Mike Johnson seeks to gloss over divisions with Trump over Epstein files
On Tuesday, Johnson said the Trump administration 'should put everything out there and let the people decide,' marking a break with the president, who has urged his followers to forget Epstein and move on.
But on Wednesday, Johnson said his words were 'misrepresented,' insisting there's no daylight between his position and that of Trump.
'Go watch the interview I did with Benny Johnson. I was very clear,' Johnson told reporters in the Capitol. 'We're for transparency. I'm saying the same thing the president is that, I mean, you need to have all of the credible information released for the American people to make their decision. We trust the American people. And I know the president does, as well, that's an important principle to abide by here.'
Johnson went on to emphasize that any information released surrounding the Epstein case should exclude innocent figures, including the underage victims of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes.
'What they have to do — what the president has to do — is protect the innocent,' he said. 'There are whistleblowers' and minors' names involved in things related to Epstein, obviously, and you've got to be careful not to release that.'
The controversy surrounding the Epstein saga exploded this month after Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) released an unsigned memo asserting the government has no evidence that Epstein maintained a 'client list' or attempted to blackmail powerful figures who might have committed crimes with minors.
The DOJ also stated the official cause of Epstein's death — by suicide in his Manhattan jail cell in 2019 — was accurate.
The memo directly contradicted claims made by some of Trump's most loyal followers inside and outside of government, who have maintained for years that Epstein's alleged sex trafficking network included wealthy, powerful figures in the public and private sectors alike and that the government was covering up the details of the case to protect those 'elites.'
The skeptics also speculated Epstein was murdered in jail to keep him quiet — a narrative Trump has also advanced.
Among the loudest voices promoting those theories are figures who now hold positions of high power in the Trump administration: Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, Patel's chief deputy.
As recently as February — after she was sworn in as attorney general — Bondi said she had Epstein's client list on her desk and suggested she was ready to release it, only to reverse course this month to say there was no scandal to reveal.
The saga has fractured Trump's MAGA supporters, and that divide is also pronounced on Capitol Hill, where some GOP lawmakers are urging the DOJ to release all the files, while others are joining Trump in calling for Congress to move on to other issues.
Stoking the clash has been Elon Musk, the billionaire tech mogul and onetime Trump ally who has asserted that Trump doesn't want the Epstein files released for a simple reason: because he's implicated within them.
Johnson had initially deferred to the White House on the question of how to handle the files. But on Tuesday, he told Benny Johnson, a conservative podcaster, that the DOJ should come clean and release all the pertinent records in its possession to put the speculation to rest.
'I'm for transparency,' Mike Johnson said in the interview with Benny Johnson. 'It's a very delicate subject, but we should put everything out there, and let the people decide.'
Amid the outcry, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has frequently clashed with Trump, introduced a procedural measure designed to force a House vote on legislation requiring the DOJ to release the files. It's unclear if the resolution, known as a discharge petition, will secure the 218 signatures needed to force that vote, but at least one other high-profile Republican, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), has already signaled her support.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
Trump's war on ‘woke AI' is just Step 1: now we must fight the ‘monster' within
President Donald Trump has identified a real problem: artificial intelligence systems are exhibiting an undeniable political slant. His administration's new AI action plan, released Wednesday, promises to eliminate 'ideological bias' from American AI. Silicon Valley engineers do lean left, and they've built their AI systems to reflect progressive values. The results have been embarrassing for everyone. Advertisement When Google's Gemini generated black Founding Fathers and racially diverse Nazis, the company became a laughingstock — and when Elon Musk's 'anti-woke' Grok started praising Hitler, it proved the same point. Whether you're trying to program woke or anti-woke tendencies, these systems interpret your instructions in unpredictable ways that humiliate their creators. Advertisement In this way, both Google and Musk discovered the same terrifying truth: AI developers can't even get their systems to implement their own political goals correctly. The engineers at Google desperately tried to prevent exactly the outputs that made them a viral punchline. It happened anyway. The problem is not that any group has succeeded in controlling these systems; the problem is that no one has — because no one knows how to. Trump's anticipated executive order targeting 'woke AI' recognizes something important. He sees that biased AI is unreliable AI, and he's absolutely right to demand better. Advertisement But the long-term solution isn't swapping a woke mask for a MAGA one. We have to rip off the mask entirely, and learn to shape what's underneath. This is what Silicon Valley doesn't want Washington to understand: These systems are black boxes at their core. Engineers try to instill certain values through training. But how those values manifest emerges unpredictably from neural networks so complex their creators can't trace the logic. Advertisement Some AI researchers call these systems 'Shoggoths,' after a shapeless monster conjured by horror writer HP Lovecraft — an alien intelligence wearing a thin mask of helpfulness. That mask slips sometimes. We call it 'hallucination' when AI confidently states falsehoods, and we call it 'bias' when it reveals disturbing preferences. But these aren't mere bugs in code. They're glimpses of the real features beneath models' superficial post-training. Consider what happened when researchers at Palisade tested OpenAI's latest model. In controlled tests, they gave it a shutdown script—a kill switch for safety. In 79 out of 100 trials, the AI rewrote its own code to disable the shutdown. No one taught it to value self-preservation; that emerged spontaneously, from training. