
An Accuser's Story Suggests How Trump Might Appear in the Epstein Files
At the time, she said, she had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Epstein and his longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Farmer, then in her mid-20s, had also learned about a troubling encounter that her younger sister — then a teenager — had endured at Mr. Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. And she described facing threats from Mr. Epstein.
Ms. Farmer said that when she discussed her concerns with the New York Police Department, then with the F.B.I., she also urged them to take a broader look at the people in Mr. Epstein's orbit, including Donald J. Trump, then still two decades from being elected president. She repeated that message, she said, when the F.B.I. interviewed her again about Mr. Epstein in 2006.
In interviews this week about what she told the authorities, she said she had no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Mr. Epstein's associates. But she said she was alarmed by what she saw as Mr. Epstein's pattern of pursuing girls and young women while building friendships with prominent people, including Mr. Trump and President Bill Clinton.
Investigations like the ones that targeted Mr. Epstein often explore a wide range of tips, evidence, recollections and relationships, little of which ends up being used in court records or as the basis for criminal prosecution. Mr. Epstein's voluminous investigative file contains many records that have not been made public, but that became the focus of claims, long stoked by Mr. Trump's allies, that authorities might have covered up the involvement of other rich and powerful men.
Now, after his attorney general and F.B.I. director abruptly abandoned their earlier promises to reveal everything about the Epstein files and said, in effect, that there was nothing to see, Mr. Trump's ties to Mr. Epstein are under renewed scrutiny, leading to questions about what so-far-undisclosed appearances he might have in the investigative record.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's big bill offers $6K tax break for seniors — but not everyone gets a cut. Here's how much you may save
Donald Trump's big sweeping spending bill included a sweetener for many seniors across America. Starting this year, individuals over the age of 65 can claim $6,000 as a tax deduction in their next filing, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Those who file joint returns can claim this amount individually, which means a married couple could get deductions up to $12,000. Although this isn't the elimination of all income taxes on Social Security that he promised while campaigning, this new subsidy could still be a helpful financial boost for those who qualify. However, the real impact of this new deduction depends on your income bracket. Here's a closer look at how much you could save at different levels of income. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Low income Low-income seniors might not notice this new deduction because they already benefit from a standard deduction that reduces or eliminates the income taxes they owe. As of 2025, the standard deduction for someone over the age of 65 is up to $18,500 individually and up to $32,300 for joint filers. This category includes a significant number of American seniors. According to the KFF, one in three adults over the age of 65 had an income below $28,080 in 2022. Middle income Households with relatively modest incomes could see the most benefit from this new deduction. Because the deduction starts to phase out for single filers earning over $75,000 and married couples making over $150,000 — with full disqualification at incomes above $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples — the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that middle- and upper-middle-income households stand to gain the most. Read more: Americans are 'revenge saving' to survive — but millions only get a measly 1% on their savings. Seniors with incomes between approximately $80,000 and $130,000 are expected to benefit the most from this provision, which would cut their taxes by an average of $1,100, or around 1% of their after-tax income, according to their calculations. High income With a full phase out of the deduction at individual incomes above $175,000 and joint incomes above $250,000, high income tax payers won't benefit from this new incentive at all. Caveats Given all the rules and limitations, this new tax rule could best be described as helpful but limited. Based on the income limits, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that less than half of all seniors could see a tax reduction because of this new deduction. The rule is also time-limited and applies only to federal income taxes between 2025 and 2028. Altogether, the new deduction offers a modest cut to a highly specific group of seniors for a relatively short period of time. However, it does have a long-term impact on other government programs that many seniors rely on: Social Security and Medicare. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) projects that the new set of tax policies implemented by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) will hasten the insolvency of both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, moving their depletion date up from 2033 to 2032 — a full year sooner than earlier forecasts. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of 'massive unemployment' in the US due to the 'biggest change' in history — and says this 1 group of 'smart' Americans will get hit extra hard. Are you one of them? How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US automakers exempted from fines for fuel efficiency non-compliance
US regulators have waived fines for automakers failing to meet fuel efficiency standards dating back to the 2022 model year, following a new law signed by President Donald Trump. This move, part of a tax and budget bill, puts an end to fines under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules established by a 1975 energy law. In a letter obtained by Reuters, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has informed automakers that it is re-evaluating its fuel economy regulations. The move aligns with other measures from Washington aimed at easing the production of gasoline vehicles and increasing the cost of electric vehicle (EV) sales. In the past, non-compliance with US fuel economy requirements has led to significant penalties for automakers. Stellantis, the parent company of Chrysler, incurred a $190.7m civil penalty for the 2019 and 2020 model years, adding to around $400m in fines from 2016 to 2019. Previously, General Motors (GM) paid $128.2m for 2016 and 2017. President Trump's recent actions also include nullifying California's goal to phase out gasoline-only vehicle sales by 2035. Meanwhile, Tesla has benefited from the situation, earning $2.8bn globally from regulatory credits through the sale of zero-emission EVs. The legislation signed this month by Trump states that vehicle fines will be eliminated for any year where NHTSA has not completed its rulemaking process. Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign director Dan Becker expressed disapproval of the decision, stating: "The Trump administration is reaching back in time to give an obscene gift to pollution law violators GM and Stellantis at the expense of the American taxpayer. 'The automakers lobbied hard for this 'get out of jail free' card. They get hundreds of millions in fines cancelled." GM and Stellantis have yet to respond to the development. Senate Republicans estimates that the law could 'save automakers' around $200m. The NHTSA under President Joe Biden proposed in 2023 to increase fuel economy standards through 2032, which would have cost the industry an estimated $14bn in fines, including $6.5bn, $3bn, and $1bn for GM, Stellantis, and Ford Motor, respectively. However, the final rule adopted last year significantly reduced these requirements, capping potential industry fines at $1.83bn from 2027 through 2031. "US automakers exempted from fines for fuel efficiency non-compliance" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6b research cuts were illegal
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Advertisement Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Advertisement Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Advertisement Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'