian oil. That would include China, India and Turkey, all countries with which Trump has other ongoing negotiations. Trump and Putin have talked repeatedly by phone or secure video since the president took office, but they have not met in person. It is a meeting Trump has said is vital, suggesting nothing on Ukraine would be resolved until the two men hashed it out between themselves. But his tone about Russia has hardened, and his position on sanctions has reversed, in recent weeks. Still, such public flexing of nuclear muscles is rare even for Trump, who last made explicit nuclear threats to Kim Jong Un of North Korea early in his first term in 2018. At that time he said his 'nuclear button' was 'much bigger and more powerful' than Kim's. That exchange ultimately led to a diplomatic opening to Kim, three meetings between the two leaders — and a complete failure of the effort to get the North Korean leader to give up his nuclear arsenal, which is now larger than ever. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance arrive in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. But Russia is a different case, and Trump has often talked about the fearsome power of nuclear weapons, something he contends he learned about from an uncle who was on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. So while Russian President Vladimir Putin has made threats about putting nuclear forces on alert during the opening days of the Ukraine war, and may have been preparing to use a tactical nuclear weapon in fall 2022 against a Ukrainian military base, the US has never responded. Medvedev is a good foil for Trump; he regularly issues threats against the United States, but is essentially powerless. Trump has referred to Medvedev's martial-sounding statements several times in the past week. It is unclear, though, why Medvedev's mix of hyperbole, threat and trolling got under Trump's skin. As Trump was leaving the White House on Friday for a weekend in Bedminster, New Jersey, he was asked why he ordered a redeployment of submarines. 'We just have to be careful,' he said. 'And a threat was made and we didn't think it was appropriate, so I have to be very careful. So I do that on the basis of safety for our people. A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we're going to protect our people.' It was not clear what kind of nuclear submarines to which Trump was referring, or how redeploying them would provide any significant additional protection. The United States has nuclear-powered attack submarines that search for targets, but it also has far larger, nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines. Those don't need to be repositioned; they can reach targets thousands of miles away. In fact, moving them can risk exposing their position. Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon press secretary, referred all questions about Trump's statement to the White House. A senior Western military officer with experience in the world of submarine warfare said he was not sure what tactical actions may have taken place. But he said that because submarines operate so stealthily, Trump was free to declare he was taking action and the Russians would have to decide whether or not to believe him.
