Trump's name reportedly redacted from Epstein files — here's what the FBI doesn't want you to see
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FBI Redacts Donald Trump's Name from Jeffrey Epstein Files
FOIA Officers Justified Redactions with Privacy Rules
Donald Trump Listed in Epstein's Contact Book and Private Jet Flight Logs
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
DOJ Finds No Evidence Linking Trump to Epstein's Sex Trafficking Case
Trump Calls Epstein File Controversy a 'Hoax,' Blames Barack Obama
Epstein and Trump's History Dates Back to the 1980s
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Did Trump Visit Epstein's Island? What the Records Show
FAQs
In a revelation that's reigniting long-standing questions about transparency and power, insiders have revealed that the FBI deliberately redacted US president Donald Trump's name, along with those of other high-profile figures, from the recently reviewed Jeffrey Epstein files, as per a Bloomberg report.According to three individuals familiar with the process who spoke to Bloomberg's Jason Leopold, internal instructions were given to around 1,000 FBI agents this past March to specifically flag any mention of Trump across more than 100,000 pages of Epstein-related records. Yet, when the documents were reviewed and prepped for public release, references to Trump were reportedly redacted by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) officers, as reported by Newsweek.ALSO READ: DOGE blows $21.7 billion paying people to do nothing — even scientists are checking park tickets The reason given was that Trump and others were 'private citizens' at the time of many of the interactions mentioned, which is a common justification used under FOIA case law to protect individual privacy, according to Newsweek. But for critics and transparency advocates, this redaction is yet another example of selective secrecy in the Epstein saga.Trump's name appears in Epstein's contact book, as well as on flight logs related to Epstein's private jet, as per the report. Though the Department of Justice said their review found no 'client list' or criminal evidence tying Trump to Epstein's sex trafficking operations, the redactions have raised concerns even from Trump's base, who urge the release of all documents as promised, as reported by Newsweek.ALSO READ: Palantir bags $10 billion Army deal, one of the biggest defense contracts ever, cements it as the brain behind US war machine The Justice Department and FBI said in a joint July statement that said, "While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted," as quoted in the reportAccording to Newsweek, privacy concerns and protections for victims have been cited as reasons for withholding additional material, a decision that has drawn bipartisan criticism and renewed scrutiny of the files' handling.Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered a full review of the Epstein records. FBI agents combed through tens of thousands of pages. After redactions, the files were passed to Bondi, who reportedly informed Trump in May that his name had surfaced in the documents, as per the Newsweek report.Since then, Trump and senior White House officials have attempted to downplay the matter, with Trump saying earlier this week, "The whole thing is a hoax. They ran the files. I was running against somebody that ran the files. If they had something they would have released," as quoted in the report.Trump also floated a conspiracy theory, alleging that former President Barack Obama and members of his administration planted his name in the documents, without offering evidence, as per Newsweek.The US president and Epstein first crossed paths in the 1980s, with the two appearing at the same parties and social events in Florida and New York for more than a decade, according to the report. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, Trump even said that Epstein was a "terrific guy," as reported by Newsweek.Trump now insists he cut ties with Epstein well before his arrest in 2019, saying he hadn't spoken to him for over a decade, according to the report.Meanwhile, records have shown that Trump took at least eight flights on Epstein's private jet between 1993 and 1997, but they were between New York and Florida and none involved a visit to Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands, as per the Newsweek report. It is the same island at the center of criminal allegations involving the sexual abuse of underage girls, while Epstein's estate settled a $105 million lawsuit in 2022 with the US Virgin Islands, as reported by Newsweek.However, on Monday, Trump told reporters that he had "never had the privilege" of visiting and that he had turned down an invitation from Epstein to go, as reported by Newsweek.Because he was considered a private citizen at the time, FOIA officers removed his name to protect his privacy, a common legal practice, as per the Newsweek report.No. The DOJ said there was no criminal evidence linking Trump to Epstein's sex trafficking operation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
6 minutes ago
- India.com
Meet T-14 Armata Tank, super powerful war weapon offered by Russia to India, its features are..., Trump to...
