AG Pam Bondi told Donald Trump his name appeared in Epstein files
Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Trump in the spring that his name appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files, according to three people with knowledge of the exchange.
The disclosure came as part of a broader briefing on the reexamination of the case against Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
It was made by Bondi during a meeting that also included the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, and covered a variety of topics.
Bondi frequently meets with Trump to brief him on various matters, officials said.
Bondi and Blanche, both of whom previously served as lawyers for Trump, informed the president that his name, as well as those of other high-profile figures, had come up in their reexamination of documents connected to the case that had not previously been made public.
It is not clear how significant the references to Trump are. But the briefing sheds light on private West Wing discussions at a moment when the president's team is desperately trying to move on and quell the rebellion among those Trump supporters who feel that he - and some of his senior appointees - led them astray with claims that they would make the files available.
Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, would not address questions about the briefing, but called any suggestion that Trump was engaged in wrongdoing related to Epstein "fake news".
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Dementia Has Been Linked To a Common Habit. Do You Do It?
Brain Health
Learn More
Undo
Trump previously denied that Bondi had told him that he is in the files. The week of June 7, the White House received an inquiry from ABC News about the May briefing, according to administration officials. A week later, an ABC journalist asked Trump if Bondi had told him his name appeared in the files. He replied, "No, no," and said she had told him about the "credibility" of various things in the files. He went on to claim that they contained material manufactured by Democrats.
The conversation between Trump and Bondi and Blanche was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal. Bondi is also facing Democratic calls to testify before Congress about the revelation. Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, responded to the report by calling on Bondi and FBI chief Kash Patel to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
To secure US trade deal, key ministries told to list what they can bring to talks table
FOLLOWING US President Donald Trump's tariff sledgehammer, the government has kicked off an exercise to thrash out concessions across sectors that can be offered in the tariff negotiations later this month. Key economic ministries have been asked to see what they can still afford to offer to sweeten New Delhi's deal when the US team is here on August 25. To reach an agreement, the Trump administration has been demanding much more than what the government has offered in its market access commitments, including lowering of tariffs across the board and removal of non-tariff trade barriers. As policymakers grapple with Trump's announcement of a 25 per cent tariff on goods from August 7, alongside an additional but unspecified 'penalty' for its defence and energy imports from Russia, economic ministries have started sending in sectoral tariff concessions in their jurisdictions. There are indications oil refiners have started reducing Russian oil purchases. Some of these concessions, if calibrated well, could ensure an opening up of the domestic economy, sources aware of discussions at the highest levels told The Indian Express. In fact, it was an external crisis that had forced the reforms of 1991. Most importantly, the sources said, an unnecessary show of bravado in countering some of Trump's assertions, however ridiculous they may be, should be avoided. India was one of the first countries the Trump administration had expected to sign a deal with, but slow progress has been a source of frustration for Washington DC. Like countries around the world scrambling to deal with Trump's tariff threats, India had largely adopted a principled, but non-confrontational, stance in an attempt to balance selective concessions with caution to safeguard its economic growth, and circumvent a backlash from domestic producers. Sources closely tracking the US talks with others said a majority of the countries that rushed to sign deals with the world's biggest economy ended up with lopsided agreements that effectively extracted more than what it gave. This includes the UK and Australia that have a trade deficit with the US. On talks with New Delhi, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC Thursday: 'Well, I don't know what's going to happen; it will be up to India. India came to the table early. They have been slow-rolling things, so I think that the President, the whole trade team is frustrated with them. And also, India has been a large buyer of sanctioned Russian oil, that they then resell as refined products. So, they have not been a great global actor'. The assumption in New Delhi has always been that Washington DC will maintain a differential of 10-20 per cent in tariffs between China and India; and that the Americans would be cognizant of India's traditional redlines that have endured for decades, including concerns over GM food crops and the need to safeguard the interest of the vast subsistence-level manufacturing base that has an oversized contribution to labour-intensive exports. The government is also keen to stay away from offering duty concessions on imports of agri items such as soybean, corn and dairy, in the interim deal. While the government has offered to cut tariffs on 55 per cent of US imports, this could be pushed up in the upcoming talks, given that in FTAs with Japan, Korea, and ASEAN, over 80 per cent of tariff lines were down to zero. Sources said the outer limit for a deal with the US, currently pegged at around October, could be brought forward, if fresh negotiations are positive. What complicates the equation for India is that the Chinese are at an advanced stage of negotiations towards a