Republicans still have an Epstein dilemma. Now they have to face voters.
WASHINGTON – Republican lawmakers continue to debate a response to the Jeffrey Epstein dilemma that has roiled the MAGA base and equally frustrated President Donald Trump – while the 2026 midterm elections loom as a potential outlet for their voters to take out some of that vitriol.
There are no easy answers to a complicated and dated criminal case from which an ample number of conspiracy theories have emerged. Some were touted by members of Trump's administration before their government employment.
The debate around the disgraced financier and the Justice Department's recent review of his case, which found no evidence of a highly speculated client list or that Epstein had not committed suicide in 2019, has left Republicans in Congress between a Trump rock and MAGA hard place.
More: Family feud: Trump at odds with MAGA movement on multiple fronts
'A very large group of Americans that have been concerned about this issue, that thought the administration or thought that Republicans were issuing a promise in good faith, are now realizing that perhaps they aren't operating as honestly as they had perhaps appeared,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, told USA TODAY.
'The erosion of trust is something that once you lose, it's very difficult to come back,' she added.
Tensions over how to address the Epstein case have engulfed the GOP-led House and threatened to backlog other legislative priorities.
This week, the House Oversight Committee agreed to subpoena testimony from Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein aide serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring with the financier. At the same time, pressure to address the Epstein scandal before the entire House prompted Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, to cut the chamber's schedule short and send lawmakers home a day early for their beloved summer breaks that serve as a vital opportunity to reconnect in person with constituents.
Adding to the drama is Trump, who has a long personal history with Epstein and who has asked members of his party to move on from the issue while calling his supporters who do not 'weaklings.'
Business not as usual
Drama over the handling of Epstein's case review, which many GOP supporters are calling insufficient, butted into business on Capitol Hill as lawmakers worked to pass Trump's push for $9 billion in spending cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid.
Even after House leadership managed to temporarily quell dissent and see the budget measure through, lawmakers returned to Washington this week with some as irate as ever.
'I would like the House to follow order, (that) would be really nice,' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, told USA TODAY. 'We should probably be voting on all our appropriation bills and we're not. So, there's a lot of things I would like to see done.'
Johnson said on July 21 there would not be a vote on anything Epstein-related, saying he wants to give the Trump administration 'space' to address the issue first. His comment underscored how House operations are at something of a standstill with attention still caught on a controversial, years-old criminal case.
'I think he's scared. I think he's terrified,' Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, said of Johnson on July 21.
Massie has spearheaded a bipartisan effort with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-California, to force the administration's hand in publicizing files.
Republican voters were 'promised this, they expected this, and it's not happening,' Massie said. 'But at the same time, he feels an allegiance to President Trump, who's gone against the MAGA base on this. So I think he's torn.'
Lawmakers brace for reception back home
Disputes in the House are unfolding ahead of the five-week break from Washington.
Lawmakers will head home to their states and districts, and Republicans are expecting to face some scrutiny from disgruntled constituents.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken July 15-16 found 69% of Americans believe the federal government is hiding details about Epstein's clients. Trump's popularity has taken a hit. A Quinnipiac University poll around the same time found 63% of voters disapprove of how his administration is handling the issue.
Republicans this year have already faced heated town halls back home, prompting leadership to encourage members to quit holding events.
'There are a lot of people here in the swamp who think that, 'Oh, well if we spend five weeks on vacation, the pressure for this will dissipate,'' Massie said. 'I don't think it's going to dissipate. I think it's going to build.'
2026 midterms loom ahead
Could the pressure build to next year's midterms? Potentially.
"Democrats didn't put the Epstein matter into the public domain," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a press conference on July 14. "This was a conspiracy that Donald Trump, (Attorney General) Pam Bondi and these MAGA extremists have been fanning the flames of for the last several years, and now the chickens are coming to roost.'
Democrats already have the historical edge next November as the party that does not hold the White House typically performs better in midterm elections. Both Democratic and Republican presidents suffered stinging defeats that led to them losing one or both chambers of Congress during the 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018 and 2022 campaign cycles.
