logo
All The Ways Epstein Continues To Haunt Donald Trump

All The Ways Epstein Continues To Haunt Donald Trump

NDTVa day ago
It is fair to say that most political scandals fade with time. Just like red wine stains gradually scrubbed from white linens, they lose their shock value. But not the Epstein affair, it seems. Not the files filled with prominent names. Not the infamous client list. And certainly not Donald Trump's connection to it.
No matter how far President Trump flies - whether to Mar-a-Lago, Manhattan or the manicured golf greens of Scotland (from where he returned on Tuesday) - the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein refuses to part with him. Years after the disgraced financier died under suspicious circumstances in a federal prison, his shadow still lingers. It has become an albatross around Trump's neck - a symbol of growing public cynicism about power, secrecy and selective justice.
Just last week, as President Trump landed in Scotland to project an image of calm statesmanship and international poise, there was a nice moment of diplomatic triumph: a favourable EU trade deal. Surely, a feather in his cap. But even as he celebrated, reporters circled like hawks round an old, rotting carcass: the Epstein files.
'Terrific Guy'
Questions flew, about trade and foreign policy, but also about the convicted sex offender he once called a "terrific guy". It's hardly the kind of backdrop any president wants on a global stage.
But this is not 2016. Trump, once the disruptor-in-chief who thrived on political and personal scandals, now finds himself increasingly cornered by liberals or "the deep state," as well as by the ghosts of his own political base, which has turned strangely inward. The Epstein controversy is no longer about Epstein. It's about hypocrisy, about broken promises, about firebrands-turned-functionaries who once shouted from the rooftops and now hide behind legalese.
A Little Recap
Let us rewind the tape. According to available records, Trump's association with Epstein dates back to the 1990s, a time when New York's moneyed elite mingled in Mar-a-Lago-style opulence. Trump once praised Epstein's 'taste' in women, noting that "many of them are on the younger side". Later, after Epstein's 2007 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor, Trump publicly distanced himself. By 2019, when Epstein was arrested again and subsequently died in prison under murky circumstances, Trump was already president and the traditional media as well as social media were ablaze with speculation.
The photos, the guest lists, the deposition quotes. They never really disappeared. They simply lingered in online forums, social media threads and the corners of Reddit and Telegram where conspiracy theories ferment. But what started as fringe chatter has taken on a more central role in today's political discourse upon Trump's second coming, especially among the very voters Trump relied on to return to the White House.
The Voices That Fell Silent
When the infamous Epstein files were partially unsealed earlier this year as part of civil litigation involving Ghislaine Maxwell, media outlets poured over the documents for salacious details and political implications. While many big names appeared, it was Trump's name that lingered in headlines the longest. Not because the documents proved guilt or involvement, but because of the administration's handling of the files now.
Trump's handpicked officials - FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi - were once warriors in the Epstein-obsessed right-wing media ecosystem. Patel famously hinted at a cover-up involving "the highest levels of government", while Bondi made rounds on cable TV brandishing supposed client lists with grim resolve. But now, as custodians of these same institutions, they are singing a different tune. Nothing more to disclose. Nothing left to see.
This abrupt U-turn has enraged large sections of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, whose loyalty was forged not just by economic grievances or immigration policy, but by a belief that Trump alone would "drain the swamp". Epstein was the ultimate symbol of that swamp - its depravity, its privilege and its impunity. To see former conspiracy hunters now become gatekeepers of silence is, for many, nothing short of betrayal.
Is 'Trumpism' Crumbling
What we are witnessing is a kind of slow-motion war within Trumpism. The same base that once trusted Trump to take on "globalist elites" now accuses him - on forums and alt-media channels - of becoming one of them. "The Deep State is now MAGA," reads a popular meme. Fringe influencers like Laura Loomer and Mike Cernovich have openly questioned why Epstein's full files remain sealed, even under Trump's presidency. The implication: if he had nothing to hide, why didn't he order full transparency?