deal, which could have a favourable tariff rate and potential waivers on secondary tariffs, including possibly the tariff on account of Russian oil imports and the proposed 10 per cent BRICS tariff. China is currently faced with a 30 per cent tariff. From New Delhi's perspective, a deal needs to be clinched precisely for ensuring the gap in tariffs between India and China is maintained, even with a limited early-harvest type of deal. There is, however, greater receptiveness now within the policy circles to cut tariffs on some industrial goods, especially intermediate goods where there is the twin problem of high duties and an inverted duty structure (duty being higher on inputs than on final products). Alongside, there is a willingness to grant concessions in sectors such as public procurement and agri provided these are matched by the other side, like in the case of the UK deal. Also, India is willing to import more from the US, especially in three big-ticket sectors – defence equipment, fossil fuels and nuclear – to manage Trump's constant references to the trade gap, the sources said. Tariff rebalancing, if done right, could potentially offer an impetus to the economy, given that the biggest beneficiaries of tariff protection, especially the non-tariff barriers such as an increasing array of QCOs (quality control orders), are the big players. MSME units have been calling for these QCOs to be removed, especially in areas such as steel and textiles. Since 1991, New Delhi has gradually reduced its average tariff from nearly 79 per cent in 1990 to around 12 per cent in 2013, following which it has gone back up to 16-17 per cent by 2023. Sectors such as agriculture, dairy and automobiles, continue to be protected, even as the Ministry of Commerce and industry maintains that its trade measures are WTO compliant. Unlike its response during Trump's first term, where retaliatory tariffs were imposed, New Delhi has desisted from retaliating and is working on strategic concessions in sectors that the US is keen to target, while adhering to its own broad red lines. This involves areas symbolic of trade openness, including nuclear energy, fossil fuels and defence procurement. Think tanks such as Delhi-based Global Trade Research Initiative have said that by refusing to cross its red lines, particularly on agriculture, India has helped avoid 'the trap of a one-sided deal'. Once the official level discussions wrap up, there is a sense that a final call on the deal could come down to a conversation between the two leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump. This is especially so since it is Trump who is the trade negotiator-in-chief. For India, the best-case scenario would be to get a deal of some sort now, and then build on that in the future negotiations that could run into 2026, experts said. With Trump announcing the tariffs and penalties on India, that phone call could come in sooner, they said. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What Trump is actually doing — and why India needs to press reform & reset
FOR all the disquiet in Delhi over US President Donald Trump's sugar-uncoated remarks, his rough and ready tactics on trade, there needs to be a sobering acknowledgment of two realities: one, like it or not, tough tactics often win on the street in a world that's never stopped being an unfair place; and, two, Trump has prevailed. Most mainstream economists dismissed his approach, warning that his aggressive tariff regime would spell disaster for the US economy. Yet, four months after unveiling his first tariff chart on April 2—dubbed 'Liberation Day'— and his second on Friday, Trump has gained enough ground to claim a significant victory. Like a gambler, who believes he is on a winning streak, Trump is set to roll the dice for far more sweeping changes in the post-war global financial and technological orders. The US President's bilateral negotiations are being described as the 'Trump Round' of trade talks, echoing the major rounds of GATT and WTO negotiations that shaped global commercial order. With the exception of Canada and China, most countries refrained from retaliatory tariffs. Instead, they lined up outside the White House, eager to strike deals before the extended August 1 deadline. India was among the early partners to start trade talks but failed to close a deal. While many major economies and middle powers signed agreements on Trump's terms, India now finds itself in the company of Brazil, Burma, and Switzerland facing steep US tariffs. To its credit, Delhi did recognise trade as central to Trump's second-term agenda. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's February 13 meeting with Trump produced a joint statement affirming the goal of expanding bilateral trade to $500 billion and launching time-bound trade negotiations. India negotiated in good faith and continuously. But the gap between India's negotiating brief and Trump's maximalist agenda proved too wide to bridge. Trump's growing impatience was evident in a barrage of tweets targeting India, while senior administration figures—Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Senator Marco Rubio—spoke publicly about the President's 'frustration' with Delhi's posture. Frustration had also defined Trump's first-term trade engagement with India. Robert Lighthizer, Trump's former US Trade Representative, recounts in his book, No Trade is Free, how difficult it was to conclude even a modest trade agreement with Delhi. He placed the blame not on India's bureaucracy, but on the entrenched interests of the Indian capitalists that fiercely guard the barriers protecting them from external competition. Lighthizer revealed he kept files on top Indian tycoons—whom he labeled 'oligarchs'—to better understand Delhi's negotiating strategy. Trump's complaint about India's 'obnoxious' non-tariff barriers rings familiar. India's neighbours have long voiced similar grievances, although a lot more politely. Yet, the deeper issue may be Delhi's underestimation of the scale and ambition of the Trump Round. Trump's goal was not merely a new bilateral deal here or there, but a systemic overhaul of the global trading order constructed after the Second