The 8 MAGA Factions Duking It Out Over Epstein
But no issue has exposed the underlying fault lines in the MAGA tent quite like the so-called Epstein files.
The furor has centered on a new government review of the evidence surrounding the disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal prison in 2019 after being arrested on child sex trafficking charges. The unsigned report, released jointly by the FBI and Department of Justice last Monday, found no evidence of an incriminating 'client list' or a wider blackmail ring surrounding Epstein, and it concluded the financier died by suicide in his prison cell. Those findings ran contrary to the numerous theories — many of them once endorsed by members of Trump's own administration — that Epstein kept a list of the many powerful people to whom he supplied underage victims and was murdered as part of a far-reaching government conspiracy
The report has sparked furious backlash from various parts of the MAGA coalition, much of it directed toward Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had promised a comprehensive account of the Epstein case, and FBI Director Kash Patel, who helped popularize various conspiracy theories surrounding the Epstein case before joining the administration. Even Trump has faced some heat from former allies and supporters.
On Saturday, Trump — who has long been referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein but is not accused of wrongdoing — tried to tamp down the intra-MAGA revolt with a post on Truth Social reiterating his support for Bondi and suggesting that the Epstein files had been manufactured by his Democratic opponents. Yet Trump's digital missive appears to have done little to quell the MAGA movement's fury over the controversy, which continues to dominate the discussion in conservative circles in Washington.
The fallout over the Epstein report has been distinct from the recent skirmishes over Iran and immigration. Instead of neatly dividing Trump world into two opposing and mutually antagonistic camps, the debate has fractured the right into a kaleidoscopic mélange of competing factions, throwing into sharp relief the divergent — and often contradictory — ideological impulses co-existing within MAGA-world.
These warring impulses are often subsumed by the right's overwhelming fidelity to Trump, but the controversy over the Epstein files demonstrates that these dissonant strands persist despite Trump's domination of the party. Meanwhile, the controversy has pushed the MAGA movement to the brink of its most serious political schism since Trump returned to office in January.
The landscape of the controversy is still shifting, as different members of Trump's coalition either fall in line or fall out. But as it stands now, here is an as-comprehensive-as-possible taxonomy of the various factions duking it out over the Epstein files.
The 'Nothing to See Here'-ers
Several members of Trump's administration — including Bondi and Patel — entered their new jobs stoking suspicion about a government coverup of the Epstein files and promising to use their new power to get to the bottom of the case. But now that they're in the government, they're claiming that they've gotten to the bottom — and there's nothing much to see down there.
That was the gist of the DOJ and FBI report, and the message has been reenforced by Bondi and Patel in the week since. 'The conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been,' wrote Patel — who promoted theories about Epstein's 'black book' in 2023 — in a post on X over the weekend. Bondi, meanwhile, has walked backed previous comments suggesting that Epstein's client list was 'sitting on [her] desk,' claiming she meant all the files relating to the Epstein case.
The leader of the 'nothing to see here' gang is, of course, Trump himself. 'One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it's the 'HOTTEST' Country anywhere in the World,' Trump wrote in his Truth Social post on Saturday. 'Let's keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.'
The Deep State Haters
Another group of Trump's supporters have revived a favorite MAGA leitmotif to explain the lack of disclosure in the Epstein case: that the 'deep state' is outmaneuvering Trump's deputies to thwart the democratic will and protect itself and its elites. This faction's most voluble mouthpiece is Steve Bannon, the de facto leader of MAGA's nationalist-populist faction, though his position received some qualified support over the weekend from other MAGA activists like Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec. (Kirk has since said that he's 'done talking about Epstein for the time being.'
Speaking at the TPUSA summit this weekend, Bannon argued that 'you can easily fit in the Epstein situation' to the alleged history of deep state efforts to foil Trump. The lack of new information in the report, Bannon alleged, is proof that Trump's allies still do not have a sufficiently powerful foothold in the national security state and intelligence apparatus — a position that at once absolves Trump and his deputies of blame and simultaneously makes the case for extending the MAGA incursion deeper into government institutions.
Notably, Bannon has trod lightly around other conservatives' demands that Bondi, Patel and other Trump appointees be fired or step down. 'You could have [Deputy FBI Director] Dan Bongino resign, or Pam Bondi resign … but what you're going to have is turmoil,' Bannon said this weekend. 'What we want to do is not upend FBI and DOJ. We need to get to the bottom of Epstein.'
The Israel Skeptics
A slightly distinct slice of the MAGA movement has zeroed in on Epstein's alleged ties to Israel, suggesting that Epstein's sex trafficking activities could have been part of a joint U.S.-Israeli 'honeypot' operation designed to ensnare valuable intelligence targets. Last week, MAGA media megastar Tucker Carlson released a lengthy podcast interview laying out this theory with the conversative commentator Saagar Enjeti, who pointed to Epstein's relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and past reporting suggesting that Epstein may have had ties to U.S. intelligence. The implication, left mostly unstated by its proponents, is that Epstein was either killed or coerced into killing himself to prevent details of a possible operation from coming to light.
