A Kentucky Republican and a California liberal: The unlikely alliance pushing Trump on Epstein
Leading the charge for Congress to vote on publicizing Epstein-related records are Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The odd couple — a libertarian from rural Kentucky and a progressive from Silicon Valley — is piecing together Republican and Democratic support for the House to take an up-or-down vote on releasing the so-called Epstein files. If successful, their efforts would further complicate President Donald Trump's ability to move on from the spiraling scandal that has angered his political base.
'I do believe that there are issues that populists on the right and left can collaborate on,' Khanna said in an interview. "In this case, it's about going after the corruption in our government. Rich and powerful men shouldn't have impunity from accountability. And that's something that both people on the left and right are sick of.'
Discharge petitions, which allow any member of the House to force legislation to the floor if a majority of members agree, are usually a long shot. As of Friday afternoon, Massie, a frequent White House foil, and Khanna had convinced 10 Republicans and five Democrats to get on board as cosponsors. It's not the first time they've teamed up: Massie and Khanna collaborated on legislation aiming to limit U.S. involvement in the wars in Yemen and Iran.
Their newest gambit would pay off if the entire Democratic caucus signs on — which Khanna guaranteed in a recent video clip. Democrats have been hungry to capitalize on Trump's Epstein problem, given the president's longstanding ties to the accused sex trafficker that were illuminated in a Wall Street Journal story this week. The paper focused on a letter Trump reportedly wrote to Epstein for his 50th birthday. Trump denies he wrote the note, and POLITICO has not independently verified it. The president has never been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein.
Nevertheless, the political fallout has been widespread as it weds the divergent factions of Congress.
From conservative firebrand Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to famed progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the cosponsors on Massie's measure represent an eclectic mix of lawmakers who rarely agree on anything — or even speak to each other cordially. The list yokes one of the furthest left members of Congress, Michigan's Rashida Tlaib, with Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And one Republican in a battleground district, Rep. Tom Barrett from Michigan, has also signed onto the push.
It's not the first time that the populist left and right have converged: A handful of leaders on both sides have found agreement recently on wars in the Middle East, U.S. involvement in Israel, antitrust policies, artificial intelligence and the unaffordability of housing.
To that end, Khanna said he's 'exchanged a few texts' with MAGA godfather Steve Bannon, who has expressed support for a special counsel to examine the Epstein case. Their correspondence was 'in the context of trying to stop the regime-change war in Iran,' Khanna said.
Asked for comment, Bannon listed Khanna as one of a group of figures on the populist left and right who have found common ground on 'neo-Brandeisian antitrust.'
On X, Massie is keeping a live whip count of cosponsors for his proposal to release the Epstein files and encouraging his 1.3 million followers to ask their representatives if they support the idea. When Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday the Justice Department will move to release grand jury transcripts — a decision seen as an attempt to appease the MAGA base — Massie declared: 'Folks, Keep the pressure on, it's working. But we want all the files.'
Should it come to pass, the resolution would be symbolic — Congress doesn't have the power to force the Justice Department to release any information. But under procedural rules, action on the floor can't take place until September, meaning that Trump's Epstein problem could linger in Congress for several more weeks.
Khanna said he has a 'very friendly' relationship with Massie. The idea for the discharge petition came about after Khanna introduced an amendment to release the Epstein files, and Massie texted him to propose they draft a bill on the topic.
'We text back and forth all the time. I will often see him on the House floor, pick up the phone and call him,' he said. 'Obviously, we come from different ideological perspectives, but there are areas where we have agreement in making sure that we're preventing wars of choice overseas and transparency.'
A spokesperson for Massie declined to comment. Earlier this week, Massie said in an interview that the pressure will intensify on House Republicans over the upcoming recess.
'They probably want to let the steam out, but this will build momentum over August,' Massie said. 'They can't sweep it under the rug.'
It's not the first time Massie, often an iconoclast in his party, has found strange bedfellows in Democrats. He and other conservatives joined forces with libertarian-minded and anti-interventionist lawmakers on digital privacy and war powers measures. And just last month, he teamed up with Khanna on a measure to reign in Trump's ability to use military force in the Iran-Israel conflict.
'It is very on brand for Thomas Massie to stick with his position, even under pressure,' said Marisa McNee, a Democratic strategist from Massie's northern Kentucky district. 'The thing that bugs his party about him is that he's sort of unwavering once he has a position on something.'
Massie, who is up for re-election next year, has easily survived primary challenges. But he's become a top target for Trump's allies angered by his choice to break party lines and vote against the megabill.
Meanwhile, Democrats are angling to exploit their opposing party's wedge over Epstein. As Democratic lawmakers filtered into a closed-door caucus meeting Thursday, one chanted 'Epstein, Epstein, Epstein,' and Democrats frequently heckled their GOP counterparts as the House debated clawbacks of public media and foreign aid overnight.