To mainstream media, this may sound like more conspiracy-mongering. But politically, it's a potent problem. Trump's appeal always relied on his outsider status, his ability to "say the quiet part out loud". If that image crumbles - if he begins to look like just another manipulative politician with skeletons in his closet - the loyalty that brought him victory in 2016 and again in 2024 could erode.
Optics Is Everything
Legally, Trump has not been charged with anything related to Epstein. The files, it is widely believed, contain mentions of him, but so far, no smoking gun. But legal risk is not the same as political risk. In a media environment where perception often trumps evidence, it's the optics that matter. Trump's repeated denials, his refusal to unseal the remaining files fully and his attacks on journalists asking about Epstein only deepen public suspicion.
Polls show growing scepticism among independents and younger Republican voters. A recent Pew survey indicated that 58% of Americans believe Epstein's death involved foul play, and 46% say they don't trust either party to investigate it fairly. That is not just bad news for Trump, it is a crisis of legitimacy for the institutions he once vowed to reform.
There is a deeper philosophical question here: what happens when movements that were built on tearing down opaque institutions inherit those very institutions? Do they reform them? Or do they simply use them for protection? Trump's presidency and the lingering Epstein scandal provide an uncomfortable answer. The very agencies once accused of cover-ups are now run by those who made their name demanding truth. And yet, the files remain locked, redacted, classified.
In that sense, the Epstein case has become a serious test for American democracy. For some, it proves that the elite protect their own. For others, it is a cautionary tale about the dangers of populist promises. For all, it is a painful reminder that truth in the age of political tribalism is a slippery thing.
Anatomy Of A Scandal
So, where does this all go? A few scenarios are possible.
One, the Epstein controversy remains a side note in the remaining three-and-a-half years of Trump's administration, fodder for fringe media but not a mainstream concern.
or
Two, the scandal explodes, perhaps through new leaks or insider whistleblowers. It becomes a central issue in the midterm polls.
or
Three, the issue festers, neither resolved nor forgotten, casting a long shadow over every press conference, every debate, every international appearance. The very ambiguity of it - what is known, what is suspected, what is denied - becomes its own kind of scandal.
Deny, Deflect, Distract
If Trump's track record is any guide, he will attempt to bulldoze through the issue with distractions, denials and declarations of victimhood. In fact, his adversaries believe he has already started to use this tactic openly. In classic Trumpian theatre, when the spotlight got too hot over Epstein, the script abruptly changed. Last week, President Trump's camp hurled a fresh grenade. This time aimed at Barack Obama. The charge? That Obama cooked up the intelligence linking Russia to election meddling in 2016.
Critics see this as pure deflection, a political sleight of hand. With Epstein files refusing to die and Trump's own name etched too close for comfort, the administration appears to be rummaging through old playbooks: distract, distort and direct outrage elsewhere. But this time, this may not be enough. The public has grown weary of circus acts and sleights of hand.
Half Truths, Whole Lies
The Epstein scandal is not just about Jeffrey Epstein. It is not even just about Trump. It is about a political culture that thrives on half-truths and unfinished narratives. It is about what happens when you raise the curtain on elite misbehaviour and then abruptly close it again.
For Trump, the problem is not just the past. It's the present - his own appointees, his own choices, his own silence or weak denials. In the end, it may not be what's in the files that hurts him, but the fact that those files still exist, untouched, unspoken, festering in the public imagination like an open wound.
There's a lesson here, not just for the MAGA faithful or the liberal sceptics, but for anyone watching the great American drama unfold: ghosts don't die just because you stop talking about them. Sometimes, the more you try to bury them, the louder they knock.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Buffoon-in-Chief: Owaisi tears into Trump over tariffs, doesn't spare PM either
Buffoon-in-Chief: Owaisi tears into Trump over tariffs, doesn't spare PM either