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump is not happy with India and Russia's friendship and is threatening both countries with tariffs. Amidst this, the two countries are discussing a crucial defence deal that might further enrage Trump. What has Russia offered to India? Russia has offered to sell the next-generation T-14 Armata tanks to India to replace its ageing T-72 tanks with new tanks. Russia's offer includes domestic manufacturing in India under the Make in India programme. Armata tanks are made by the Russian company Uralvagonzavod, and the T-14 Armata is its most advanced tank. Uralvagonzavod has offered to design and develop this tank according to India's needs for its Next Generation Battle Tank (NGMBT) programme. For this, the Russian company has shown interest in partnering with Indian defence companies. What is the crux of the proposal? The proposal includes possible collaboration with India's Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) or other public sector defence units. The proposal is strategically prepared according to India's 'Make-I' procurement category, which aims to increase India's indigenous production. Under this plan, the Government of India provides up to 70% of the funding for developing prototypes, which emphasises domestic manufacturing and technology transfer. Will India buy the advanced T-14 Armata tank? Uralvagonzavod had signed a technology transfer agreement with India for T-90S tanks, which are now manufactured in India as T-90 Bhishma. India uses more than 83 per cent domestic technology in the T-90S tank, including complete localisation of the tank's engine. Russian officials have also expressed their intention to work with India for the local production of the T-14 Armata tank project. Company officials have suggested that the T-14 Armata would be an ideal successor to replace the Indian Army's huge but ageing fleet of T-72 tanks. Why is T-14 Armata considered one of the most advanced tanks in the world? The T-14 Armata is considered one of the most advanced tanks in the world. It has many remotely operated functions, an armoured capsule for the crew, a state-of-the-art digital control system and an active protection system (APS) called 'Afghanit'. This system is capable of destroying the enemy's anti-tank missiles on the way. Three operators can sit inside this tank and destroy the enemy's anti-tank missiles and RPGs in the air. It has a millimetre-wave radar, which provides 360-degree protection. Guided missiles can also be fired from this tank up to 8–10 kilometres. The maximum speed of this tank is 75 to 80 kilometres per hour, and its range is 500 kilometres. The weight of this tank is 55 tonnes, and its cost is around Rs 30 to 42 crore. If it is manufactured in India, its cost will be reduced by at least Rs 10 crore.
India.com
6 minutes ago
- India.com
No Consensus, Just Conflict: Operation Sindoor Debate Sinks Into Bitter Blame Game Between Govt And Opposition
New Delhi: The brief political unity witnessed in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent military conflict with Pakistan seems to have unravelled following the surprise ceasefire announcement on May 10. This week's marathon three-day debate in Parliament on Operation Sindoor laid bare the widening gulf between the government and the Opposition. It reinforces the notion that in today's India, consensus is the exception, not the norm. The debate gave an opportunity to the leaders of both the government and the Opposition to show unity against terrorism coming from Pakistan. While many speakers across party lines called for a common stance, their speeches exposed deep divisions. The Opposition left no stone unturned to corner the lawmakers and pressed for answers on critical issues such as security and intelligence lapses preceding the Pahalgam attack, accountability for those failures, losses suffered by the Indian Air Force, and the true nature of US involvement. Notably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose not to respond in the Rajya Sabha, delegating the reply to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, which triggered an Opposition walkout. From the government's perspective, the needle moved favourably, for instance, Union Home Minister Amit Shah confirmed the elimination of the Pahalgam terrorists, and Prime Minister Modi asserted that "no global leader" had urged India to halt its military operation. Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar put a full stop to speculations regarding New Delhi's differences with Washington, including issues of deportations, visas, and student concerns, aimed at closing talks around Trump's role in India-Pakistan ceasefire. However, the Opposition remained unsatisfied. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi challenged the Prime Minister to publicly refute US President Donald Trump's claims of brokering the ceasefire, labeling the challenge 'political rhetoric.' While the PM skipped any mention of Trump and his repeated assertions of having brokered the ceasefire, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh sidestepped questions regarding the fighter jets lost on the first day of conflict, instead urging a results-focused perspective, saying, 'In any exam, the result matters. We should see whether a student is getting good marks and not focus on whether his pencil was broken or his pen was lost.' Congress's Nationalist Strategy In an uncharacteristic move, the Congress party adopted a nationalist stance to continue putting pressure on the government. This approach aimed to score political points