Pam Bondi's handling of the Epstein files makes it clear she's in over her head
The second Trump administration has been dealing with a scandal for days following its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the file that has turned into a sticking point with the MAGA base.
Conspiracy theorists are frustrated that they haven't gotten the information they claim exists, and ordinary Americans are likely frustrated that the Trump administration has spent its time appealing to conspiracy theorists in the first place. But nobody is feeling the heat from both sides more than Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The depth of Bondi's mishandling of the Epstein files is not completely clear yet. What is clear is that she is not up to the job of attorney general and the weight of responsibility that comes with it. President Donald Trump may not fire her, but it's obvious she should never have been appointed to the position in the first place.
Pam Bondi's Epstein blunder is concerning, no matter how you look at it
There are two possible storylines for Bondi's role in the Epstein list scandal.
The first, less likely option, is that upon reviewing the Epstein documents, Bondi decided that the information needed to be covered up. This would immediately disqualify her from remaining the attorney general. But that's not what I believe happened.
The alternative option, which I think is what actually happened, is that Bondi made overzealous promises to the right-wing conspiracy crowd and could not deliver on her conspiratorial claims.
Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum
Conspiracy theorists often end up eating their own. Once the amount of evidence coming to light is less than satisfactory, they inevitably have to find who is covering up the rest of the information that would ultimately prove the conspiracy true.
Bondi screwed up by making promises that she could not keep, such as stating in an interview that the Epstein list was on her desk. Overextending her position on the Epstein files only strengthened the idea of a conspiracy.
The administration mistakenly assumed that MAGA would just provide cover fire for them without consequence, as has happened in the past. The difference is that their base is actually holding them accountable. They believed the administration when it promised to release everything on Epstein. This means they won't sit by and let Trump off the hook the way they might for other stuff.
Opinion: Trump wants you to forget the Epstein files. But he started the conversation.
Regardless of what the truth ultimately is, Bondi is unfit for the position of attorney general. Her behavior has made it clear that she should not be America's chief law enforcement officer.
Bondi is testing Trump's loyalty to his Cabinet members
Bondi's tenure will only last as long as she isn't creating additional problems for her boss. But while she's running out of space, it's not all that clear that Trump will fire her as of right now. If he doesn't fire her, it shows he cares more about escaping responsibility and accountability than he does the negative news coverage or a possible MAGA uprising.
The Epstein story is particularly embarrassing for Trump, both politically and personally. Even if Trump had no involvement in Epstein's crimes, it is still bad for the president to be in this conversation and for pictures of the two men to be constantly in news coverage.
Trump is now in a bind. He can't fire Bondi because it would require acknowledging that his administration screwed up in their handling of the Epstein files, but her ongoing presence in the administration continues to stain his administration.
Trump doesn't have many good options, but the reality is that Bondi can't handle the job, regardless of what the truth ultimately reveals in the Epstein saga.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
US support for Israel military in Gaza sinks
Americans' disapproval of Israel's military action has now reached 60 percent and diverges greatly along partisan lines. Democratic support is at a low of 8 percent, while 25 percent of independents approve with those low numbers contributing to overall decline in approval. The latest poll took place between July 7-21. It comes amid growing international outrage against Israel for a worsening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, with food crisis experts saying Tuesday there is a 'worst-case scenario' related to famine in the territory. 'Americans supported Israel's actions in Gaza in its initial reading in 2023, taken several weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack. Since then, disapproval has outpaced approval in each survey, peaking at 55 percent in March 2024 before dipping to 48 percent in two readings later in the year,' Gallup said. While 71 percent of Republicans approve of Israel's military actions in Gaza, the wide divergence among political parties is viewed as threatening the longstanding bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Monday he would vote against any military support for Israel amid the hunger crisis in Gaza. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday introduced a joint resolution of disapproval to block certain weapons shipments to Israel, reportedly to block the sale of thousands of fully automatic assault rifles. In April 2024, Congress approved more than $14 billion in security assistance to Israel, and under the Biden administration, approved more than 100 separate foreign military sales, the Washington Post reported. President Biden was criticized for slow-walking deliveries to Israel under pressure from Democrats to hold back sending some of America's most destructive weaponry. The Trump administration said in March it was expediting 'the delivery of approximately $4 billion in military assistance to Israel.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asked earlier this month whether he was worried about declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party, said he was 'certainly interested in maintaining the great support that Israel has had' and blamed a 'concerted effort to spread vilifications and demonization against Israel in social media.' The Gallup poll also recorded a majority of Americans disapprove of Netanyahu, at 52 percent, his highest unfavorable rating since 1997.