India Today

time16 minutes ago

  • India Today

Buffoon-in-Chief: Owaisi tears into Trump over tariffs, doesn't spare PM either

US President Donald Trump's 25 percent tariff on Indian exports has drawn sharp criticism from Asaduddin Owaisi, with the AIMIM chief calling Trump a "buffoon-in-chief" who is bullying the Indian government for trading with Russia."It's sad to see my country's government being bullied by a buffoon-in-chief in the White House. This tariff will come with a vague 'penalty' for trading with Russia," tweeted the US President for his remarks, Owaisi said that India is a sovereign country that doesn't bow before has announced that Indian exports will now come with a 25% sad to see my country's government being bullied by a buffoon-in-chief in the White House. This tariff will come with a vague 'penalty' for trading with Russia. India is independent sovereign country.— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) July 31, 2025 "India is an independent sovereign country. Not a vassal state that gives salami in the Emperor's court," said Trump for imposing high tariffs on India, Owaisi termed the measures a deliberate attack on India's sovereignty and economy."These measures are a clear and deliberate attack on our sovereignty and economic standing. I've raised the issue of rising hostile trade practices against India in Parliament for years," he further his tweet, Owaisi also mentioned the sectors that would be severely hit due to the high tariffs. He also said that the high tariffs would deter FDIs while damaging exports and jobs."These tariffs will hit Indian MSMEs, manufacturers, IT firms, service providers, and even our farmers. They'll deter FDI, damage exports, and hurt jobs," he also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his silence on the tariff hikes by the US President."What's worse is our own @narendramodi's silence. Is this the '56-inch chest' we were promised? Or will we only see it if Trump raises tariffs to 56%?" he further from the high tariffs, India will also have to pay additional penalties for buying crude oil from Russia, said the US President on Wednesday. After imposing high tariffs and penalties on India, US President Donald Trump, in a post on Truth Social, called both India and Russia "dead economies" and said that he "does not care" what India does with a dig at the Kremlin, he declared that the US and Russia "do almost no business together" and warned that it should "stay that way".Meanwhile, Iran has come out in India's support and sharply criticised the US for imposing high tariffs on India. The Iranian Embassy in New Delhi said that the US is trying to dictate its will on independent nations and impede their growth and United States continues to weaponise the economy and use #sanctions as tools to dictate its will on independent nations such as Iran and India and impede their growth and development. These coercive discriminatory actions violate the principles of international law and national sovereignty, representing a modern form of economic imperialism," said the Iranian embassy in India in a from imposing high tariffs, the US Department of State has also imposed sanctions on several Indian companies for importing substances such as methanol, toluene, and polyethylene between January 2024 and January the Indian companies named are Kanchan Polymers, Alchemical Solutions Pvt Ltd, Ramniklal S Gosalia and Company, Jupiter Dye Chem Pvt Ltd, Global Industrial Chemicals Ltd., and Persistent Petrochem Pvt. Ltd."These companies have collectively imported tens of millions of dollars' worth of Iranian-origin petrochemicals," the US State Department said, citing their role in transactions that "generate billions of dollars in illicit funds for Iran's destabilising activities".- EndsMust Watch

On Communist icon V.S. Achuthanandan
On Communist icon V.S. Achuthanandan

The Hindu

time16 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

On Communist icon V.S. Achuthanandan

Daily Quiz | On Communist icon V.S. Achuthanandan Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit YOUR SCORE 0 /7 RETAKE THE QUIZ 1 / 7 | Alappuzha is a major production hub for this product. VS worked in this industry and also organised workers of this industry. Name the product. DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Coir SHOW ANSWER 2 / 7 | In 2009, VS was removed from the Politburo for taking a stand against Pinarayi Vijayan in the SNC-Lavlin case. He likened Vijayan to a Soviet leader. Name that leader. DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Mikhail Gorbachev SHOW ANSWER 3 / 7 | In 2014, delivering a blow to VS, the Kerala High Court found fault with his government's decision in 2007 to raze resort buildings which appeared to be built on encroached land in X. Name X, a tea plantation town. DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Munnar SHOW ANSWER 4 / 7 | During the 1962 India-China war, VS was imprisoned for a year because he defied the CPI's stance. What did he do to incur the wrath of the party? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : He organised blood donation drives for Indian soldiers SHOW ANSWER 5 / 7 | VS deeply admired X. This revolutionary served as Prime Minister and later as President of his country in the Caribbean. VS was also likened to this leader by former CPI(M) general secretary, Sitaram Yechury. Name the leader. DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Fidel Castro SHOW ANSWER 6 / 7 | This celebrity received an offer in the early 2000s to become the face of a soft drink brand. When he agreed, he found himself embroiled in a controversy since a plant of the company was the reason for protests in a village in Kerala. When VS issued an ultimatum to the actor, he withdrew his decision. Name the celebrity and the brand. DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Mammootty; Coca Cola SHOW ANSWER

