logo
Barabak: In America's hardest-fought congressional district, voters agree: Release the Epstein files

Barabak: In America's hardest-fought congressional district, voters agree: Release the Epstein files

Yahoo3 days ago
When it comes to President Trump, Angie Zamora and Phaidra Medeiros agree on very little.
Zamora, a 36-year-old Army veteran, has nothing good to say.
"The laws. All the rights taken away from women. The stuff with ICE," Zamora said, ticking off her frustrations as she stopped outside the post office in the Central Valley community of Los Banos. "Why are they going after people working on farms when they're supposed to be chasing violent criminals?"
Medeiros, by contrast, is delighted Trump replaced Joe Biden. "He wasn't mentally fit," Medeiros said of the elderly ex-president. "There was something wrong with him from the very beginning."
Despite all that, the two do share one belief: Both say the government should cough up every last bit of information it has on Jeffrey Epstein, his sordid misdeeds and the powerful associates who moved in his aberrant orbit.
Trump "did his whole campaign on releasing the Epstein files," Zamora said. "And now he's trying to change the subject. 'Oh, it's a 'hoax' ... 'Oh, you guys are still talking about that creep?' And yet there's pictures throughout the years of him with that creep."
Medeiros, 56, echoed the sentiment.
Read more: Barabak: Here's why Jeffrey Epstein's tangled web is conspiratorial catnip
Trump and his fellow Republicans "put themselves into this predicament because they kept talking constantly" about the urgency of unsealing records in Epstein's sex-trafficking case — until they took control of the Justice Department and the rest of Washington. "Now," she said, "they're backpedaling."
Medeiros paused outside the engineering firm where she works in the Central Valley, in Newman, on a tree-lined street adorned with star-spangled banners honoring local servicemen and women.
"Obviously there were minors involved" in Epstein's crimes, she said, and if Trump is somehow implicated "then he needs to go down as well."
Years after being found dead in a Manhattan prison cell — killed by his own hand, according to authorities — Epstein appears to have done the near-impossible in this deeply riven nation. He's united Democrats, Republicans and independents around a call to reveal, once and for all, everything that's known about his case.
"He's dead now, but if people were involved they should be prosecuted," said Joe Toscano, a 69-year-old Los Banos retiree and unaffiliated voter who last year supported Trump's return to the White House. "Bring it all out there. Make it public."
California's 13th Congressional District, where Zamora, Medeiros and Toscano all live, is arguably the most closely fought political terrain in America. Sprawling through California's midriff, from the far reaches of the San Francisco Bay Area to the southern edge of the San Joaquin Valley, it's farm country: flat, fertile and crossed-hatched with canals, rail lines and thruways with utilitarian names such as Road No. 32 and Avenue 18½.
The myriad small towns are brief interludes amid the dairy and poultry farms and lush carpeting of vegetables, fruit and nut trees that stretch to the hazy-brown horizon. The most populous city, Merced, has fewer than 100,000 residents. (Modesto, with a population of around 220,000, is split between the 5th and 13th districts.)
Democratic Rep. Adam Gray was elected in November in the closest House race in the country, beating the Republican incumbent, John Duarte, by 187 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast. The squeaker was a rematch and nearly a rerun. Two years prior, Duarte defeated Gray by fewer than 600 votes out of nearly 134,000 cast.
Not surprisingly, both parties have made the 13th District a top target in 2026; handicappers rate the contest a toss-up, even as the field sorts itself out. (Duarte has said he would not run again.)
