Could The Epstein Sex Scandal Rock The Trump Administration?
/ Jul 17, 2025, 11:02PM IST
It's a massive meltdown over the Epstein Files. Donald Trump is lashing out at his own core supporters as scores of them are demanding that the documents be made public and justice delivered for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking racket. The US President, who had promised to do exactly that, in the run up to the 2024 election, is now calling the Epstein Files a 'hoax'. Trump says his supporters who are demanding transparency are 'stupid, foolish weaklings. I don't want their support anymore'. As allegations of a cover-up swirl around, how is Trump going to deal with the Epstein scandal? Can he afford to alienate his core support base? Could the scandal rock the Trump administration? Or will Trump simply brazen it out?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US team to visit India on Aug 25 for next round of talks for trade pact
The US team will visit India on August 25 for the next round of negotiations for the proposed bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, an official said on Tuesday. The official added that the two sides continue to be engaged in an interim trade deal as the August 1 deadline is approaching. August 1 marks the end of the suspension period of tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump on dozens of countries, including India (26 per cent). 'The US team is visiting for the sixth round of talks,' the official said. India and the US teams concluded the fifth round of talks for the agreement last week in Washington. India's chief negotiator and special secretary in the Department of Commerce Rajesh Agrawal and Assistant US Trade Representative for South and Central Asia Brendan Lynch held the deliberations. These deliberations are important as both sides are looking at finalising an interim trade deal before August 1. On April 2 this year, Trump announced high reciprocal tariffs. The implementation of high tariffs was immediately suspended for 90 days till July 9 and later until August 1, as America is negotiating trade deals with various countries. India has hardened its position on the US demand for duty concessions on agri and dairy products. New Delhi has, so far, not given any duty concessions to any of its trading partners in a free trade agreement in the dairy sector. Certain farmers' associations have urged the government not to include any issues related to agriculture in the trade pact. India is seeking the removal of this additional tariff (26 per cent). It is also looking at the easing of tariffs on steel and aluminium (50 per cent) and the auto sector (25 per cent). These issues are an important part of the trade pact negotiations. Against these, India has reserved its right under the WTO (World Trade Organization) norms to impose retaliatory duties. The country is also seeking duty concessions for labour-intensive sectors, such as textiles, gems and jewellery, leather goods, garments, plastics, chemicals, shrimp, oil seeds, grapes, and bananas, in the proposed trade pact. On the other hand, the US wants duty concessions on certain industrial goods, automobiles, especially electric vehicles, wines, petrochemical products, agri goods, dairy items, apples, tree nuts, and genetically modified crops. The two countries are looking to conclude talks for the first tranche of the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA) by fall (September-October) this year. Before that, they are looking for an interim trade pact. India's merchandise exports to the US rose 22.8 per cent to USD 25.51 billion in the April-June quarter this financial year, while imports rose 11.68 per cent to USD 12.86 billion.
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Over 770 Palestinians killed at the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's aid distribution sites
At least 1,874 Palestinians have died in aid-related violence since October 2023. Of these, approximately 1,129 — about 60% — were killed in the past two months alone, coinciding with GHF's operations in the region. Most of those killed (at least 1,597) were civilians shot by the Israeli Defense Forces while seeking aid in or around distribution sites, according to data compiled by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), an international non-profit that tracks global violence. The 'Other/Contested Claims' section in the graphic above also includes civilian deaths. However, the exact circumstances of these killings remain disputed, as the claims have been denied or refuted by the alleged perpetrators. Some of these incidents involved Israeli-backed groups rather than the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) directly, according to data compiled from news reports. Also Read: Stop the slaughter: On Trump, Israel and the Gaza war Since May 26, aid-related killings have occurred almost daily. The violence peaked in the third week of June, with June 17 recording the highest single-day toll — 97 people. One in four Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid since May 26 Between May 26 and July 18, the ACLED data shows that 4,157 Palestinians were killed in Gaza. Of these, approximately 1,005 — about 25% — were civilians shot by the IDF while seeking aid or near aid distribution centers. However, ACLED also records numerous incidents where civilians came under direct IDF fire, but the number of casualties could not be confirmed. In comparison, data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reports that 4,489 Palestinians were killed between May 28 and July 16 alone, bringing the total number of Palestinian deaths since October 7, 2023, to 58,573. Thameen Al-Kheetan, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on June 24 condemned the inhumane conditions faced by Palestinians and held both the GHF and Israel responsible. 