For the 2026 elections, Democrats say they plan to hit their GOP opponents with recent controversial moves, including Trump's sweeping tax, policy and spending bill that could affect millions of Americans' Medicaid coverage, as well as the cuts to public broadcasting and global programs.
Epstein may be one more name on their list of talking points ‒ and Republicans such as Massie are sounding the alarm now.
'It will follow each individual Republican through the midterms. It will follow people into their primaries,' Massie said. 'Did you support transparency and justice or did you come up here, get elected and fall into the swamp?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Essayli upended U.S. attorney's office by pushing Trump agenda. Will he stay on top?
When Bill Essayli was appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Los Angeles region in April, many in the former state assemblyman's Riverside County district were afraid the ambitious Republican lightning rod would be willing to attack a whole range of California policies to please the MAGA base. They feared that, as the region's most powerful federal prosecutor, Essayli would bow to the Trump administration and ramp up assaults on queer people, immigrants, voting rights, environmental protections and anyone or anything else that displeased President Trump. Now, it's clear they were right to worry, said Jacob Daruvala, an LGBTQ+ advocate from the Inland Empire. 'Essayli is a very specific and terrible threat,' Daruvala said during a recent town hall for the 'Stop Essayli' campaign, which is working to block the top prosecutor's permanent appointment. 'He has already shown multiple times that he is willing to use the office in a partisan manner.' Nearly four months into Essayli's tenure at the top of one of the nation's busiest federal prosecutor's offices, it is perhaps complaints about his partisanship that hound him most. In the midst of a pitched culture war between the Trump administration and California — in which Essayli has participated in federal lawsuits challenging L.A.'s sanctuary policy, California's protections for transgender athletes and more — his partisanship has become a central note in conversations about his leadership style, grasp of the law and understanding of the traditional role of U.S. attorneys. Is he too loyal to Trump? Too bound up in the administration's battles? Too eager to please his bosses and too inexperienced to know that rushing cases for political points can lead to embarrassing losses in court and a crisis of confidence among his own line prosecutors? Essayli — who declined to be interviewed — was never nominated by Trump, but rather appointed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi. That has cast doubt about his future in the office, as Bondi's appointment is limited to 120 days by federal statute and will expire on Wednesday. Barring any formal nomination from Trump proceeding through to the Senate before then — which is unlikely — a panel of judges in the Central District of California can appoint a U.S. attorney. That could be Essayli, or someone else. However, the Trump administration has used unprecedented maneuvers to sidestep that process for two other federal prosecutors this month. A judicial panel declined to name interim U.S. Atty. John A. Sarcone III, or anyone else, as the U.S. attorney in upstate New York. So Bondi appointed Sarcone to a lesser position in the same office, then designated the responsibilities of the higher office back to him. Another judicial panel declined to permanently appoint New Jersey's interim federal prosecutor, Alina Habba — one of Trump's former personal lawyers who has no prosecutorial experience. Bondi decried the judges for going 'rogue,' fired the career prosecutor they chose instead and reinstated Habba. Trump then withdrew Habba's initial nomination and appointed her acting U.S. attorney, a position she can hold for another 210 days without Senate or judicial appointment. Essayli has suggested the administration may not go along with a judicial decision about his appointment either. When conservative pundit Glenn Beck asked him this week if his time was up soon, Essayli said, 'Potentially. We've got some tricks up our sleeves.' The uncertainty around Essayli's future in the office has contributed to a darkening cloud around his tenure there. That unease has been defined by mass departures of career prosecutors, decisions in high-profile cases being criticized as politically motivated and a wave of rushed filings against pro-immigration protesters that pleased Trump administration officials but have struggled to gain traction in court. The controversy has caused his supporters to rally around him, praising his performance and the zealous way in which he has championed the president's causes. Bondi told The Times this week that Essayli had her 'complete support.' His critics, meanwhile, have become increasingly vocal about his faults — and the dangerous path they see ahead were he to win a permanent posting. For months, Trump administration officials have had a loyal and loquacious ally in Essayli, who has doubled as a hype man for Trump's agenda and eagerly filed criminal charges and civil lawsuits to advance it. In late May, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — a fellow conservative culture warrior who has worked alongside Essayli in California for years — repeatedly praised his efforts to increase federal detentions of undocumented immigrants in L.A. despite local sanctuary laws, calling him an 'absolute rock star.' Amid pro-immigrant protests in L.A., Essayli bragged during a June 10 Fox News interview about federal law enforcement arresting David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, for allegedly impeding federal officers. 