Jeffrey Epstein is splitting MAGA. Will he sink Trump and Republicans?
For the first time, there is a very real threat to Trump's perceived infallibility among the most devoted.
The fight, which began with a joint FBI-Department of Justice memo declaring that Epstein's sought after 'client list' does not exist and that the disgraced financer did in fact commit suicide in 2019 has escalated in recent days.
Last Wednesday, after previously attempting to put the issue to rest, Trump took aim at those within his own party who want to shine light on the investigation, calling them 'stupid Republicans' and saying they fell for a 'hoax.'
Trump continued, focusing his ire on the MAGA universe, describing them as 'PAST supporters' and 'weaklings' who 'bought into this bullshit.'
However, while Trump's fury has previously been able to coax most hardline Republicans to fall in line — and some like Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have rushed to his defense in the wake of a Wall Street Journal report detailing an alleged letter Trump sent Epstein in 2003 — this time appears different.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), as well as Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have all called for further investigations or transparency into Epstein, something Trump belatedly called for from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
And far-right influencer Laura Loomer, who also pushed back against the Wall Street Journal article, went on record to say she thinks Trump's botched handling of the Epstein issue could 'consume his presidency' and outright rejected Trump's insistence that it is a hoax.
To that end, polling is already reflecting the threat to Republicans' midterm hopes from the administration's mishandling of the Epstein situation.
Indeed, a majority (54 percent) of U.S. adults disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue, while less than one-fifth (17 percent) approve — a number that would look worse if not for 35 percent of Republicans approving, per Reuters-Ipsos polling.
Similarly, clear majorities of adults think the administration is hiding Epstein's client list (69 percent), despite Trump's repeated denials of a list's existence, and hiding information on Epstein's death (60 percent).
Notably, majorities of Republicans agree, with more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) believing the administration is hiding the client list, and 55 percent thinking information on Epstein's death is being covered up.
These findings have also been seen in other recent polls.
According to Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, a majority (56 percent) of likely voters do not believe the FBI and Justice Department are telling the truth about Epstein, just 21 percent believe the government has been honest.
Ironically, this is an entirely self-inflicted wound for the administration.
Having fanned the flames of a government-wide cover up of Epstein and his 'client list' for nearly a decade, Trump and others created the mess they now find themselves in and are struggling to dig out of.
Very few, if any, people outside of Trump's hard-core base were demanding the release of the Epstein files, yet Trump, Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy Dan Bongino spent years feeding conspiracy theories to Trump's base.
And once in power, they continued teasing the release of more information, only to underwhelm, backtrack, or deny their previous statements.
Of course, if there is no list, it would behoove the administration to say so. Yet no one — least of all Trump, Bondi or Patel — seem willing to admit that the conspiracy theories they've pushed for years may be false.
Growing discontent at the administration's handling of the Epstein issue is also taking its toll on Trump personally.
Following the joint FBI-DOJ memo, Trump's approval rating dropped to negative 17 points from negative 11 points, per Economist/YouGov polling conducted both before and after the memo's release.
Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen's head pollster, called their results 'brutal' and said that Republicans could lose both chambers of Congress over the issue.
At this point, Mitchell may be spot on.
A sufficient number of Republican hardliners appear willing to join with Democrats to force a House vote on releasing all available information on Epstein, putting Republicans in a lose-lose situation.
If they go along with the vote, they will anger Trump, but if they do not, they open themselves up to attacks that they're 'protecting' Epstein.
Republican angst was evident last Thursday when Politico ran an article noting that many Republican House members were 'eager' to leave Washington for summer recess ahead of a potential vote that would force them to go on record.
To be sure, Republicans already needed virtually everything to break their way if they wanted to hold onto the House next year.
Historically, the party in control tends to lose seats in midterms, and Democrats currently sit at plus 3 points in the generic congressional ballot per RealClearPolitics polling aggregator, as well as Trump's own pollster Tony Fabrizio according to a memo released by Politico.
But now, the Republicans have to deal with the possibility that Trump voters simply do not come out to vote due to their anger over the Epstein files.
Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether Trump's base will let the Epstein issue die between now and midterms, and Trump's order to Bondi to release pertinent grand jury documents may ensure that it remains in the spotlight.
Put another way, if Trump cannot satisfy his most ardent supporters and assure them that there is no cover up, which currently seems unlikely, Republicans may pay a considerable political price for the administration's missteps.
Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, 'America: Unite or Die.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
ICE Is Overplaying Its Hand. We've Seen It Happen Before.