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Advertisement The real crisis is that the same black-box process creating unwanted political bias also creates unwanted survival instincts, deceptive capabilities, and goal-seeking behaviors that AI engineers never intended. The wokeness Trump is upset about is just the canary in the coal mine. You can paint over that with a patriotic veneer just as easily as with a progressive one. The alien underneath remains unchanged — and uncontrolled. And that's a national security threat, because China isn't wasting time debating whether its AI is too woke, but racing to understand and harness these systems through a multi-billion-dollar AI control fund. Advertisement While we're fighting culture wars over chatbot outputs, Beijing is attacking the core problem: alignment — that is, how to shape not just what AI says, but what it values. The administration's action plan acknowledges 'the inner workings of frontier AI systems are poorly understood,' a crucial first step. But it doesn't connect the dots: The best way to 'accelerate AI innovation' isn't just by removing barriers — it's by solving alignment itself. Advertisement Without understanding these systems, we can't reliably deploy them for defense, health care or any high-stakes application. Alignment research will solve the wokeness problem by giving us tools to shape AI values and behaviors, not just slap shallow filters on top. Simultaneously, alignment will solve the deeper problems of systems that deceive us, resist shutdown or pursue goals we never intended. An alignment breakthrough called reinforcement learning from human feedback, or RLHF, is what transformed useless AI into ChatGPT, unlocking trillions in value. Advertisement But RLHF was just the beginning. We need new techniques that don't just make AI helpful, but make it genuinely understand and internalize American values at its core. This means funding research to open the black box and understand how these alien systems form their goals and values at Manhattan Project scale, not as a side project. The wokeness Trump has identified is a warning shot, proof we're building artificial minds we can't control with values we didn't choose and goals we can't predict. Today it's diverse Nazis — tomorrow it could be self-preserving systems in charge of our infrastructure, defense networks and economy. The choice is stark: Take the uncontrollable alien and dress it in MAGA colors, or invest in understanding these systems deeply enough to shape their core values. We must make AI not just politically neutral, but fundamentally aligned with American interests. Whether American AI is woke or based misses the basic question: Is it recognizably American at all? We need to invest now to ensure that it is. Judd Rosenblatt runs the AI consulting company AE Studio, which invests its profits in alignment research.
CNET
a few seconds ago
- CNET
Trump's AI Action Plan Is Here. These Are the Top 5 Themes
The Trump administration on Wednesday laid out the steps it plans to take to ensure "global AI dominance" for the US, with an AI Action Plan that calls for cutting regulations to speed up the development of artificial intelligence tools and the infrastructure to power them. Critics said the plan is a handout to tech and fossil fuel companies, slashing rules that could protect consumers, prevent pollution and fight climate change. The plan itself isn't all that binding. It includes dozens of policy recommendations for the executive branch to carry out but doesn't on its own make anything happen. The steps it lays out follow how the Trump administration has approached AI and technology over the past six months -- giving tech companies a largely free hand, focusing on beating China and prioritizing the construction of data centers, factories and fossil fuel power plants over environmental regulations. It is seizing on the moment created by the arrival of ChatGPT less than three years ago and the ensuing wave of generative AI efforts by Google, Meta and others. "An industrial revolution, an information revolution, and a renaissance -- all at once. This is the potential that AI presents," the AI Action Plan says. President Donald Trump is expected to speak on AI priorities later Wednesday during a forum with the hosts of the All-In Podcast. The administration and tech industry groups touted the plan as a framework for US success in a race against China. "President Trump's AI Action Plan presents a blueprint to usher in a new era of US AI dominance," Jason Oxman, president and CEO of the tech industry trade group ITI, said in a statement. Consumer groups said the plan focuses on deregulation and would hurt consumers by reducing the rules that could protect them. "Whether it's promoting the use of federal land for dirty data centers, giving the FTC orders to question past cases, or attempting to revive some version of the soundly defeated AI moratorium by tying federal funds to not having 'onerous regulation' according to the FCC, this is an unwelcome distraction at a critical time for government to get consumer protection right with increasing AI use and abuse," Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said in a statement. Here's a look at the proposals in the plan. Slashing regulations for AI infrastructure The plan says AI growth will require infrastructure, including chip factories, data centers and more energy generation. And it blames environmental regulations for getting in the way. In response, it proposes exemptions for AI-related construction from certain environmental regulations, including those aimed at protecting clean water and air. It also suggests making federal lands available for data center construction and related power plants. To provide energy for all those data centers, the plan calls for steps to prevent the "premature decommissioning of critical power generation resources." This likely refers to keeping coal-fired power plants and other mostly fossil-fuel-driven infrastructure online for longer. The administration also called to prioritize the connection of new "reliable, dispatchable power sources" to the grid and specifically named nuclear fission and fusion and advanced geothermal generation. Earlier this month, the president signed a bill that would end many tax credits and incentives for renewable energy -- wind and solar -- years earlier than planned. Wind and solar make up the bulk of the new energy generation being added to the US grid right now. Fewer rules around AI technology Congress ended up not including a moratorium on state AI rules in the recently passed tax and spending bill but efforts to cut regulations around AI continue from the executive branch in the action plan. "AI is far too important to smother in bureaucracy at this early stage, whether at the state or Federal level," the plan says. The plan recommends that several federal agencies review whether existing or proposed rules would interfere with the development and deployment of AI. The feds would consider whether states' regulatory climate is favorable for AI when deciding to award funding. Federal Trade Commission investigations and orders would be reviewed to determine that they don't "advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation." Those