by portraying the government as weak on defense. However, the tables turned with former Home Minister P. Chidambaram's suggestion that the Pahalgam attackers might have been "homegrown terrorists", rather than Pakistan-backed. This offered the government an opportunity to criticise the grand old party's inconsistent position. Rahul Gandhi's speech was notably combative, alongside his sister, Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra recalled the resignations of Vilasrao Deshmukh as Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shivraj Patil as Union Home Minister after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to emphasise government accountability. Gandhi accused the Prime Minister of prioritising his image over the armed forces' freedom to operate, warning that 'the forces should be used with freedom and for the national interest' and urged a decisive military effort to 'defeat terrorism once and for all.' 'It is dangerous at this time for the Prime Minister to use the forces to protect his image. It is dangerous for the country. The forces should only be used in the national interest, and the forces should be used with freedom. If you want them to be used … then go all the way, fight properly and defeat them once and for all," he said. Historical Echoes In Debate The discussion frequently revisited historical parallels. The Congress party members highlighted Indira Gandhi's role in the creation of Bangladesh despite US pressure, contrasting it with the current ceasefire announcement influenced by the US. Meanwhile, the government drew attention to the Congress's perceived failings during critical moments, such as Partition, the wars of 1947–48 and 1965, the Indus Waters Treaty, and the 1962 war with China, to question the Opposition's credibility on national security. While the Congress remains burdened by its political legacy, this debate underscored the broader polarisation within Indian politics. Despite shared concerns over terrorism, the parties remain entrenched in mutual recriminations. With other INDIA bloc parties siding with the Congress in criticism of the government, the opposition front remains fragmented under intense BJP scrutiny.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump new tariff rates ‘pretty much set,' says US trade representative
Speaking on Sunday, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the rates, set to take effect on August 7, are 'pretty much set,' defending the president's strategy as both economic and geopolitical. read more US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer gives a live TV interview about tariffs at the White House in Washington, DC, US. Reuters New US tariff rates are 'pretty much set' with no immediate possibility for discussion, Donald Trump's trade advisor said in remarks broadcast Sunday, justifying the president's politically motivated charges against Brazil. Trump, who has used tariffs as an instrument of American economic supremacy, has set tariff rates for dozens of economies, including the European Union, at 10 to 41 percent starting from August 7, his new hard deadline for the tariffs. In a pre-recorded interview broadcast Sunday on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that tariff rates are unlikely to see changes in 'the coming days'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'A lot of these are set rates pursuant to deals. Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country,' Greer said. 'These tariff rates are pretty much set.' Undoubtedly some trade ministers 'want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States,' he added. But 'we're seeing truly the contours of the president's tariff plan right now with these rates.' Last Thursday, the former real estate developer announced hiked tariff rates on dozens of US trade partners. They will kick in on August 7 instead of August 1, which had previously been touted as a hard deadline. Among the countries facing steep new levies is Brazil. South America's largest economy is being hit with 50 percent tariffs on exports to the United States – albeit with significant exemptions for key products such as aircraft and orange juice. Trump has openly admitted he is punishing Brazil for prosecuting his political ally Jair Bolsonaro, the ex-president accused of plotting a coup in a bid to cling to power. The US president has described the case as a 'witch hunt.' Greer said it was not unusual for Trump to use tariff tools for geopolitical purposes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The president has seen in Brazil, like he's seen in other countries, a misuse of law, a misuse of democracy,' Greer told CBS. 'It is normal to use these tools for geopolitical issues.' Trump was 'elected to assess the foreign affairs situation… and take appropriate action,' he added. Meanwhile White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said that while talks are expected to continue over the next week with some US trade partners, he concurred with Greer's tariffs assessment in that the bulk of the rates 'are more or less locked in.' Asked by the host of NBC's Sunday talk show 'Meet the Press with Kristen Welker' if Trump could change tariff rates should financial markets react negatively, Hassett said: 'I would rule it out, because these are the final deals.' Legal challenges have been filed against some of Trump's tariffs arguing he overstepped his authority. An appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments, though the case may be ultimately decided at the Supreme Court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
