
Trump Administration Live Updates: Officials Authorize Inquiry Into ‘Russia Hoax'
President Trump has urged and browbeaten supporters to shift their obsession from the Jeffrey Epstein files to the investigation and potential prosecution of Democratic officials he accuses of persecuting him, a cardinal grievance that bonds him to his base.
The Justice Department under Mr. Trump, reeling from the angry backlash over its handling of the Epstein case, is now taking its most concrete — if still murky — investigative steps against Trump targets, starting with officials he blames for what he sees as the plot against him: the investigation of his 2016 campaign's connections to Russia.
Attorney General Pam Bondi this week authorized prosecutors to investigate the inquiry the president calls the 'Russia hoax' and present a case to a grand jury in South Florida if the evidence warrants it, according to people briefed on the move who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing investigations.
Details are scant, including whether prosecutors have taken action. But Trump appointees are reluctant to present evidence to a grand jury in the District of Columbia where key decisions in the Russia investigation were made nearly a decade ago. They believe it would be nearly impossible to find sympathetic jurors in a courthouse overseen by a federal judge, James E. Boasberg, whom the Trump team regards as an enemy.
Fox News on Monday reported that Ms. Bondi had made the order, which comes after a referral from Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence.
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The decision to authorize a grand jury investigation, which could include subpoenas, into the statements and testimony by government officials surrounding the 2016 election suggests the Trump administration has begun turning its rhetoric of revenge into action. Still, there are a number of legal and practical hurdles that any such inquiry would have to overcome, chief among them the statute of limitations that would seemingly bar criminal charges based on conduct that is more than five years old.
Such concerns, however significant, have been swept aside, at least for now, by the eagerness to appease an impatient president demanding to use the vast powers of federal law enforcement to exact vengeance — and the political imperative of making the Epstein fiasco disappear.
Even in the absence of a legal success, such as an indictment or conviction, the effort itself accomplishes political objectives in a department that considers investigations largely intended to name and shame a legitimate use of its authority.
Many Trump advisers and allies also view the Russia investigation as a gross abuse of power, while some were personally affected by the inquiry and forced to hire lawyers to defend themselves.
Mr. Trump has privately carped about the slow pace of Justice Department action to his political enemies, according to people in his orbit, and made it unmistakably known what he wanted. 'Scum' was how Mr. Trump described those who investigated him during a speech in the department's Great Hall in March, as Ms. Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, looked on.
Image
Mr. Trump described those who investigated him as 'scum' during a speech in the Department of Justice's Great Hall in March.
Credit...
Eric Lee/The New York Times
Mr. Trump has repeatedly urged his backers to drop a fierce pressure campaign to release undisclosed Epstein files and rally under the 'weaponization' banner. On Tuesday, he told CNBC that he had 'nothing' to do with Ms. Bondi's order — then celebrated the move to investigate Obama administration national security officials, saying 'they deserve it.'
The decision also comes as the Trump administration faces increasing pressure to produce more information about the F.B.I.'s files on Mr. Epstein, the financier who was awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges before he hanged himself in a jail cell in 2019. Last month, Mr. Blanche, a former Trump defense lawyer, interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, Mr. Epstein's convicted co-conspirator.
Law enforcement officials have privately talked about releasing at least some of the information she provided, although they are still discussing the extent of what they will disclose, according to several people familiar with the conversations.
The emergence of the grand jury inquiry was unusual in several ways — not least, because its existence was revealed to right-leaning media outlets like Fox News before any actual investigative steps had apparently been taken.
Moreover, it remains unclear who the grand jury might investigate and for what, if any, crimes.
Thus far, the Justice Department has moved more slowly to scrutinize Biden-era officials who participated in the two unsuccessful criminal prosecutions of Mr. Trump.
Last week, an obscure agency that scrutinizes potential misconduct by or against federal employees, the Office of Special Counsel, took a step in that direction, confirming it was investigating Jack Smith, the former federal prosecutor who oversaw the criminal cases against Mr. Trump.