House Democrats reveled this week in the pressure they and Massie applied to the GOP, underscored by a group of Rules Committee Republicans huddling with Speaker Mike Johnson for hours Thursday in search of political cover.
Republicans advanced their own non-binding resolution calling for the release of a limited scope of Epstein-related documents, while voting down a Democratic amendment to advance Massie's bipartisan legislation.
'We'll determine what happens with all that. There's a lot developing,' Johnson told reporters, after declining to commit to put the GOP resolution to a full House vote.
The Epstein controversy is the latest example of Massie creating a major headache for his fellow Republicans, following his opposition to the megabill. Just a few weeks ago, Trump and Massie actually appeared headed to a sort of political truce. But it was short-lived.
House Republicans said Trump appeared to blow up the detente he and Massie struck during a late-night call to advance the struggling megabill on the House floor last month.
Shortly after, in a move that shocked some Republicans on Capitol HIll, Trump allies poured millions into a PAC attacking Massie, three House Republicans said this week as the Epstein chaos swirled. Trump allies say they wanted Massie to vote for the megabill final passage itself, not just the procedural move to advance it.
Massie going after Trump on Epstein 'probably has the virtue of being able to poke Trump in the eye and appeal to important aspects of the base," said former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican. "It makes sense he's engaging."
Nicholas Wu, Meredith Lee Hill and Mia McCarthy contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work?
(NEXSTAR) — If you've been waiting and hoping for another stimulus check since receiving your last COVID relief payment in 2021, you may be in luck. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced legislation that would send out 'tariff rebates' meant to 'allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' As The Hill reports, the rebates would be modeled after the payments sent out after Congress authorized the 2020 CARES Act. In that case, adults received direct payments of $1,200 and $500 for their dependent children. Hawley introduces bill to provide $600 tariff rebates to adults and children Unlike those payments, these rebates would serve to offset the higher prices consumers have faced amid tariffs. According to Hawley, the U.S. has recorded $30 billion in tariff revenue as of June. He cited additional projections that say the revenue could exceed $150 billion this year alone. Under Hawley's bill, however, the individual payments would be much smaller. How much would the tariff rebates be? Each adult would receive 'at least $600,' as would each dependent child. The total rebate for a DINK (dual income, no kids) household, for example, would be at least $1,200, while a family of four could receive $2,400. Payments could increase 'if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025,' according to a press release from Hawley's office describing the proposed legislation. Who will — and won't — have a three-payday August Payments would also decrease based on household income. The bill's text says rebates would be reduced based on a taxpayer's filing status and their adjusted gross income. That income threshold is $150,000 for those filing a joint return; $112,500 for those filing as a head of household; and $75,000 for a single taxpayer. Who would be eligible for a payment? Hawley's bill does not explicitly outline who would be eligible, but rather who is ineligible. That includes: 'any nonresident alien individual'; those who can be claimed on another taxpayer's taxes; and estates or trusts. As we saw with the COVID stimulus checks, your most recent taxes would likely be used to determine your eligibility and the size of your payment. When could tariff rebates be sent out? It's too early to say, as Hawley's bill would still need to make it through Congress. President Donald Trump has expressed support for the idea, telling reporters last week that the U.S. has 'so much money coming in' because of the tariffs that 'we're thinking about a little rebate.' 'A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice,' he said, while noting that 'the big thing we want to do is pay down the debt.' As of Tuesday, the federal deficit sits at roughly $36.7 trillion. If you would like to help pay it down, you can now use Venmo to contribute to the 'Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt' program.
Politico
4 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Banking advances first large, bipartisan housing package in a decade
The Senate Banking Committee unanimously advanced landmark housing legislation on Tuesday, marking a rare area of overwhelming bipartisanship in a divided Congress. The Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream to Housing Act of 2025, sponsored by Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), includes proposals that aim to expand and preserve the housing supply, improve housing affordability and access, advance accountability and fiscal responsibility, and improve oversight and program integrity. 'Many people around the country, frustrated with the way we do American politics, wonder, is there any issue that brings this nation together? And I'm here to say hallelujah! We have found one. It is housing,' Scott said before the panel advanced the bill by a 24-0 vote. The legislation directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a new grant and loan program for qualifying homeowners and small landlords to address home repairs and health hazards, develop best practice frameworks for zoning and land-use policies and create a pilot program to incentivize housing development of all kinds in Community Development Block Grant participating jurisdictions, among other actions. Those asks come as the Trump administration is pushing for deep staff and budget cuts at HUD. 'There are new programs here that should operate more directly with the states and local communities so that we're not at the mercy of a stripped down HUD. But I worry about HUD being under resourced to meet its current obligations, much less to take on more,' Warren said in an interview following the markup. Members on both sides of the aisle acknowledged issues with HUD, but said it was important to get something done to improve what many view as a growing housing crisis. The bill received support from a broad range of groups representing the real estate industry, home builders, mortgage bankers, affordable housing organizations and local governments. 'You have to start someplace. And part of it is to upgrade and to modernize a number of the issues that are causing us problems,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) in an interview on Monday. Some members who have been working on parts of the bill for years acknowledged the potential impact of substantial cuts at HUD.