'California is so lucky to have [Essayli] as the US Attorney in Los Angeles!' Dhillon posted to X. Two days later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem held a news conference in L.A. about federal law enforcement and military troops being posted on city streets. She, too, praised Essayli — who stood nearby — for being 'aggressive' and ensuring 'that people who break the law and perpetuate violence will be brought to justice.' A week later, Bondi and Essayli announced they were suing the city of L.A. over its sanctuary policies. A week after that, Bondi, Dhillon and Essayli announced they were suing the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation over policies allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' sports. Essayli made his name in the state legislature as a fierce opponent of allowing transgender girls to compete against other female athletes in high school sports. He also was the author of a controversial bill that would require schools to out children presenting in gender-nonconforming ways at school to their parents. Instead, state Democrats passed a bill barring school districts from requiring staff to report such information. LGBTQ+ activists and parents of transgender teenagers have told The Times they fear Essayli is trying to lie low for now but will quickly become the Trump administration's go-to prosecutor for its anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. Federal law enforcement sources said they may be right. During meetings with prosecutors early in his tenure, Essayli floated the idea of criminally charging doctors and hospitals for providing gender-affirming care to transgender youths, according to two federal law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office did not reply to a question about the meetings. Meghan Blanco, a defense attorney and former federal prosecutor in L.A., said Essayli's partisanship has gone far beyond the left and rightward swings of U.S. attorneys in the past. 'You're seeing hyper politicized prosecutions, where many times the prosecutions are coupled with these extrajudicial statements by the U.S. attorney himself on news programs or on his X account, where it is very clear the purpose of that is not to promote public safety,' she said. 'The purpose is to rile up Trump's base and to prove to the people around him that he is a true believer who is backing whatever agenda is before him, whether or not that comports with his ethical obligations as a prosecutor.' In his interview with Beck, Essayli said he is working to get things 'reoriented and reprioritized' after years of liberal leadership in the federal courts, in the prosecutor's office and in partner law enforcement agencies in L.A. 'I'm up against very hostile judges, a bench here in Southern California that's extremely left,' he said. 'I have an office I inherited with left-leaning attorneys. And, you know, I inherited an FBI office that frankly needs culture change.' An FBI spokesperson declined to comment. One controversy sparked by Essayli involves Trevor Kirk, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy convicted by a jury in February of using excessive force when he assaulted and pepper-sprayed a woman outside a supermarket. After Essayli was appointed, three law enforcement sources said he became focused on undoing the felony conviction. He requested that the Riverside County district attorney's office look it over. He also tried to delay Kirk's sentencing. Legal experts thought it an odd request, especially since Essayli could have asked the L.A. County district attorney's office — which has experience reviewing sheriff's department conduct and is run by a former federal prosecutor in Nathan Hochman — to provide a second opinion. When a judge denied that request, Essayli's office offered Kirk a misdemeanor plea deal, despite the jury having already convicted him of a felony. It was the same week Trump issued an executive order vowing to 'unleash' American law enforcement. Several federal prosecutors who had worked on the case resigned. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, sharply questioned the Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert J. Keenan, the only prosecutor left on the case, for hours, asking whether prosecutors had a 'serious and significant doubt' as to Kirk's guilt. Ultimately, Wilson rejected the plea agreement — which recommended that Kirk be sentenced to probation — but granted the prosecution's motion to lessen the charges against him and sentenced Kirk to four months in prison. The Andrew Wiederhorn case has also drawn scrutiny. Wiederhorn, the former chief executive of the company that owns fast-food chains Fatburger and Johnny Rockets, is under federal indictment on gun and fraud charges. Days before Essayli's appointment, Adam Schleifer, the assistant U.S. attorney handling the criminal cases against Wiederhorn, was fired at the behest of the White House. Schleifer alleged in appealing the decision that his firing was motivated in part by his prosecution of Wiederhorn, a Trump donor who has maintained his innocence. According to three sources familiar with the matter, Essayli had a meeting with Wiederhorn's defense team shortly after he was