Right-Wing Media Is Now Falling In Line With Trump On Epstein
An assessment by the journalism watchdog group Media Matters found that Fox News has largely stopped talking about Epstein over the past two days. By noon on Monday, the network had mentioned Epstein zero times, the group found. That's compared to 46 mentions of former President Joe Biden in that window.
The morning wasn't a fluke. By the end of the day, the tracking effort found that the network had racked up 158 mentions of Biden and only eight of Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in jail while awaiting trial on sweeping sex trafficking charges.
The pattern continued on Tuesday, Media Matters senior fellow Matt Gertz reported.
Fox News didn't comment when asked about the absence of Epstein mentions.
The shift follows Trump's lengthy Truth Social post from Saturday, lashing out at his base for their furor over the unreleased Epstein files ― documents many on the right believed would legitimize their conspiracy theories about a 'deep state' coverup, and that both conservatives and liberals believed may expose public figures' connections to Epstein.
'What's going on with my 'boys' and, in some cases, 'gals?'' Trump wrote. 'They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening.'
'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again,' Trump continued. 'Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden administration.'
Laura Ingraham was among the Fox News hosts to pull an about-face. Last week, she said on her show that the Bondi closing the case contributed to the 'confusion' and 'doubt' about the Trump administration's promises to be fully transparent with the Epstein files. She also asked the crowd at Friday's Turning Point USA conference if they were 'satisfied' with the decision, setting off mass boos from the audience.
But on her show Monday, Ingraham suddenly seemed to be reprimanding Trump supporters for questioning him, describing the fallout as 'conservative influencers... eating their own about Epstein' while the focus should be on the one-year anniversary of Trump's shooting.
Fox News host Bret Baier did bring up the ordeal during Tuesday's episode of 'Special Report,' suggesting he'll keep discussing it.
'This story does not go away here,' he told correspondent David Spunt, who described Trump as 'tamping down the Epstein story.'
Another sudden shift came from right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who spent Friday riling up his followers about the remaining Epstein files days after the Justice Department said it was reversing course and would not be releasing them.
'How many of you think the Epstein thing is a big deal? Raise your hand.' Kirk asked the crowd at his Turning Point USA event, the same one Ingraham attended. 'Every hand has gone up,' he remarked.
But Kirk said Monday he'd be moving on for now ― a day after CNN reported that President Donald Trump had called him to quell some of the criticism.
'Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being,' Kirk said on his talk show. 'I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it. Ball's in their hands. I've said plenty this last weekend.'
But after that clip from his show went viral, Kirk returned to talking about Epstein on Tuesday's episode and railed against the media for allegedly misrepresenting what he'd said Monday. Kirk said he'd simply needed to focus on updates on Russia, Ukraine and NATO in that episode but reiterated he trusts members of Trump's administration to handle the Epstein files properly.
It remains to be seen how Kirk proceeds with the subject, but the back-and-forth suggests these may be choppy waters for MAGA influencers to navigate.