Forbes
4 minutes ago
- Forbes
'Trump Accounts' Are The Next Generation's First Steps Toward Financial Independence
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 03: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (C) is congratulated by his ... More fellow Republicans after signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act during an enrollment ceremony in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol on July 03, 2025 in Washington, DC. The House passed the sweeping tax and spending bill after winning over fiscal hawks and moderate Republicans. The bill makes permanent President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement and temporarily cut taxes on tips, while at the same time cutting funding for Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, clean energy and raises the nation's debit limit by $5 trillion. (Photo by) On July 4th, Congress signed into law H.R.1 – more commonly known as 'One Big Beautiful Bill' – one of the most sweeping policy reforms from the White House in recent memory, and among the most controversial. A seismic shift in U.S. fiscal policy, the bill ushers in significant tax cuts and Medicaid cuts, as well as increases to funding for immigration enforcement and the debt ceiling. The coverage and debate over the legislation have obscured arguably one of its most impactful components – the introduction of savings accounts for all children born in the U.S. over the next four years. The administration is calling these accounts 'Trump Accounts.' Title aside, this initiative has the potential to fundamentally change how – and how many – Americans invest for their children's futures. As believers in the power of long-term investing, I have long been a proponent of baby investment accounts (see: How Newborns Can Invest Like Warren Buffett). Here are the basics: While financial and tax experts may quibble with some of the provisions relative to other types of savings, the bill offers several clear benefits. Universality Education savings accounts already existed before Trump Accounts. State-based 529 plans offer tax-free accounts, but there are no federal contributions. 'Baby bonds' have been proposed and discussed for years, usually with means-tests and invested in bonds. Each of these types of plans would support some children with an education savings account. In contrast, every baby gets a Trump Account. The newborn's family does not have to be financially savvy or 'in the know' to make this happen. While a lack of a means test can be debated, it made passage in Congress a simpler task and will make the administration of these accounts much simpler. Strength of Public Equities Another distinctive feature of Trump Accounts is that they will be invested in equities, not bonds or a mix of investments, allowing all children with them to participate in the growth of the equity market. To get a rough sense of the numbers, let's model the outcome if this program had been implemented 18 years ago. If a baby born in 2006 had invested a $1,000 government contribution at the end of that year (not great timing, right before the Global Financial Crisis), they would have had almost $6,000 by their 18th birthday in 2024. That is substantially higher than the $1,575 they would have had if they had invested in 10-year Treasuries. Contributions from families and employers Beyond the initial $1,000, the option to add an additional $5,000 each year through a combination of parents' contributions or via their employers could end up being the secret to this initiative's success. Recall the earlier example of a child born in 2006. If they had not only received their initial $1,000 but also an additional $5,000 contribution each year, they would have had $360,000 by the time they turned 18 (not adjusted for inflation or rising costs over that timeframe). That amount of money is transformational, providing an ability to get an education without loans, buy a home, or save for a comfortable retirement down the road. And a financially strong cohort – particularly in the wake of a generation of Americans that are saving less, buying fewer homes, and having fewer children – would make the economy stronger in turn. The obvious criticism – and a fair one – is that not every family can afford to contribute $5,000 on a yearly basis. But could their employers contribute $2,500? That amount would mean the 18-year-old had roughly $185,000 – a life-changing number. And why stop there? Friends and extended family could make contributions as birthday gifts. State or local governments could also contribute to some or all of their newborns like California does through CalKIDS. What about philanthropic organizations in targeted areas? Making contributions a common practice would make the accounts more likely to achieve their purpose. The contributions will make all the difference. It's also one of the key areas for marketing. If the perception around 529 plans is any indication, there is a lot of work to do in this regard – May 2025 study from Edward Jones found that 52% of Americans don't know about 529 plans, and 38% feel they are not saving enough for their educational goals. With all the communications firepower of the White House, they'd be well-served to be talking up this program a lot more. The success of Trump Accounts will ultimately depend on whether families actually embrace them. Without active participation and better information and awareness, these accounts risk becoming little more than a short-lived handout. And they only are slated to apply to babies born by 2028. It remains to be seen if this administration, or the ones to come, will follow through and make this program thrive. But for the sake of the future of the next generation of Americans, I hope they do.