appointed. The meeting included former U.S. Atty. Nicola T. Hanna, who the sources said was in charge of the office when the investigation into Wiederhorn began and is now on Wiederhorn's defense team. According to those sources, Essayli suggested shortly after the meeting ended that the cases against Wiederhorn could be dismissed if Essayli gets permanently appointed. The trial dates in both cases have been pushed out to next year. Neither Essayli nor Wiederhorn's defense team responded to a request for comment. Essayli's tenure has been demoralizing and disruptive to many career prosecutors. His belligerent management style and clear partisanship are helping drive out veteran lawyers, according to interviews with several current and former prosecutors who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Essayli has stressed making examples out of those protesting Trump's immigration raids, two prosecutors said, insisting on filing charges even in cases in which the evidence is unlikely to secure a conviction. The office has filed roughly 40 felony cases against protesters and people who have allegedly interfered with ICE operations, but only seven have netted indictments, court records show. Some have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors. Law enforcement sources said several were rejected by grand juries, which is rare. Some in Essayli's office have taken to calling him 'No Bill' Essayli, a reference to the legal term for a grand jury refusing to return a criminal charge — or a 'bill' — in response to a prosecutor's request, according to three federal law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. One prosecutor said work under Essayli has been filled with threats of termination and screaming matches over cases, leading to 'very low' morale. 'When he's in the office, I feel like I usually find out about it because he's yelling at someone,' the prosecutor said. Essayli's office declined to provide The Times with the number of career prosecutors who have left the office recently. According to two law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, Essayli said at a recent meeting that roughly 80 prosecutors out of fewer than 300 have left since early January. 'It feels like we have a going away party pretty much every week,' one prosecutor said. 'Most people that I'm familiar with are looking for other jobs.' Some see Essayli's influence spreading to the national level if he is appointed to the role permanently — and they welcome it. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is a Republican who is running for governor and knows Essayli well. He said he has been in law enforcement for more than 30 years and has never had a more cooperative partner in the local U.S. attorney's office than Essayli. 'We finally have someone that's willing to prosecute people that break the law,' Bianco said. 'Of course I want him confirmed.' That path, however, is far from certain. It's unclear whether the district's judges approve of Essayli or would appoint him, as some have expressed frustration in court with the office's tactics under his leadership. Essayli clearly has his doubts, alleging to Beck that liberal district judges in the country 'have basically signaled en masse they're not going to confirm any Trump U.S. attorneys.' A formal nomination from Trump likely wouldn't put Essayli in any better position. Under traditional Senate rules, California's two senators could scuttle any formal Trump nomination for U.S. attorney in the region by withholding what is known as their 'blue slip,' or acknowledgment of support for a nominee. Essayli told Beck there was 'no world in which' Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff agreed to his nomination. Both Padilla and Schiff in interviews with The Times declined to say whether they would oppose Essayli's appointment given that he has not been formally nominated. But both expressed strong concerns about how he has conducted himself to date. Schiff, who once worked as a prosecutor in the same office, said the U.S. attorneys he worked for under both Republican and Democratic administrations appropriately 'avoided getting involved in incendiary cultural wars or engaging in overt political activity or commentary.' Schiff said Essayli 'is a dramatic departure from that,' leaving him with 'profound concerns.' During a second 'Stop Essayli' town hall on Tuesday, Abi Jones, a 17-year-old transgender athlete from Riverside County, voiced her own fears. In a testimonial video, she said running track and cross-country in high school had taught her about resilience and helped her find a community. But she said that all changed after Essayli 'openly supported' a lawsuit challenging her participation in school sports. Abi accused Essayli of helping to launch a 'harassment campaign' against her and other transgender athletes, and of using it 'for social media content and cheap political points.' 'We need leaders who protect and support all youth,' she said, 'not target and isolate us.' When Daruvala first launched the 'Stop Essayli' effort, he said he felt as though he were 'shouting to the void' about the dangers Essayli posed, where 'only really the LGBTQ community from the Inland Empire who already knew him seemed to understand.' But that has changed with each new partisan move Essayli has made, especially his decision to charge Huerta, the SEIU president, Daruvala said. 'People woke up right away, like, 'Oh, this is not just a Trump puppet,'' Daruvala said. ''He is Trump's enforcer.''