Politico
31 minutes ago
- Politico
MAGA is turning on Israel over Gaza, but Trump is unmoved
The frustration among prominent conservatives mirrors the broader trend in Americans' views on the war in Gaza. A Gallup poll released today — conducted before Trump called out starvation in Gaza on Monday during a meeting with British Prime Minister Kier Starmer — found that six in 10 Americans now disapprove of Israel's military actions in the Gaza Strip. Still, 71 percent of Republicans in the same poll voiced support for Israel's war effort. That number has changed minimally since Trump took office. International pressure on Israel is also mounting. The United Kingdom today said it would join France in recognizing a Palestinian state if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September and reverse course in the enclave. U.S. allies in Europe have threatened to punish Israel in other ways if it does not work to improve the situation in Gaza. Israel, for its part, has continued to blame Hamas for issues with the distribution of aid in the war-torn territory and has sharply pushed back on any suggestions that its actions rise to the level of war crimes, crimes against humanity or acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that the volume of food aid Gaza is receiving is sufficient. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the administration's strategy for responding to the worsening crisis. An administration official, granted anonymity to speak freely about the strategic thinking around Gaza, said that the administration isn't breaking with Netanyahu despite its harsher criticism of its closest Middle East ally. 'No one wants to see starving kids anywhere,' the official said. 'And while he's obviously in steadfast support of Bibi, the president's ultimate mission is going to be, one, ending the war, two, ending the killings, and at a bare minimum, secure a ceasefire, get our hostages back and make the region more prosperous than it's ever been before,' the official said. The official added: 'I don't think the Lindsey Grahams of the world and the Tom Cottons of the world are going to be up in arms that the President doesn't want to see kids starving in the Middle East.' Graham and Cotton have been some of Israel's most stalwart supporters in the Senate. Hawkish senators have a similar read on the president's thinking. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a senior member of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, said in a brief interview that the president's actions are rooted in Trump's desire not to see children killed in war. Administration officials, however, aren't accepting charges of 'genocide' on Israel's part. At a State Department briefing Tuesday, spokesperson Tammy Bruce called accusations that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians 'outrageous.' U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee echoed those sentiments on Tuesday in a Fox News interview. 'Is there suffering? Yes. Is it as bad as some of the Europeans say it is? No,' he said. 'It could be a whole lot better, it could all be over quickly if Hamas would finally decide there is no future for them there, which is exactly what the president keeps saying.' Jordain Carney contributed to this report. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Nationa l Security Daily newsletter.
Atlantic
31 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Are Tax Cuts a Political Loser Now?
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular. But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump. The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. 'If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work,' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later. If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he did—in both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, 'Read my lips: no new taxes,' and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP president—his son, George W.—made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy. Although separating Trump's own low approval from the way the public feels about any particular policy he pursues is difficult, the old consensus may just no longer hold. A few factors might explain the shift. First, thanks to 45 years of reductions, the overall tax burden is a lot lower than it was when Reagan took office, especially for wealthy taxpayers. In 1980, the top marginal individual tax rate —what the highest earners paid on their top tranche of income—was 70 percent; it had been as high as 92 percent, in 1952 and 1953. In 2024, it was 37 percent, applying only to income greater than $609,350. Since 1945, the average effective tax rate has dropped significantly for the top 1 percent and 0.01 percent of earners, while staying basically flat for the average taxpayer, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top corporate tax rate has also dropped from a high of 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969, to 21 percent, in 2024. Second, and not unrelatedly, income inequality has risen sharply. Although the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has stabilized in the past few years, it remains well above historical averages. Voters aren't interested in subsidizing even-plusher lifestyles for the richest Americans. That's especially true when tax cuts are paired with cuts to government-assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Majorities of people in polls say Trump's policy bill will mostly help the rich and hurt the poor, and they are correct, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Third, Republicans have argued for years that tax cuts are good policy because they generate enough growth to pay for themselves. This effect is known as the Laffer Curve, named after the influential conservative economist Art Laffer, and it allows supposed fiscal conservatives to justify tax cuts that increase the deficit in the short term. The problem is that it isn't true. Reagan's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, nor did W. Bush's, nor did Trump's first-term cuts. These cuts won't either. Voters also consistently worry about the national debt and deficit, and today even liberal economists who wrote those concerns off in the past are sounding alarms, citing the cost of interest payments on the debt and concerns about the debt as a percentage of GDP. This points to a future problem: Even if voters have soured on tax cuts, that doesn't mean they are willing to endorse tax increases. As my colleague Russell Berman explained to me back in May, Republicans felt pressure to pass the budget bill, lest the first-term Trump tax cuts expire—which voters would hate, and which could hurt the economy. (Those cuts were time-limited as part of procedural chicanery.) And few politicians are willing to run on raising taxes. Most Republicans have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Trump's tariffs are a tax, and he made them central to his campaign, but he also falsely insisted that Americans wouldn't pay their cost. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have in recent cycles vowed to raise taxes on the very wealthy but generally rejected increases for anyone else. This math won't work out forever. At some point, Americans will have to reconcile the national debt, their desire for social services, and their love of low taxes. It will take a brave politician to tell them that. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A gunman killed four people and critically injured another in a shooting at a building in Midtown Manhattan yesterday evening. He was found dead, and police say a note in his wallet indicated that he may have targeted the NFL's headquarters. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a revocation of its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health, in an effort to end federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. The proposal seeks to remove emissions limits for cars, power plants, and oil and gas operations. Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers said today that Maxwell, who was convicted of child sex trafficking and other crimes, would be willing to testify before Congress under certain conditions, including receiving immunity and the questions in advance. The House Oversight Committee rejected the request. Evening Read Homes Still Aren't Designed for a Body Like Mine By Jessica Slice Seven years ago, while sitting in my eighth-floor apartment with my toddler, I heard a voice over the intercom: Our building had a gas leak, and we needed to evacuate. A few weeks prior, a coffee shop down the street had exploded from a gas leak, killing two people and injuring at least 25. Terror struck me: Our elevators were powered down—and I use a wheelchair. I was trapped, unable to take myself and my child to safety. The fire department quickly determined that it was a false alarm. Still, I didn't stop shaking for hours. After a similar episode a few months later, my husband, David, and I bought a duffel bag the size of a human. We invited our neighbors over for pastries and asked if anyone would be willing to help carry me out during an emergency; my toddler could ride in the bag with me. A few neighbors agreed, but I couldn't ignore that my survival—and that of my child—was contingent on who else might be at home, and who might remember our request and be able to reach me. Eight months later, we moved out. We vowed never to live in a high-rise again. Yet nothing could free me from the indignities of seeking housing while disabled. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Watch. In 2022, David Sims recommended 10 must-watch indie films of the summer —each of which are worthy of as much fanfare as the season's blockbusters. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