Trump Says Comey, Biden And Obama 'Made Up' The Epstein Files
Democrats Push For House Vote Forcing Pam Bondi To Release Epstein Files
MAGA, Elon Musk Torch Trump Over Pam Bondi Defense And Epstein Files
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NFL players, employees fined for selling Super Bowl tickets: reports
More than 100 NFL players and dozens of club employees are to be fined or suspended for selling their allocations of tickets for this year's Super Bowl on secondary markets, US media reported on Friday. ESPN reported that players who sold allotted tickets will be fined one-and-a-half times the face value of the tickets sold and be barred from receiving tickets to the next two editions of the Super Bowl. Players amongst those caught will be given the option of purchasing tickets if their team reaches the Super Bowl in 2026 or 2027. Players who decline to pay the fines face being suspended, ESPN cited league and union sources as saying. ESPN quoted an NFL memo sent to teams which said employees and players had sold tickets to "bundlers" working with a ticket resale site. Tickets to the Super Bowl are consistently one of the hottest -- and most expensive -- tickets in North American sport, fetching as much as $10,000 on resale sites. "Our initial investigation has determined that a number of NFL players and coaches, employed by several NFL Clubs, sold Super Bowl tickets for more than the ticket's face value in violation of the policy," NFL chief compliance officer Sabrina Perel wrote in the memo. Perel cited "long-standing league policy" which "prohibits League or club employees, including players, from selling NFL game tickets acquired from their employer for more than the ticket's face value or for an amount greater than the employee originally paid for the ticket, whichever is less." Perel added that the league will enhance mandatory training before Super Bowl LX for all league personnel to emphasize the rules and "the broader principle that no one should profit personally from their NFL affiliation at the expense of our fans." The league, meanwhile, also planned to improve training to avoid a repeat, with the possibility of stiffer sanctions for future offenses. "No one should profit personally from their NFL affiliation at the expense of our fans," Perel wrote in the memo. rcw/js
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Meta Clashes With Apple, Google Over Age Check Legislation
(Bloomberg) -- The biggest tech companies are warring over who's responsible for children's safety online, with billions of dollars in fines on the line as states rapidly pass conflicting laws requiring companies to verify users' ages. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy The struggle has pitted Meta Platforms Inc. and other app developers against Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, the world's largest app stores. Lobbyists for both sides are moving from state to state, working to water down or redirect the legislation to minimize their clients' risks. This year alone, at least three states — Utah, Texas and Louisiana — passed legislation requiring tech companies to authenticate users' ages, secure parental consent for anyone under 18 and ensure minors are protected from potentially harmful digital experiences. Now, lobbyists for all three companies are flooding into South Carolina and Ohio, the next possible states to consider such legislation. The debate has taken on new importance after the Supreme Court this summer ruled age verification laws are constitutional in some instances. A tech group on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to block a social media age verification law in Mississippi, teeing up a highly consequential decision in the next few weeks. Child advocates say holding tech companies responsible for verifying the ages of their users is key to creating a safer online experience for minors. Parents and advocates have alleged the social media platforms funnel children into unsafe and toxic online spaces, exposing young people to harmful content about self harm, eating disorders, drug abuse and more. Blame Game Meta supporters argue the app stores should be responsible for figuring out whether minors are accessing inappropriate content, comparing the app store to a liquor store that checks patrons' IDs. Apple and Google, meanwhile, argue age verification laws violate children's privacy and argue the individual apps are better-positioned to do age checks. Apple said it's more accurate to describe the app store as a mall and Meta as the liquor store. The three new state laws put the responsibility on app stores, signaling Meta's arguments are gaining traction. The company lobbied in support of the Utah and Louisiana laws putting the onus on Apple and Google for tracking their users' ages. Similar Meta-backed proposals have been introduced in 20 states. Federal legislation proposed by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah would hold the app stores accountable for verifying users' ages. Still, Meta's track record in its state campaigns is mixed. At least eight states have passed laws since 2024 forcing social media platforms to verify users' ages and protect minors online. Apple and Google have mobilized dozens of lobbyists across those states to argue that Meta is shirking responsibility for protecting children. 'We see the legislation being pushed by Meta as an effort to offload their own responsibilities to keep kids safe,' said Google spokesperson Danielle Cohen. 