The midterm election is a long way off, so it's impossible to say how the Epstein controversy will play out politically. But there is, at the least, a baseline expectation of transparency, a view that was repeatedly expressed in conversations with three dozen voters across the district.
Zachery Ramos, a 25-year-old independent, is the founder of the Gustine Traveling Library, which promotes learning and literacy throughout the Central Valley. Its storefront, painted with polka dots and decorated with giant butterflies, sits like a cheery oasis in Gustine's four-block downtown, a riot of green spilling from the planter boxes out front.
Inside, the walls were filled with commendations and newspaper clippings celebrating Ramos' good works. As a nonprofit, he said, "we have to have everything out there. All the books. Everything."
Epstein, he suggested, should be treated no differently.
"When it comes to something as serious as that, with what may or may not have taken place on his private island, with his girlfriend" — convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell — "I do think it should all be out in the open," Ramos said. "If you're not afraid of your name being in [the files], especially when you're dealing with minors being assaulted, it should 100% be made public."
Read more: Commentary: Political ploy or bold move to save democracy? Our columnists debate Newsom redistricting threat
Ed, a 42-year-old Democrat who manages a warehouse operation in Patterson, noted that Trump released the government's long-secret files on the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., even though King's family objected. (Like several of those interviewed, he declined to give his last name, to avoid being hassled by readers who don't like what he had to say.)
Why, Ed wondered, shouldn't the Epstein files come to light? "It wasn't just Trump," he said. "It was a lot of Republicans in Congress that said, 'Hey, we want to get these files out there.' And I believe if Kamala [Harris] had won, they would be beating her down, demanding she do so."
He smacked a fist in his palm, to emphasize the point.
Sue, a Madera Republican and no fan of Trump, expressed her feelings in staccato bursts of fury.
"Apparently the women years ago said who was doing what, but nobody listens to the women," said the 75-year-old retiree. "Release it all! Absolutely! You play, you pay, buddy."
Even those who dismissed the importance of Epstein and his crimes said the government should hold nothing back — if only to erase doubts and lay the issue to rest.
Epstein "is gone and I don't really care if they release the files or not," said Diane Nunes, a 74-year-old Republican who keeps the books for her family farm, which lies halfway between Los Banos and Gustine. "But they probably should, because a lot of people are waiting for that."
Patrick, a construction contractor, was more worked up about "pretty boy" Gavin Newsom and "Nazi Pelosi" — "yes, that's what I call her" — than anything that might be lurking in the Epstein files. "When the cat is dead, you don't pick it up and pet it. Right?" He motioned to the pavement, baking as the temperature in Patterson climbed into the low 90s.
"It's over with," the 61-year-old Republican said of Epstein and his villainy. "Move on."
At least, that would be his preference. But to "shut everybody up, absolutely, yeah, they should release them," Patrick said. "Otherwise, we're all going to be speculating forever."
Or at least until the polls close in November 2026.
Get the latest from Mark Z. BarabakFocusing on politics out West, from the Golden Gate to the U.S. Capitol.Sign me up.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Relationship With Modi Sours Over Putin
Trump's Relationship With Modi Sours Over Putin

