A ‘Precarious' Moment for Charter Schools in Trump's Second Term
Earlier this month, the Trump administration proposed a 2026 budget with a $60 million boost for charter schools — the first increase since 2019.
But the welcome news for the sector came just two days after the administration took center stage in an Oklahoma case before the U.S. Supreme Court that questions whether charters are private and can therefore explicitly teach religion. Advocates fear the outcome could disrupt education for roughly 4 million charter school students across the country.
The cognitive dissonance wasn't lost on Naomi Shelton, CEO of the National Charter Collaborative, which advocates for minority-led charter schools.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The funding increase 'signals that this administration sees the value of charters in the broader education landscape. But the progress is tempered by real concerns,' she said. The additional funds won't matter 'if charter schools lose their public identity.'
The request comes as GOP leaders in both the House and the Senate plan to dedicate hearings this week to accomplishments in the charter sector. Trump is recommending $500 million, a 13.6% increase, for the federal Charter School Program, which provides start-up funds for new schools and helps networks grow. The increase stands in sharp contrast to the $12 billion in proposed cuts to other education programs that Education Secretary Linda McMahon said are 'not driving improved student outcomes.'
Charter schools, according to the budget summary, have 'a proven track record of improving students' academic achievement and giving parents more choice in the education of their children.' After four years of what one conservative called a 'bizarre attack' on the sector during the Biden administration, charter advocates are celebrating the change in tone.
'It is a proof point that the president and his administration believe in charter schools and the need for them,' said Caroline Roemer, executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools.
Related
In her two months in office, McMahon has also promoted charters by visiting at least eight of them in New York, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. They include a classical academy that rejects diversity, equity and inclusion programs and a school with a sports management theme in Miami. She has not yet visited any traditional district schools.
'A great wrap in Florida today at Pineapple Cove Classical Academy — another student-centered charter school that is seeing real results,' she posted in March on X after touring three charters and a private Jewish school.
Her predecessor, Miguel Cardona, a former principal and state chief from Connecticut, championed traditional schools. Despite longtime support for charters among Democrats, Cardona recommended a spending cut to the Charter Schools Program and sought to clamp down on charters' ability to lure students away from district schools.
In 2022, the department issued a controversial package of new rules that called on charter schools to partner with districts, increase racial and socioeconomic diversity and report any business dealings with for-profit companies.
The administration said the changes would increase accountability and transparency in an industry that has experienced some high-profile financial scandals. Some critics consider the federal program an example of the waste, fraud and abuse that Trump and Elon Musk aim to eliminate.
Carol Corbett Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, pointed to a 2022 report from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General finding that between 2013 and 2016, states and charter operators that received program funds opened or expanded just half of the schools they planned.
'Hundreds of millions have gone to schools that never opened or closed even before their grants ended,' Burris said. 'If the President is serious about eliminating waste and fraud, the CSP is a good place to start.'
But charter advocates say there are too many restrictions on how to use the funds. They can't, for example, spend the money on facility costs, which Roemer called 'one of our toughest barriers to break through.'
Shelton added that in some states, charter authorizers are more likely to favor large networks of schools over independent operators.
'The funding may never reach the communities that need it most,' she said.
Cardona's revisions to the program, they argued, made it even harder for standalone charters and small networks in urban communities predominantly serving Black and Hispanic students to secure grant funds.
[inline _story url='https://www.the74million.org/article/after-overhauling-program-ed-dept-opens-one-month-dash-for-charter-funds/']
Their advocacy led the department to retreat from some of the rules. But what remained was still 'onerous, burdensome' said Jed Wallace, who blogs about charter school issues. Grantees, for example, still had to submit a 'needs analysis' and explain how their school would impact the diversity of district schools. Then in January, the department issued applications for funding just before the presidential transition, which Wallace called 'one last parting shot' from the Biden administration.
In February, Trump's education department not only withdrew the application, but removed the remaining Biden-era requirements. On May 8, the department reopened the application window for two grants — one for state agencies and another for facilities. A separate application for charter management organizations is yet to come. The department is expected to judge submissions based on whether they fit the Trump administration's agenda. That would mean, for example, charter schools couldn't spend grant funds on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Starlee Coleman, CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said the department also took a lot of the organization's recommendations, like allowing states to seek waivers from some of the federal rules.
'When you wrap it all up, they're making some really helpful moves on charter policy,' she said.
But the same administration that plans to streamline and accelerate the grant application process argued before the Supreme Court that the federal program itself violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause because it requires schools to be nonsectarian.
Oklahoma's St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which aims to become the first religious charter school in the nation, says because of its Catholic faith, it would not extend the same civil rights to students with disabilities or LGBTQ students that they would receive in public schools. During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explored how that argument would impact the Charter Schools Program.
'The portion of the federal law that indicates that to qualify as a charter school you have to be nonsectarian in your programs — you're saying there is a constitutional problem with that or at least there has to be a free exercise exception?' she asked U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer. 'Is that right?'
Sauer answered, 'Exactly.'
That means if the court allows religious charter schools, they could discriminate in admissions and hiring decisions even while receiving public funds.