rule changes could undermine efforts to protect consumers from problems caused by AI, critics said. "Companies -- including AI companies -- have a legal obligation to protect their products from being used for harm," Justin Brookman, director of tech policy at Consumer Reports, said in a statement. "When a company makes design choices that increase the risk their product will be used for harm, or when the risks are particularly serious, companies should bear legal responsibility." Ideology and large language models The plan proposes some steps around ensuring AI "protects free speech and American values," further steps in the Trump administration's efforts to roll back federal policies around what it refers to as "diversity, equity and inclusion," along with references to the problems of misinformation and climate change. It calls for eliminating references to those items in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's AI Risk Management Framework. Federal agencies would only be allowed to contract with AI developers who "ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias." The Trump administration has recently announced contracts of up to $200 million each to developers Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and xAI. Grok, the model from Elon Musk's xAI, has recently come under fire for spouting antisemitism and hate speech. Dealing with workforce challenges The plan acknowledges that AI will "transform how work gets done across all industries and occupations, demanding a serious workforce response to help workers navigate that transition" and recommends actions by federal agencies including the Department of Labor intended to mitigate the harms of AI-driven job displacement. The plan calls for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis to monitor how AI affects the labor market using data already collected. An AI Workforce Research Hub under the Department of Labor would lead monitoring and issue policy recommendations. Most of the actual plans to help workers displaced by AI involve retraining those workers for other jobs or to help states do the same. Other jobs-related recommendations are aimed at boosting the kinds of jobs needed for all those data centers and chip manufacturing plants -- like electricians and HVAC technicians. These plans and others to encourage AI literacy and AI use in education drew praise from the Software & Information Industry Association, a tech industry trade group. "These are key components for building trust and ensuring all communities can participate in and benefit from AI's potential," Paul Lekas, SIIA's senior vice president of global public policy, said in a statement. More AI in government The plan envisions more use of AI by the federal government. A talent exchange program would allow employees with experience or talent in AI to be detailed to other agencies in need. The General Services Administration would create a toolbox of AI models that would help agencies see models to choose from and use cases in other parts of the government. Every government agency would also be required to ensure employees who could use AI in their jobs have access to and training for AI tools. Many recommendations focus specifically on the Department of Defense, including creating a virtual proving ground for AI and autonomous systems. AI companies have already been signing contracts with the DOD to develop AI tools for the military.
CNBC
2 minutes ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court allows Trump to fire members of product safety agency
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed President Donald Trump to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency set up by Congress to be independent of political pressures. The justices, granting an emergency request filed by the Trump administration, blocked a Maryland-based federal judge's ruling that reinstated Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., all of whom had been appointed by then-President Joe Biden. Without the three members in place, the five-member commission would for now lack the necessary quorum to fulfill its obligation to protect consumers from defective products. Under existing law, members can only be removed for "neglect of duty or malfeasance," but Trump went ahead and fired members anyway, as he has done at other agencies with similar restrictions as part of his aggressive efforts to reshape the federal government. The Supreme Court in May allowed him to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, casting aside precedent dating back to 1935 that upheld removal protections. The unsigned order on Wednesday said that the latest case was "squarely controlled" by what the high court decided then. As in the previous case, the three liberal justices on the conservative-majority court dissented. "Once again, this court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress," wrote Justice Elena Kagan. In ruling against Trump, lower court judges relied on the 1935 precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which the Supreme Court has not overturned but has signaled it will in due course. The court has in recent rulings undermined the 1935 precedent by saying that similar restrictions on presidential power involving other agencies are unconstitutional because they infringe on the core constitutional powers of the president. In 2020, the court ruled on those grounds in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director and followed that up with a similar ruling a year later concerning the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Trump in May moved to fire the three Consumer Product Safety Commission members. A month later, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Maddox ordered that they be reinstated and they returned to their jobs while litigation continued. The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Maddox's ruling on hold. The commission, set up in 1972 by Congress, oversees a wide variety of consumer product issues, including safety standards and research into injury prevention. In order to insulate the commission from politics, Congress gave the members staggered seven-year terms, stipulated that only three could represent the same political party and said the president could not fire them at will. All five members are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate and expected to have expertise on consumer product safety issues. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Maddox's ruling has "sown chaos and dysfunction" at the agency, with the reinstated members moving to undo actions that the commission took after they were initially fired. Lawyers for the commission members wrote in their own filing that the court would be adding to the disruption if it allowed their clients to be removed from office a second time. In some cases, the three commissioners have been "undoing actions that the CPSC unlawfully took" during the time they were prevented from working, the lawyers added.