World War and revamped at the turn of the millennium. On the campaign trail and in office, Trump has argued that the international trade regime has failed the American people—and must be overturned. The strategy, often dismissed as irrational, had a logic of its own. Stephen Miran, Trump's economic adviser, argued in a paper written before the presidential election that Washington could exploit the global export dependence on the US market—and allies' reliance on US security guarantees—to rewrite the rules. Miran describes the post-war free-trade order as a political construct, in which US policy sacrificed domestic industry for Cold War geopolitical goals. He proposed replacing blanket multilateralism with 'strategic pluralism,' forging separate deals with different nations based on US leverage. Before taking over at the Treasury, Bessent, too, hinted at the broader potential of tariffs—not just to reshape trade, but to pressure states on energy, currency, and strategic alignment. For Bessent, Trump's strategy was about a grand rebalancing of the global economy in America's favour. Trump has not held back. He has used tariffs for a variety of objectives. He imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil to weaken President Lula and help his rival Jair Bolsonaro. He is threatening tariffs on Indian and Chinese oil imports from Russia and using economic leverage to push BRICS countries away from their loose talk on de-dollarisation. In the last four months, three core pillars of Trump's strategy have become visible: using tariffs to narrow trade and fiscal deficits; mobilising investment to reindustrialise the US; and compelling trade partners to buy American energy and goods. Even countries with minimal trade ties to the US have had to offer something of interest to the White House. Pakistan's offering was its allegedly 'rich' oilfields. The EU, Japan, and South Korea have made sweeping pledges, including tariff concessions, major investments, and hefty American purchases. Whether these commitments are realised is another question. But they have delivered the optics of victory that Trump craves. What India offered remains unclear—but evidently, it was not enough. If Delhi was unprepared for Trump's counter-revolution in trade, it now faces an even more profound challenge: coping with a broader transformation of the global financial and technological order. Trump is targeting the foundations of the old monetary system. His administration's embrace of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins promises to reinforce the dollar's dominance over the global system and the US ability to leverage it. At the same time, Trump is aggressively deregulating artificial intelligence. At a recent AI summit in Pittsburgh, he announced a sweeping new policy to promote American AI dominance—especially over China—and pledged to invest a significant share of the revenues secured through trade negotiations into AI-driven industrial renewal. Trump's vision of American resurgence hinges less on outsourcing work and insourcing labour and more on technological innovation to restore US industrial might. In short, Trump is not just renegotiating trade. He is leading a radical overhaul of American capitalism by reshoring key elements of the supply chains, promoting a national industrial policy, and investing in tech-centric manufacturing in the United States. As India resumes trade talks with the US later this month, it must recognise this historic moment in the evolution of the global economy. Any negotiating strategy premised on maintaining the status quo at home at a time of radical change abroad will leave India more vulnerable—not just to US pressure, but to the accumulating costs of missing a long-overdue internal economic transformation. This is a moment that demands India to focus on reforming its own economy to make it globally competitive and technologically agile. India owes this to itself – and to its future. (C. Raja Mohan is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
CJI attributes his rise to Ambedkar, Constitution
NAGPUR: Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai on Saturday credited his rise from a semi-slum school in Maharashtra's Amravati to the country's highest judicial office, the transformative legacy of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, and the Constitution. "If there was no Dr Ambedkar and no Constitution, I would not be in Chief Justice's chair," he said at the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar College diamond jubilee celebrations in Deekshabhoomi. He said his visit to Deekshabhoomi was not as a guest but as "a son of the soil". Standing alongside CM Devendra Fadnavis, senior judges Shree Chandrashekhar, Nitin Sambre, Anil Kilor, Anil Pansare, Prafulla Khubalkar, Abhay Mantri, the CJI said: "This is not a ceremonial visit. It's deeply personal. I have a lifelong emotional connect with this place." Praising Ambedkar's choice of Buddhism over other religions, Gavai said, "Despite offers to embrace Islam and Christianity, Babasaheb chose Buddhism because it ensures equality for all." He cited the 1981 silver jubilee of the Buddhist movement when ex-governor and his late father R S Gavai brought Dr Ambedkar's ashes to Nagpur. "I remember the massive procession. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Biggest Real Estate Discounts Ever at M3M India. Enquire Now! M3M India Book Now Undo My father carried the ashes on his head. It was a defining moment," hesaid. The CJI also reflected on the Ambedkar college's early struggles when staff salaries were unpaid, and operations ran out of a temporary structure. "My father and Dadasaheb Kumbhare sought help from Manoharbhai Patel in Gondia, who agreed to support on the condition they'd have meals with him at his home one day," he said, praising such sacrifices that built the institution "brick by brick". He lauded the college's evolution into a NAAC-accredited institution. Highlighting women's empowerment as a true tribute to Dr Ambedkar's vision, Gavai noted that 80% of today's achievers here are girls. "Ambedkar always said the progress of a society is reflected by the progress of its women," he added.