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
When will critics admit Trump's trade strategy is working?
Nearly four months after President Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement of higher reciprocal tariff rates on major U.S. trading partners, the dust has settled and the strategy is working. Over the last few weeks, countries have, one by one, been offering to significantly lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers on US goods entering their markets, while pledging significant purchases from and productive investments in the United States. So far, these nations have included the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the Philippines, with more deals anticipated in the coming days. In each case, these countries have accepted a higher base tariff rate from the United States while lowering their rates to zero or near-zero. These higher US rates will help rebalance the enormous deficits the United States runs with nearly all its major trade partners. For decades, US leaders turned a blind eye to rampant abuses by our trade partners and ever-widening trade deficits that have hollowed out American industry, destroyed millions of jobs and undermined our long-term economic stability. President Trump has done more than anyone thought possible to address these imbalances without major disruption, price increases or job losses. The leverage offered by tariffs has been key in achieving these agreements. Relying on the old system, governed by a slow, outdated and prejudicial World Trade Organization, to address trade abuses and imbalances was completely ineffective. The agreements establishing that organization hadn't been updated since 1994, and litigation often dragged out for several years — and by then, the damage was done. Unilateral action was essential to resolve US trade imbalances, protect our producers and workers, and make American businesses competitive in world markets again. The new trade paradigm introduced by the Trump administration is already changing market incentives worldwide. In a recent speech, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer noted that American and foreign companies have pledged over $5.5 trillion in investments to expand production in the United States. These investments will create untold numbers of jobs as companies build new production facilities and fill them with American workers. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Furthermore, the deals struck by the Trump administration offer a path forward for addressing the main perpetrator of world trade imbalances: China. While the United States put higher tariff rates on China in 2018, China has been able to avoid those tariffs by redirecting supply chains through third countries. This made it imperative to widen the scope of American tariffs, to ensure goods from non-market economies like China do not make it into our market at favorable rates through friendlier trade partners like the Philippines and Mexico. Language in the initial trade deal frameworks indicates our trade partners will now work with us to deter China's trade abuses. Lastly, Trump's tariffs will ensure that the United States maintains and strengthens its industrial base. Tariffs aimed at key strategic sectors like steel and aluminum, automobiles, rare earths, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and drones will ensure our competitors that heavily subsidize such sectors will not undermine US industries, especially those essential to the future of our economic and national security. When Trump announced new reciprocal tariff rates on our trading partners in April, economists, commentators and free traders of all stripes were quick to predict the worst. But even with the prospect of tariffs increasing further in the coming weeks, market and consumer sentiment remains optimistic, with even former naysayers hedging on their earlier dire predictions. What is clear now is that the United States has a path to stabilize its trade balance, strengthen economic opportunities for the middle class, and bolster our economic security — without catastrophic consequences. Mark DiPlacido is a policy advisor at American Compass.
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leading Democrats and advocates for homeless people are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on "creating distracting headlines and settling old scores." "But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. ___