Notably, this line of critique is emerging from the members of the MAGA coalition who most vocally opposed the U.S. bombings of Iran and who have most openly criticized the U.S. relationship with Israel. Those views, as well as their continued skepticism over the Epstein case, have brought Carlson and his backers into more or less open conflict with Trump. 'I like Trump. I campaigned for Trump,' Carlson said in a recent interview with NBC News. 'But I've got my views.'
The Loyalty Enforcers
The Epstein files controversy has also become grist for the coterie of Trump's self-appointed loyalty enforcers, who have taken on the responsibility of separating the Trumpist faithful from the opportunistic hangers-on. Their leader is the MAGA activist Laura Loomer, who has repeatedly intervened in the administration to convince Trump to banish followers whom she deems insufficiently loyal — most notably several members of the National Security Council whom Trump fired in April after meeting with Loomer.
Now, Loomer has set her sights on Bondi, whom she has been attacking relentlessly on social media. 'Pam Blondi is very damaging to President Trump's image,' Loomer wrote in a post on X. 'She drags the administration down and the base doesn't want her as AG.' Trump, of course, is not in the slightest to blame.
Loomer has also seized on the controversy to take up some of her longstanding beefs with other prominent members of the MAGA activist class, including Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk and Matt Gaetz. In the meantime, she has called on Trump to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation into the files — a suggestion which, given his recent efforts to downplay the files, Trump is unlikely to follow.
The Lukewarm Podcast Bros
So-called podcast bros like Joe Rogan and Andrew Schulz jumped on the Trump train in 2024, but the Epstein files controversy — as well as Trump's other recent moves backing away from his more populist agenda items — seems to be giving them second thoughts. On a podcast this weekend, Schulz, wearing a tin-foil hat as a gag, accused Trump of covering up the facts of the Epstein case, saying the administration's recent report is 'insulting to our intelligence.' Rogan, meanwhile, posted this sardonic message: 'Shout out to all the people that still don't believe in conspiracies. Your ability to stick to your guns is inspiring.'
Those comments come on the tail of a handful of other criticisms that the podcast bros have levied at Trump in recent weeks, suggesting that their flirtation with the MAGA movement may be coming to an end. Earlier this month, Rogan criticized Trump's 'insane' immigration crackdown for targeting non-criminal migrants, and Schulz has gone after Trump for reneging on his campaign promises by bombing Iran and adding to the federal debt with his megabill.
Although Rogan and Schulz are, by their own admission, not diehard MAGA loyalists, their criticism could spell political trouble for Trump, whose ability to win over disaffected but not particularly ideological young men proved critical to his 2024 victory. But the honeymoon seems to be ending. As Schulz put it last week, 'Trump is doing the exact opposite of everything I voted for.'
The Conspicuously Silent Crowd
Another group of MAGA supporters have responded to the report with the most conspicuous response of all: silence. Chief among the newly silent crowd is MAGA-media-personality-turned-Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino, who entered the government vowing to get to the bottom of the many theories about Epstein that he once pushed, only to clam up since the report dropped. Bongino is now caught between his loyalty to Trump and his long-stated beliefs about the case, and he's gone AWOL in response: According to a report from Axios, he didn't show up to work on Friday, and CNN reported on Monday that Bongino has 'excommunicated himself from most of his colleagues after a major fallout with Attorney General Pam Bondi.'
Bongino is joined in his awkward position by Vice President JD Vance, who has publicly cast doubt on the details of Epstein's death and called on the government to release Epstein's client list during the 2024 campaign. Vance has reportedly been playing the role of mediator in the intra-administration showdown about the recent report, but he has not spoken publicly about the controversy.
The Plan Trusters
Throughout the recent tumult for the MAGA coalition, a solid block of Trump's supporters has effectively coalesced around a new motto: 'Trust the plan.' You may not understand what Trump is up to, so the thinking goes, but Trump certainly does — and that should be good enough for the rest of us. In this case, the plan trusters concede that incriminating files might exist, but Trump and his team are justified in covering them up. 'Must be some juicy and dangerous stuff in those files. But I don't feel the need to be a backseat driver on this topic,' posted Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comics who has veered sharply to the right in recent years. 'Four leaders I trust said it's time to let it go. They want what is best for America and they have their reasons. I don't need to check their work.'
There are some signs, though, that this argument is losing its hold over the MAGA base. 'We trusted the plan with Trump, but now Trump has become the deep state,' one young attendee at the TPUSA summit told Bannon this weekend. 'What is more deep state than covering up for pedophiles?'