The agency is trying to determine if Mr. Smith may have violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal workers from using their government jobs to promote political candidates. It is unclear how that investigation could result in any substantive consequences for Mr. Smith, given that the most severe punishment allowed under the Hatch Act is dismissal, and Mr. Smith resigned his government position many months ago.
It is not clear whether Mr. Trump, who is marking his first six months in office, would have pushed quite so forcefully for the department to act against his perceived foes if the Epstein case was not still smoldering political fire. But it has certainly added to the urgency, administration officials said.
Politicians and influencers on the right flank of the Republican Party — who have demanded a full accounting of Mr. Epstein's interactions with wealthy and powerful friends — are equally if not more enthusiastic about deploying the Justice Department, F.B.I., and intelligence services to uncover what they claim to be a vast decade-long, Democratic-led conspiracy to destroy Mr. Trump.
A few of Mr. Trump's key congressional allies and some of the most vocal members of his base have been beating the drums for arrests almost from the moment that the bureau and intelligence officials started releasing documents on the Russia investigation last month.
On Monday, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, posted a message on social media with a 'scorecard' showing that no one had been arrested yet for popular MAGA-world bugbears like the 'Russia Collusion Hoax,' 'Jan. 6' and the '2020 Election.'
'Don't talk about it if you aren't going to do it,' Ms. Greene wrote.
Among the most fervid Trump supporters calling for arrests are the rioters who were charged in connection with — and then granted clemency for — the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Many of them have demanded retribution against Mr. Trump's enemies, citing their own grievances as federally prosecuted defendants.
'Dear God, has anyone been arrested yet?' wrote one pardoned rioter, Benjamin Martin, who was initially sentenced to 13 months in prison for holding open a door at the Capitol so that others could spray chemicals at the police.
Few of those calling for the investigation have been as maximalist as Mr. Trump himself. He recently wrote on social media that President Obama should be arrested as a traitor for treason.
In late July, Ms. Gabbard blindsided Ms. Bondi by referring the investigation of the Russian investigation to the Justice Department, claiming a cache of documents she released proved Obama administration officials engaged in a 'treasonous conspiracy.'
In response, Ms. Bondi announced the creation of a multiagency 'strike force' to investigate the charges. Her subsequent grand jury order was made as part of that process, according to an official briefed on the move.
The claims by Trump supporters that Obama-era officials engaged in a far-reaching conspiracy to undermine his 2016 campaign have already been exhaustively investigated by a special counsel, John Durham, with little to show for it.
Mr. Durham filed two criminal indictments based on that investigation, one against a private practice lawyer on charges of lying to the F.B.I., and another against a Russia analyst for essentially the same offense. Each case ended in acquittals.
A new investigation would face a potentially steeper challenge, relying on the years-old statements and the recollection of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials about an election held nearly nine years ago.
But not every investigation of Mr. Trump's perceived enemies has led to meaningful consequences.
In November 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions tapped a U.S. attorney in Utah to review a number of issues related to Hillary Clinton, as well as the 2016 election. That effort lasted about two years before quietly ending with no substantive action or public findings.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Miami Herald
4 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
4 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.'


New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Russia secondary sanctions still on track for Friday after Putin, Witkoff meeting
WASHINGTON — US sanctions targeting nations that buy Russian oil will kick in on Friday after Vladimir Putin refused to end his invasion of Ukraine by President Trump's deadline, a senior White House official said following direct talks between Washington and Moscow on Wednesday. Following a three-hour meeting between Putin and Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Kremlin said it wanted to continue talking — which Trump has publicly suspected of being a strategy to 'tap along' his administration. 'The Russians are eager to continue engaging with the United States,' the US official said in a statement, adding: 'The secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday.' Advertisement US sanctions targeting nations that buy Russian oil will kick in on Friday after Vladimir Putin refused to end his invasion of Ukraine by President Trump's deadline, following direct talks between Washington and Moscow on Wednesday. GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL/EPA/Shutterstock The official also said Witkoff's discussion with Putin 'went well.' Wednesday marked the first time the parties had met for such talks since April, when it became evident little progress was being made toward an end to Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II.