'These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act.' Meta spokesperson Rachel Holland countered that the company is supporting the approach favored by parents who want to keep their children safe online. 'Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee their teen's online lives and 80% of American parents and bipartisan lawmakers across 20 states and the federal government agree that app stores are best positioned to provide this,' Holland said. As the regulation patchwork continues to take shape, the companies have each taken voluntary steps to protect children online. Meta has implemented new protections to restrict teens from accessing 'sensitive' content, like posts related to suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Apple created 'Child Accounts,' which give parents more control over their children's' online activity. At Apple, spokesperson Peter Ajemian said it 'soon will release our new age assurance feature that empowers parents to share their child's age range with apps without disclosing sensitive information.' Splintered Groups As the lobbying battle over age verification heats up, influential big tech groups are splintering and new ones emerging. Meta last year left Chamber of Progress, a liberal-leaning tech group that counts Apple and Google as members. Since then, the chamber, which is led by a former Google lobbyist and brands itself as the Democratic-aligned voice for the tech industry, has grown more aggressive in its advocacy against all age verification bills. 'I understand the temptation within a company to try to redirect policymakers towards the company's rivals, but ultimately most legislators don't want to intervene in a squabble between big tech giants,' said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. Meta tried unsuccessfully to convince another major tech trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, to stop working against bills Meta supports, two people familiar with the dynamics said. Meta, a CCIA member, acknowledged it doesn't always agree with the association. Meta is also still a member of NetChoice, which opposes all age verification laws no matter who's responsible. The group currently has 10 active lawsuits on the matter, including battling some of Meta's preferred laws. The disagreements have prompted some of the companies to form entirely new lobbying outfits. Meta in April teamed up with Spotify Technology SA and Match Group Inc. to launch a coalition aimed at taking on Apple and Google, including over the issue of age verification. Competing Campaigns Meta is also helping to fund the Digital Childhood Alliance, a coalition of conservative groups leading efforts to pass app-store age verification, according to three people familiar with the funding. Neither the Digital Childhood Alliance nor Meta responded directly to questions about whether Meta is funding the group. But Meta said it has collaborated with Digital Childhood Alliance. The group's executive director, Casey Stefanski, said it includes more than 100 organizations and child safety advocates who are pushing for more legislation that puts responsibility on the app stores. Stefanski said the Digital Childhood Alliance has met with Google 'several times' to share their concerns about the app store in recent months. The App Association, a group backed by Apple, has been running ads in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and Ohio arguing that the app store age verification bills are backed by porn websites and companies. The adult entertainment industry's main lobby said it is not pushing for the bills; pornography is mostly banned from app stores. 'This one-size fits all approach is built to solve problems social media platforms have with their systems while making our members, small tech companies and app developers, collateral damage,' said App Association spokesperson Jack Fleming. In South Carolina and Ohio, there are competing proposals placing different levels of responsibility on the app stores and developers. That could end with more stringent legislation that makes neither side happy. 'When big tech acts as a monolith, that's when things die,' said Joel Thayer, a supporter of the app store age verification bills. 'But when they start breaking up that concentration of influence, all the sudden good things start happening because the reality is, these guys are just a hair's breath away from eating each other alive.' (Updates with App Association statement in 24th paragraph.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
India Trade Pact Nears, US Beef Floods In--What Investors Should Watch Next
Australia may be on the brink of deepening its trade ties with India, according to Trade Minister Don Farrell, who suggested a broader free trade deal could have been inked months ago if not for a timing clash with the May election. Speaking at the Lowy Institute, Farrell hinted that the delay was procedural, not political, and noted that his Indian counterpart is currently focused on high-stakes tariff talks with President Donald Trump's administration. The existing FTAsigned back in April 2022cut tariffs across most sectors, but left out sensitive Australian exports like chickpeas, dairy, and wheat. Farrell expects those gaps could be closed bit by bit, as part of a multi-stage rollout. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Signs with TSN. That optimism is surfacing just as India finalizes a major agreement with the UK and bilateral trade with Australia hits nearly A$50 billion ($32.9 billion) in 2023. Farrell said the structure of a final deal with India is likely to be incremental, owing to political realities on both sides. Still, with Canberra actively seeking to diversify away from Chinaits top trading partnera more comprehensive agreement with India could be a meaningful next step. For investors eyeing agri-exporters, particularly in grains and dairy, the next phase of negotiations could shape longer-term access to one of the world's fastest-growing consumer markets. In a separate move with potential ripple effects, Australia just lifted all remaining restrictions on US beef importsa long-standing ask from the Trump administration. The announcement triggered a celebratory post from President Trump on TruthSocial, but Farrell was quick to tamp down the political narrative, stating the decision was based on science and years of internal review. We haven't done this to win favorwe think the Americans should trade with us anyway, he said. Whether this opens the door to a broader trade pact with the US remains to be seen, but the development is unlikely to go unnoticed by investors in US meat giants like Tyson Foods (NYSE:TSN) or Brazil's JBS, both of which could stand to benefit from expanded market access. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