Newsweek

time24 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Trump's Relationship With Modi Sours Over Putin

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The praise U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi lavished on each other only months ago seems a distant memory amid a deepening trade row involving Vladimir Putin's oil revenues. A standoff between Trump and India has emerged after the president imposed 25 percent tariffs on the country and followed this up on Wednesday with another 25 percent levy due to its purchase of Russian oil that funds Putin's aggression in Ukraine. But things between the pair had already started going south in May when Trump waded into a sensitive dispute between India and Pakistan. "That started the downward slide," Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America (ORF America)—which analyses foreign policy challenges for India, the U.S. and partners—told Newsweek. Newsweek has contacted the U.S. State Department and India's Ministry of External Affairs for comment. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press/Canva Modi's White House Visit Modi visited the White House in February as one of the first world leaders to visit Trump after his return to the presidency. They touted a friendship cemented throughout the Republican president's first term. But friendships can go through bumpy periods, and India was left peeved when Trump took credit for India and Pakistan agreeing to a ceasefire after four days of clashes in the Kashmir region both neighbors claim in full but administer it only in part. It followed weeks of clashes and missile and drone strikes across borders, triggered by a gun massacre of tourists that India blamed on Pakistan. Pakistan denied involvement. "India has had a policy of not inviting third-party mediation between India and Pakistan and Trump has gone against that," said Jaishankar. "For India, that's a pretty strong red line." Trump's Tariffs Trump's claims of intervention in a decades-long geopolitical spat were then followed by stalling trade negotiations. Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on all Indian exports to the U.S. from August 1, while at the same time giving China another extension. India—the world's fourth largest economy—called the tariffs unjustified. Trump added another 25 percent to this levy on Wednesday because like most of Ukraine's allies, he linked the proceeds from Russian energy to the continued funding of Putin's aggression. Exemptions remain for goods already covered under other sector-specific tariffs, such as steel and aluminum. Trump also insulted India's economy as "dead" and accused the country of buying "massive amounts" of oil from Russia and then selling it on the open market for big profits. These comments reflect international concern over the fact that Russian oil now accounts for nearly 40 percent of India's oil imports—a more than tenfold increase since before the war. Both New Delhi and Beijing have capitalized on the steep discounts offered by Moscow amid Western sanctions. India and China's vastly increased purchases of Russian oil have been viewed by Kyiv's allies as undermining the G7-led sanctions on Russia's energy exports, which aimed to choke the Kremlin's key revenue generator. This image from September 22, 2019 shows Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi with Donald Trump during a rally on September 22, 2019 in Houston, Texas. This image from September 22, 2019 shows Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi with Donald Trump during a rally on September 22, 2019 in Houston, Texas. Trump's anger with India reflects his frustration with the pace of trade talks, according to The Associated Press, citing a White House official. The AP said this has stung Modi's administration, which had been negotiating a trade deal that balanced India's protectionist system with opening up to American goods. It means that ties built up over the last 25 years are being put at risk by Trump's tariffs and social media statements, Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry, told the news agency. "Trump risks tanking 25 years of U.S.-India relations," Evan Feigenbaum, vice president for studies at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in analysis for the think tank released Monday. Feigenbaum also referred to Trump's criticism of U.S. companies that manufacture in India, as well as the U.S. leader's White House meeting with Pakistan's army chief as well as giving Islamabad a tariff rate of just 19 percent and a pledge to jointly explore Pakistan's oil reserves. After more than two decades of ties, "Trump is now in the process of dismantling this painstakingly built relationship," Feigenbaum added. Vladimir Putin greets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, on October 22, 2024. Vladimir Putin greets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, on October 22, Role Modi's first foreign trip upon his return to office for a third term was to Moscow to meet with Putin in June 2024. For Putin, India is part of his vision away from a U.S.-led world and a pivot toward the Global South. However, Modi's view is less anti-Western and more attuned to acting as a bridge between the West and the Global South, and he is not interested in Putin's hope for a de-dollarization of the world economy, Jaishankar said. The India-Russia relationship was based on strategic technologies but has faced problems in recent years, with defense imports from Russia more than halving between 2014 and today. This is partly due to the war in Ukraine, challenges with Russian supply chains and payment mechanisms. However India has shown no signs of turning away from Russia, despite Trump's threats. It doubled down on its cooperation with Moscow committing on Tuesday to increasing defense ties. Over the course of the war Putin started, differences between India and the U.S. over New Delhi's ties with Russia were communicated more privately under the Biden administration, Jaishankar said. "Differences over Russia were kept within a certain channel. The challenge with Trump is that a lot of the haranguing has been quite public," he said. As the world waits to see whether or not Modi will agree to Trump's demands, business-to-business ties between India and the U.S. so far remain intact, Jaishankar said. But if the spat deepens, "one wonders how other aspects of the relationship that have so far been somewhat firewalled might be affected."

New US tariffs cloud outlook for exporters in Asia and beyond
New US tariffs cloud outlook for exporters in Asia and beyond