Team Elon
Elon Musk, as a team of one, has not passed up on the opportunity to beat up on his ex-bestie as he tries to stake out a new political lane separate from Trump. 'How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won't release the Epstein files?' Musk posted last week. He added: 'Seriously. He said 'Epstein' half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein. Just release the files as promised.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
3 minutes ago
- Axios
SEPTA faces final countdown to avoid service cuts
SEPTA has one week to fill its $213 million budget shortfall and avoid massive cutbacks — a reality the transit agency is facing without a once-reliable plan B. Why it matters: The impending service cuts will impact commuters and students returning to schools later this month, and they could interrupt the city's planning for big-ticket events in 2026. The big picture: Pennsylvania's divided government is weeks late in hammering out a budget deal. Amid the biggest sticking points: state transportation funding, including the money SEPTA needs to avert its doomsday service cuts. While Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and the Democratic-controlled House have backed more SEPTA funding, the Republican–controlled Senate has balked at the proposal and called for more agency oversight. Threat level: SEPTA faces an Aug. 14 deadline to get state funding to shore up its budget gap, agency officials said Wednesday. Barring that, a 20% reduction in service across rail, buses and trolleys will begin Aug. 24. What they're saying: SEPTA general manager Scott Sauer said during a Wednesday news conference that the deadline is necessary to schedule service changes across the system, set staff assignments and prepare vehicles. "Time is of the essence," he said. Sauer warned that even if state funding arrives after Aug. 14, SEPTA will need at least 10 days to restore full service. Meanwhile, it appears unlikely that Shapiro can count on an alternate plan to fund SEPTA, as he did last year. Flashback: In 2024, after SEPTA failed to secure more funding in the state budget and faced service cuts, Shapiro directed the transfer of $153 million in federal highway funding to the agency in a maneuver known as " flexing." Shapiro didn't need state lawmakers to sign off on the transfer. But the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), then under former President Joe Biden, had to review and sign off on the transfer. The intrigue: Now without a fellow Democrat in the White House, Shapiro could face a chillier reception to such a request — especially considering Shapiro and President Trump have sparred in the past. SEPTA has not heard of flexing federal funding for the agency being an option so far, agency spokesperson Andrew Busch tells Axios. FHWA spokesperson Angela Gates declined to discuss hypothetical flexing requests. But Gates noted that the federal agency has approved four requests from the state this year for flexing federal funding, but declined to identify them. A spokesperson for Shapiro declined to comment. The spokesperson referred Axios to Shapiro's previous comments in which the governor said budget negotiations were making slow progress. The bottom line: It's likely state budget or bust for SEPTA.
Miami Herald
3 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
You'll need more than luck in the Visa Lottery: Trump administration wants to change the rules
The rules for the popular Diversity Visa Lottery — which allows thousands of people each year to legally immigrate to the United States and apply for a green card — could soon change under a new proposal from the U.S. Department of State. The proposed measures, published Tuesday in the Federal Register, are aligned with several immigration and national security policies reinstated under the Trump administration. Officially known as the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program, the initiative is now under review to improve 'vetting and combatting fraud.' The Department of State's proposal would increase screening for applicants to the program, whose immigrant visas are granted through a computerized lottery. The agency is seeking to require DV applicants to submit 'valid, unexpired passport information and a scanned copy of the passport biographic page and signature page uploaded with their electronic entry form.' Another change would involve replacing the term 'gender' with 'sex,' in compliance with Executive Order 14168, as well as using 'date of birth' instead of 'age' in an effort to improve 'the accuracy of information collected and maintained by the Department throughout the immigrant visa process.' The DV Program is administered by the Department of State and benefits countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.: specifically, nationals of countries from which fewer than 50,000 people have immigrated to the U.S. over the past five years. According to official data, millions of applicants submit their DV entries every year through an online registration form. The Department of State says the proposed requirements would strengthen the security framework against fraud in the DV application and adjudication process. 'Requiring passport information with the DV entry would make it substantially more difficult for unauthorized third parties to submit entries on behalf of individuals with partial information,' the rule states. 'This requirement would also enable the Department to more effectively and efficiently confirm the identities of entrants. The Department also anticipates that this requirement would reduce the number of fraudulent marriages that occur within the DV Program.' Early identification of potential fraud would reduce the need to dedicate 'significant resources' to resolving inconsistencies between the DV entry and the visa application, and to 'determine whether the explanation provided by the applicant is credible or whether the entry was fraudulent.' Each year, 55,000 Diversity Visas are made available to those who meet eligibility criteria and qualify under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and State Department regulations. The proposal includes amending certain visa application forms to require 'a passport number or unique identification number associated with the applicant's valid, unexpired passport; the name on the passport; the country or authority that issued the passport; and the expiration date of the passport.' Additionally, DV applicants would be required to submit a scanned image of the passport's biographic and signature pages. This would, according to the proposal, 'significantly enhance' the department's ability to verify applicants' identities — part of the response to Trump's Executive Order 14161, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, issued on January 20, 2025. With access to a scanned passport image, the department 'seeks to reduce the likelihood of a falsified passport number' and enable adjudicators 'to compare the spelling of the principal entrant's name in the native alphabet on the passport with the spelling of the entrant's name in English as provided on the entry form.' Under the new rules, some applicants would need to obtain a valid passport at the time of submitting their DV entry, rather than after being selected for an interview at a consular office or embassy. The proposed rule is open to public comment for 44 days and is scheduled to close on September 19, 2025.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