'We are seeing scenes of chaos around the food distribution points of the 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' and the few UN humanitarian convoys,' says Mr. Al-Kheetan. 'Israel's militarised humanitarian assistance mechanism is in contradiction with international standards on aid distribution', he adds. Aid distribution: Over 750 of 1,129 killed were in and around GHF aid centres Currently, aid is distributed across Gaza through two distinct channels: one facilitated by United Nations agencies, international aid organizations, and local authorities using pre-existing modes of distribution; the other through distribution sites set up by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Regarding the first channel — comprising the UN and various international aid agencies — Israeli authorities have imposed severe restrictions, rejecting or obstructing the majority of aid delivery requests. Between March 18 and July 15, of the 1,124 humanitarian missions or requests submitted, 633 (56.4%) were either denied (543) or withdrawn (90). Only about one-third (33%) of the missions were successfully carried out without interference from Israeli authorities. In a briefing, the World Food Programme's (WFP) Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, Carl Skau, stated that WFP teams are often stuck spending between 15 to 20 hours straight at checkpoints, fuel supplies and spare parts for vehicles are insufficient, and while there is enough food at the borders to feed the entire population for about two months, incoming supplies are not 'enough to turn the tide of hunger.' The GHF began its aid distribution on May 26, 2025, operating across four sites in Gaza. Three of these sites were in Israeli-militarised zones in the southern region of the strip - on the northern boundary of the 'Morag corridor', and one site is near Wadi Gaza, along the Salah al-Din highway, as shown in the map below. The area surrounding the aid distribution site near Wadi Gaza also soon came under the control of Israeli forces. As of July 23, UNOCHA reported that approximately 87.8% of the Gaza Strip is within the Israeli-militarised zone, under displacement (or evacuation) orders by the IDF, or where these overlap, as shown in the map below. As of July 16, one of the sites (also called 'SDS1', shown above) has been closed by the GHF. At least 771 Palestinians seeking aid have been killed in and around GHF's aid distribution centers between May 26 and July 18. Of these, 708 were reportedly killed by the Israeli Defense Forces. The number of people killed in and around GHF centers on a daily basis is shown below in red and gray. As shown below, 68% of those killed while seeking aid died in or around GHF distribution centres. There were at least 13 additional incidents of the IDF opening fire on civilians and injuring several while they were seeking aid or being in the vicinity of aid distribution centers. In four of these cases, casualty figures remain unknown. Israel-backed armed groups and the anatomy of contested claims The data presented is collated by checking local and international news reports. When it comes to the killings over aid, the 'Others/contested claims' silo in the graphics above is essentially a mixture of the following scenarios: Armed Palestinian gang members or militia looting aid trucks and opening fire on civilians. Hamas or Hamas-affiliated units or forces (like the Sahm Unit) executing or engaging in a clash with armed gangs/clans/militias over looting of aid and theft. In some of these incidents the latter were accused of collaborating with Israel. The IDF striking civilians and either refuting the claim or claiming that the latter were associated with Hamas. Over the course of 21 months, the IDF has claimed to have killed Hamas members on numerous occasions (whether aid-related or not), and there have been several news reports stating that civilians were also brutally targeted in such instances. Apart from what is shown in the graphic above, there were incidents where the IDF claims to have fired 'warning shots,' but people were killed. 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza face acute food insecurity On July 23, 2025, a day after the head of Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City announced that 21 children had died across the Gaza Strip due to malnutrition and starvation, 111 aid organisations and human rights groups warned that mass starvation is spreading in Gaza. Repeated forced displacements through evacuation orders and destruction of local food production mechanisms has crippled the population and economy. After more than 21 months of relentless bloodshed that has claimed the lives of over 59,000 Palestinians, the people of Gaza are grappling with escalating shortages of food, clean water, medical supplies, and other basic necessities. A report released by UNOCHA on Wednesday (July 23, 2025), states that with the 2.1-million-strong population of Palestinians in Gaza facing a high level of acute food insecurity, one million (10 lakh) or half of them are facing 'emergency levels of food insecurity. And over 470,000 (4.7 lakh) people are facing 'catastrophic' levels of food insecurity. But in Gaza, Palestinians are not safe even while seeking the aid essential for their survival.