'The most obvious group to be targeted would be LGBTQ+ students and students with unpopular religious, or non-religious, beliefs,' said Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of California, Boulder. But he thinks some religious schools would also turn away students with gay parents, pregnant teens or students with single moms.
The St. Isidore case puts charters in a 'precarious' situation, he said. A ruling in favor of the Catholic school could further erode support for charter schools in blue states where they have enjoyed 'political goodwill' among Democrats. 'It's easy to understand why national advocates for charter schools would be worried.'
Related
Democratic-controlled legislatures could use a ruling in favor of St. Isidore to repeal their charter laws, experts say. In red states with vouchers, Welner added, there wouldn't be much to distinguish religious charter schools from other faith-based private schools serving students with state funds.
States could amend legislation to bring charters under more government control.
'But that might be a tough pill to swallow for charter advocates who have long lobbied for more and more deregulation,' Welner said.
Charter leaders' concerns aren't limited to the case. Myrna Castrejón, president and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, called this moment 'a mixed bag.'
While she's pleased with the prospect of more money and hopes it comes with greater flexibility, she's just as disappointed with some of Trump's proposed cuts as other public school advocates. After all, under current state laws, charter schools are public and receive the same per-pupil funding as district schools.
Trump would eliminate $890 million for English learners and more than $1.5 billion to better prepare low-income and minority students for college. In a statement, McMahon said the proposal 'reflects funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down.'
The budget preview also states that the administration would roll 18 K-12 programs into a single $2 billion grant 'designed to reduce [the agency's] influence on schools and students and reduce bureaucracy.'
While the administration said it would 'preserve' Title I for low-income students, the recommended consolidation would result in a $4.5 billion reduction for schools. 'There is no way we are shielded from those changes,' Castrejón said. 'We ultimately serve exactly the same kids.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Were Cut Off For Not Supporting Trump, We Want To Hear Your Story
America has become increasingly polarized in the last decade, and much of the blame, IMO, goes to one man: President Donald Trump. Trump's divisive policies and rhetoric have torn apart friendships, communities, and families. The cult-like behavior from many of his followers has led many people to cut off Trump supporters from their lives. This is something we've covered — but now we want to hear from people who themselves were cut off for not supporting Trump. Related: What Type Of Engagement Ring Is Perfect For You? Plan Your Wedding To Find Out Do you have a family member who stopped speaking to you because you did not vote for Donald Trump? Related: Which Sea Creature Are You? Order At A High-Class Restaurant To Find Out Maybe a friendship of many years ended because you disagreed about Trump's tariffs. Perhaps a partner even broke up with you because you pointed out misinformation or called out misogyny in the current administration. Whatever happened, we want to hear about it. Tell us who cut you off and how it went down in the comments below — or via this anonymous form — and you could be featured in an upcoming BuzzFeed Community post. Also in Community: Wanna Know Which Disney Princess Is Your 100% Personality Twin? Just Eat A Bunch Of Desserts To Find Out Also in Community: There Are 6 Universal Wedding Dress Aesthetics — Here's Your Best Fit Also in Community: I'll Be Really Impressed If You Can Get 15/15 On This Really Hard World Capital Quiz
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Uses Epstein's Lawyer as Human Shield Against Musk's ‘Really Big Bomb'
President Donald Trump's previously long-standing relationship with New York financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has been brought under sharp scrutiny following the president's spectacular fallout with Elon Musk. During the once-tight pair's highly public bust-up on Thursday, Musk alleged on X that the reason the Epstein files have not been released as promised is because Trump is in them, describing it as 'the really big bomb.' In the first direct response to the allegation, Trump shared a post to Truth Social on Friday to reiterate his claim that there is nothing salacious about him in Epstein's law enforcement records. 'I can say authoritatively, unequivocally, and definitively that [Epstein] had no information to hurt President Trump. I specifically asked him!' wrote attorney David Schoen, who was hired to lead Epstein's defense shortly before his death in 2019. Trump shared the message to his followers on Truth Social. The White House has already responded to Musk's incendiary statement, describing the outburst as 'an unfortunate episode for Elon' and attributing the sudden vitriol to a clash over the policies contained within Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' The Trump administration has previously said that records relating to Epstein, including flight logs and other information, would be declassified, but that has yet to happen. Trump had a long, documented relationship with Epstein through the late 1980s to the early 2000s and appears in numerous photographs alongside him and his convicted partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. In a 2002 interview, Trump even praised Epstein as a 'terrific guy.' In 2017, Epstein described himself to author Michael Wolff as Trump's 'closest friend for 10 years,' although the pair appear to have had a falling out in the early 2000s. 'He's a horrible human being,' Epstein later said of the president in the same interview. When asked in 2024 if he would release a number of classified records relating to 9/11, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and Epstein, Trump quickly agreed, before hedging over the Epstein files. 'I guess I would. I think that less so because, you don't know, you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there, because it's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would,' Trump said in a Fox News interview, this section of which was cut from the broadcast. Off the back of Musk's outburst, Democrats are now calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to clarify the accusation and provide a timeline in which to declassify and release all records relating to Epstein. Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.