Boston Globe

time24 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

New US tariffs cloud outlook for exporters in Asia and beyond

There's still no agreement on what tariffs might apply to products shipped from China. India has no deal yet and faces a potential 50% tariff as Trump pressures it to stop buying oil from Russia. Recent data shows uncertainty is clouding the outlook for exporters around the world as a rush to beat the tariffs during a pause for negotiation tapers off. Companies are reporting billions of dollars in higher costs or losses due to the higher import duties. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Global financial markets took Thursday's tariff adjustments in stride, with Asian shares and U.S. futures mostly higher. Advertisement Here's where things stand in what has proven to be a fast-changing policy landscape. The tariffs taking effect this week The tariffs announced on Aug. 1 apply to 66 countries, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands. They are a revised version of what Trump called 'reciprocal tariffs,' announced on April 2: import taxes of up to 50% on goods from countries that have a trade surplus with the United States, along with 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. That move triggered sell-offs in financial markets and Trump backtracked to allow time for trade talks. Advertisement The president has bypassed Congress, which has authority over taxes, by invoking a 1977 lawto declare the trade deficit a national emergency. That's being challenged in court, but the revised tariffs still took effect. To keep their access to the huge American market, major trading partners have struck deals with Trump. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs and the European Union, South Korea and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year, but down from the 30% Trump had ordered for the EU and the 25% he ordered for Japan. Countries in Africa and Asia are mostly facing lower rates than the ones Trump decreed in April. Thailand, Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines cut deals with Trump, settling for rates of around 20%. Indonesia views its 19% tariff deal as a leg up against exporters in other countries that will have to pay slightly more, said Fithra Faisal Hastiadi, a spokesperson in the Indonesian president's office. 'We were competing against Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and China ... and they are all subject to higher reciprocal tariffs,' Hastiadi said. 'We believe we will stay competitive.' The latest situation for China and India Trump has yet to announce whether he will extend an Aug. 12 deadline for reaching a trade agreement with China that would forestall earlier threats of tariffs of up to 245%. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the president is deciding about another 90-day delay to allow time to work out details of an agreement setting tariffs on most products at 50%, including extra import duties related to illicit trade in fentanyl. Higher import taxes on small parcels from China have hurt smaller factories and layoffs have accelerated, leaving some 200 million workers reliant on 'flexible work' — the gig economy — for their livelihoods, the government estimates. Advertisement India also has no broad trade agreement with Trump. On Wednesday, Trump he signed an executive order placing an extra 25% tariff for its purchases of Russian oil, bringing combined U.S. tariffs to 50%. India has stood firm, saying it began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict. A top body of Indian exporters said Thursday the tariffs will impact nearly 55% of the country's outbound shipments to America and force exporters to lose their long-standing clients. 'Absorbing this sudden cost escalation is simply not viable. Margins are already thin,' S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, said in a statement. Others among the hardest-hit countries Struggling, impoverished Laos and war-torn Myanmar and Syria face 40-41% rates. Trump whacked Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he's unhappy with its treatment of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. South Africa said the steep 30% rate Trump has ordered on the exporter of precious gems and metals has put 30,000 jobs at risk and left the country scrambling to find new markets outside the United States. Even wealthy Switzerland is under the gun. Swiss officials were visiting Washington this week to try to stave off a whopping 39% tariff on U.S. imports of its chocolate, watches and other products. Canada and Mexico have their own arrangements Goods that comply with the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump negotiated during his first term are excluded from the tariffs. So, even though U.S. neighbor and ally Canada was hit by a 35% tariff after it defied Trump, a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by saying it would recognize a Palestinian state, nearly all of its exports to the U.S. remain duty free. Advertisement Canada's central bank says 100% of energy exports and 95% of other exports are compliant with the agreement since regional rules mean Canadian and Mexico companies can claim preferential treatment. The slice of Mexican exports not covered by the USMCA is subject to a 25% tariff, down from an earlier rate of 30%, during a 90-day negotiating period that began last week. The outlook for businesses Surveys of factory managers offer monthly insights into export orders, hiring and other indicators of how businesses are faring. The latest figures in the United States and globally mostly showed conditions deteriorating. In Japan, factory output contracted in July, purchasing activity fell and hiring slowed, according to the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI. But the data were collected before Trump announced a trade deal that cut tariffs on Japanese exports to 15% from 25%. Similar surveys show a deterioration in manufacturing conditions worldwide, as a boost from 'front loading' export orders to beat higher tariffs faded, S&P Global said. Similar measures for service industries have remained stronger, reflecting more domestic business activity. In Asia, that includes a rebound in tourism across the region. Corporate bottom lines are also taking a hit. Honda Motor said Wednesday that it estimates the cost from higher tariffs at about $3 billion. Toyota said its quarterly profit plunged 37% and the hit from tariffs was $3 billion. On top that, the U.S. economy — Trump's trump card as the world's biggest market — is starting to show pain from months of tariff threats. Advertisement Associated Press writer Niniek Karmini in Jakarta and Aniruddha Ghosal in Hanoi contributed.

Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze

Boston Globe

time24 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze

'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved Advertisement The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. Advertisement The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Advertisement Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' Advertisement The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. Advertisement 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store