Out of this breach emerged the Compromise of 1850, a grand bargain designed to preserve the Union. Under its provisions, California entered the Union as a free state, but the citizens of other former Mexican territories were left to make their own determinations about slavery. Congress abolished the slave trade, but not slavery, in Washington, D.C. And, in return for these concessions, Southern politicians secured what would prove to be the most incendiary component of the deal: the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) of 1850. The new act inspired widespread disgust throughout the North. The law stripped accused runaways of their right to trial by jury and allowed individual cases to be bumped up from state courts to special federal courts. As an extra incentive to federal commissioners adjudicating such cases, it provided a $10 fee when a defendant was remanded to slavery but only $5 for a finding rendered against the slave owner. Most obnoxious to many Northerners, the law stipulated harsh fines and prison sentences for any citizen who refused to cooperate with or aid federal authorities in the capture of accused fugitives — much in the same way the Trump administration has threatened to jail persons who impede its immigration raids. Before the FSA, formerly enslaved people were able to build lives for themselves in many northern communities. They found homes, took jobs, made friends, started families, formed churches. But after the FSA, they were permanent fugitives — and anyone who employed them, associated with them or provided them housing were accomplices. Early enforcement made immediate martyrs of ordinary people and pierced the illusion that slavery was just a Southern problem. In 1851 federal agents in Boston arrested Thomas Sims, who had escaped enslavement in Georgia, and marched him to a federal courthouse under guard by more than 300 armed soldiers to prevent a rescue. For Boston, a city whose history was steeped in the struggle against King George's standing army, it was an ominous display. Sims' hearing was, just as the law intended, shambolic, and he was ultimately returned to Georgia. (He would later escape a second time during the Civil War.) Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter. That same year, Shadrach Minkins, a waiter who had also fled enslavement to Boston, was seized in broad daylight. This time, word traveled fast, and a local 'vigilance committee' — interracial groups formed to monitor and, when necessary, resist enforcement of the fugitive slave law — assembled, with an eye toward liberating the accused man. Awaiting a hearing in federal custody, Minkins was suddenly rescued in a dramatic confrontation witnessed by attorney Richard H. Dana, Jr. 'We heard a shout from across the courthouse,' Dana recalled, 'continued into a yell of triumph, and in an instant after down the steps came two negroes bearing the prisoner between them with his clothes half torn off, and so stupefied by his sudden rescue and the violence of the dragging off that he sat almost dumb, and I thought had fainted. ... It was all done in an instant, too quick to be believed.' Minkins made it to Montreal, where he lived the rest of his life in freedom.
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Psychologists predicted Trump's 2024 win before a single vote was cast — here's how they did it
Psychologists pulled off what political pundits and polls failed to do: predict the 2024 presidential election winner. Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. While Trump's tone grew increasingly upbeat in the final weeks of the campaign, Kamala Harris's stayed flat. That shift correctly forecast not just that Trump would win, but by how much, according to a new study from Penn's Positive Psychology Center. 4 Trump's 2024 win was predicted weeks before the election by UPenn psychologists who tracked his rising optimism — a shift that set him apart from Kamala Harris, according to a new study. The Washington Post via Getty Images 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' The team analyzed 1,389 explanations of negative events — such as war, crime, or economic hardship — from both candidates. Their dataset drew from speeches, interviews, and their only presidential debate, all delivered between early September and October 27. Each explanation was scored using the CAVE method, or Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations, a positive psychology technique that analyzes how people explain events in speech or writing. Researchers used it to measure optimism by assessing whether causes were described as temporary, specific, and fixable. The narrower and solvable the cause, the more 'optimistic' the candidate's message. 4 Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spoke during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 2024. AFP via Getty Images Trump referenced more than 1,000 negative issues or events — over four times the number cited by Harris — often blaming outside forces while insisting the problems were fixable, usually by himself, the study found. Harris, by contrast, described deep, lasting threats with little sense of resolution, Seligman said. To see whether any other speech patterns could have predicted the results, the researchers also looked at emotional tone, focus on past vs. future and language about control or responsibility. None of them tracked with the outcome. Optimism stood alone. Seligman's earlier research found that more optimism predicted the winner in 9 out of the 10 elections between 1948 and 1984. 4 Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. AFP via Getty Images After that, he advised both political parties on using optimism in their campaigns. But when candidates began scripting fake optimism, he shelved the method. He only revived it this cycle because Trump's off-the-cuff style allowed for real-time analysis. The researchers encrypted their prediction before Election Day and shared it with four outside verifiers, including Wall Street Journal reporters Lara Seligman — daughter of Martin Seligman — and Al Hunt, University of Washington political scientist Dan Chirot, and Hope College psychologist Dave Myers, before publishing the results after the race. 4 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' Getty Images 'We're the only people who predicted a Trump election, as far as I know,' Seligman said. A separate forecasting model, based on economic conditions and presidential approval ratings, was developed by Cornell University professor Peter Enns and also correctly predicted Trump's win in all 50 states. The findings suggest voters respond more favorably to optimistic candidates who present problems as fixable rather than systemic — and that Trump's tendency to 'go off script' gave researchers an authentic glimpse of his true mindset, Seligman said. 'When optimism is genuine, I think there's a lot of reason to believe that the American public wants optimism and wants hope,' he said. 'It speaks to the general optimistic slant of American history.'