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's new trade order is fragile
President Donald Trump has achieved the remarkable: raising tariffs by more than the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, while—it appears—avoiding the destructive trade war that followed. Including the deal struck over the weekend with the European Union, the U.S. will impose an effective tariff rate of about 15% on its trading partners, by far the highest since the 1930s, according to JPMorgan Chase. Japan and the EU have together committed to investing $1.15 trillion in the U.S. Europe also agreed to energy and military purchases. And what did the U.S. give up in return? Nothing. So Trump has hit his goals, for now. But these deals don't yet represent a new trade order. They are sort of a way station, more fragile and with less legitimacy than the system they have supplanted. The formula for this achievement was distinctively Trumpian. The president calculated that others had more to lose from a trade war than the U.S. He picked off each trading partner in turn with the prospect that failure to strike a deal on his terms would result in worse treatment later. Among American allies, only the EU has the heft to inflict enough pain on American companies to change Trump's calculus. But despite drawing up plans for retaliation, it never pulled the trigger. Along with the economic pain of a trade war, Europe feared Trump would abandon Ukraine and perhaps NATO altogether. A one-sided deal was the price of keeping, for now, Trump committed to the trans-Atlantic security alliance. Of the major trading partners yet to strike deals, South Korea, Mexico and Canada can likely expect, like the U.K., Japan and the EU, to give up plenty and get nothing in return. China, the only country to have broadly retaliated, might fare differently. Trump has avoided a trade war, but it remains to be seen if the trade peace will last. Since the 1980s, Trump has believed that other countries have ripped off the U.S., producing deep trade deficits. His solution: charge for access to the U.S. market and the protection of its military. Others have now accepted his terms for access to the market, while NATO partners have agreed to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP. This seems to have softened Trump's prior antipathy toward the alliance and Ukraine. On Monday, he shortened the deadline for Russia to agree to a cease-fire with Ukraine or face sanctions. It might be too soon to announce 'mission accomplished," but it certainly looks like Trump has begun rebalancing the relationship between the U.S. and its allies. 'The two concerns Trump had about Europe is that they were free riding on the U.S. security umbrella and their trade was unbalanced, with their market a fortress," said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, a consultancy. 'On both, Trump has implemented a shakedown." The 15% baseline tariff and 5% military commitment represent Trump wins that put the trans-Atlantic alliance on a 'slightly more solid" basis than in February, he said. Whether tariffs achieve Trump's economic goals remains to be seen. In a recent speech, Trump's trade ambassador, Jamieson Greer, set three benchmarks: first, reduce the goods trade deficit; second, raise after-inflation incomes; and third, boost manufacturing's share of gross domestic product. The incentives in these deals to reshore production and purchase American goods should help meet these relatively low bars. As for how much of the tariffs consumers will ultimately bear, the jury is still out. From 1947 through 2012, the U.S. presided over a steady fall in trade barriers and growing economic integration. It came through painstakingly negotiated pacts. Everyone gained something and gave something up and were thus invested in the pacts' success. Such pacts 'require Congress to approve them, are deep and substantive, take a long time to negotiate, and last a long time," said Doug Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College. 'They are a binding commitment on the U.S." By contrast, Irwin said, these latest agreements are 'handshake deals" with a president who isn't legally bound to adhere to the terms. Trump is at liberty to threaten higher tariffs again for any reason, from wresting Greenland from Denmark to protecting U.S. tech companies from European taxes or censorship. Europe, having foresworn retaliation, has few chips with which to bargain tariffs down, under this or a future president. Trump acted entirely without Congress. Indeed, one court has already ruled his use of a sanctions law to impose across-the-board tariffs was illegal. Should an appeals court uphold that finding, the legality of those deals would come into doubt. (Trump could turn to a different law that limits tariffs to 15%, for 150 days.) The one-sided nature of these deals also makes them more fragile. Other countries will be less willing to comply with something they don't think is in their economic interest, especially with so many details unsettled. Already, Japan has cast doubt on Trump's interpretation of its $550 billion investment commitment, and the Europeans' $600 billion pledge seems similarly vague. Deals made under duress are politically unpopular and thus less durable. Especially noteworthy was the negative reaction of far-right populist leaders who are already hostile to the EU and trade deals. Marine Le Pen, a leader of France's populist right-wing National Rally, which is slightly favored to win the presidential election in 2027, called the EU deal a 'political, economic and moral fiasco." Alice Weidel, leader of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany, wrote on X, 'The EU has let itself be brutally ripped off." Trump got his deals because of the leverage other countries' deep economic and security ties gave to the U.S. In coming years, that leverage will wane as those countries cultivate markets elsewhere and build up their own militaries. The resulting international system will be less dependent on the U.S.—and less stable. Write to Greg Ip at
