Democrats are right to call for the release of the Epstein files

Washington Post

16-07-2025

Pat Dennis is president of American Bridge 21st Century.
Everyone in America watched Donald Trump ride back to the presidency on his superpower: the benefit of the doubt. Even voters who didn't approve of him as a person trusted that he was an outsider, that he was telling the truth about shaking up the old system and holding the powerful to account.
So why is Trump choosing to throw that trust away to keep information about Jeffrey Epstein secret?
That's the question now eating away at even some of his most loyal supporters — and Democrats should not be afraid to ask it alongside them.
Trump's repeated calls to sweep the Epstein scandal back under the rug take the story out of the MAGA fringe and into the mainstream discourse. The disgraced financier, who died in federal prison in 2019 after being charged with sex trafficking, traveled in powerful circles for many years. The public understandably wants to know why Trump is backtracking on his administration's promises to release material that might shed more light on his crimes.
An Economist-YouGov survey conducted July 11 to 14 found that 81 percent of Harris voters and 59 percent of Trump voters believe the government is covering up Epstein evidence; almost no one in either camp disagrees. A CNN-SSRS poll collected July 10 to 13 shows 56 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of independents and even 40 percent of Republicans are dissatisfied with how little information Washington has released.
More important, Trump's response raises an issue of trust among those who gave him the benefit of the doubt. That creates a rare opportunity for Democrats to not just mirror his base's skepticism about Epstein but also connect it to other White House positions that polling has shown many Trump voters are quietly uneasy about.
If these voters decide Trump will break their trust to protect whatever is in the so-called Epstein files, they might start to wonder whether Trump has been lying to them about other things to protect his powerful and wealthy friends — while their lives get worse each day. Who benefits from massive tax cuts? Who is really paying the cost of Trump's tariffs, and whom does the ever-changing, chaotic timeline of their announcement serve? Who will face the pain of Medicaid cuts? Who is responsible for rising inflation?
We need to say, loudly: 'You gave him a shot as an outsider, but he cut your community's health care, took his eye off the ball on prices and focused on tax cuts for billionaires — while he tried to shut up everyone, including his own supporters, who wanted to talk about elite billionaire sexual predators.'
Democrats don't need to turn into Blue MAGA to make the case for a clear and honest investigation. They must resist the temptation to 'own the cons' with viral but shaky claims and stick to verifiable facts and legitimate questions. Nothing erodes credibility and trust faster than going out on a limb and then trying to walk it back. Just ask Dan Bongino and Kash Patel.
But the case presents real questions that the public needs answered fully and clearly — with evidence — in order to restore confidence. The administration has said its investigations did not connect Epstein's crimes to other powerful figures. Officials need to detail how they reached that conclusion, where Epstein's money came from and the nature of his business relationships. They need to answer why Attorney General Pam Bondi initially claimed to have a 'client list' on her desk only to later say she misspoke. And Trump needs to explain his own relationship with Epstein, whom the president has said he had a falling out with before Epstein's crimes were exposed.
In the same vein, we cannot get bogged down in petty legalism over every document that should be released. This issue is about one thing: trust. The government must be transparent in its approach. If it can release relevant material, it should. If there's a compelling, strong and legal reason it can't — if it might compromise a pending case or reveal identifying information about a victim — then the government should be transparent about that reasoning as well.
Outrage over Trump's stonewalling is bipartisan, and Democrats have permission, even pressure, to lead. They cannot outsource moral clarity to Laura Loomer's X feed. By treating the Epstein case as an elite-driven corruption scandal rather than a partisan conspiracy theory, they can puncture Trump's outsider myth, champion survivors and remind voters that real populism is about holding power to account — even when that power sits in the Oval Office.