Trump's Tariff authority is tested in court as deadline on trade deals looms
Trump's Tariff authority is tested in court as deadline on trade deals looms

Mint

time16 minutes ago

  • Mint

Trump's Tariff authority is tested in court as deadline on trade deals looms

WASHINGTON—President Trump's trade agenda is entering a pivotal two-day stretch, with the administration moving to increase tariffs on imports from several nations while a federal appeals court considers the legality of his efforts. Trump in April outlined what he described as his 'Liberation Day" tariff regime, which included a global baseline tariff of 10% on imports from virtually all nations and steeper levies on nations the administration considers to be bad actors on trade. The 10% duties went into effect soon after the announcement, but Trump had paused the higher, so-called reciprocal tariffs until the end of this week to make room for negotiations on trade deals. The talks have intensified in the final days before the Aug. 1 deadline. Both elements of the Liberation Day tariffs were underpinned by a 1970s law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Typically, tariffs are imposed using targeted authority delegated to the president by Congress. Trump's team invoked the little-used emergency authority to impose the bulk of his wide-ranging second-term tariffs more quickly. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority, concluding that Ieepa didn't give him the power to impose sweeping tariffs that have sparked a global trade war. While a three-judge panel voided Trump's levies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit quickly paused that ruling to buy itself time to consider the case. The full court, with 11 judges participating, will hear arguments Thursday morning. The case, which combines challenges brought by a dozen states and a group of small businesses, is on a fast-track timeline. Whichever side loses is almost sure to seek review by the Supreme Court. The challengers have mounted a barrage of arguments, any one of which could sink Trump's efforts. Ieepa doesn't give the president power to impose tariffs at all, they say, and even if it did, they argue, it wouldn't allow the ones Trump adopted. They say that there are no extraordinary threats to the U.S. that justify invoking the law, and that his tariffs have no connection to the emergencies he claims. They also say the Constitution limits the ability of Congress to delegate any tariff authority to the president—and that no other president has ever used Ieepa the way Trump has. The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, says in response that Ieepa's text and legislative history gives the president power to regulate imports—including by imposing tariffs—and that his levies are valid and valuable bargaining chips to deal with real emergencies related to trade deficits and drug trafficking. The department also says the president's determination of what constitutes an emergency can't be second-guessed by the courts. U.S. officials have weighed their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. Meanwhile, Trump has used the threat of tariffs to notch commitments from trading partners such as Japan to invest in the U.S. The president's recent pact with the European Union followed a shift in strategy by the Europeans. EU officials in recent talks sought to contain the damage the tariffs will inflict on the bloc's companies and economy, rather than trying to negotiate them away outright. Imports from both Japan and the EU are expected to face 15% tariffs by the end of the week unless Trump further delays implementation of the levies. Other countries face even higher tariffs, such as 25% on Indian imports and 50% on Brazilian imports. Trump, in a social-media post Wednesday, said his Aug. 1 deadline 'stands strong, and will not be extended." There are mysteries surrounding some of Trump's agreements. The administration has yet to release the text of some of the pacts he and his team have discussed in public. In some cases, U.S. trading partners seem to differ from the president's views of what is in the agreements. Trump said his deal with the EU included a $600 billion investment in the U.S. European officials later said the $600 billion was based on private companies' plans for their own U.S. investments and not something the bloc controlled. If Trump wins in court, he will gain vast new powers to impose and relax taxes at will on foreign companies and individuals with U.S. connections, according to trade-law experts. If the administration loses, the picture for Trump's tariffs gets murky. The president 'could do what every president before him has done," and look to Congress to approve the deals, said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, one of the groups suing the administration. Trade lawyers said countries could seek to renege on their deals—potentially prompting a new, messy, international fight. 'It's unlikely that a party is going to uphold a deal" if it can argue the deal was made improperly or under duress, said Michael Lowell, a partner at Reed Smith. 'If the Supreme Court does not uphold the authority, then the strength of those deals will be significantly weakened."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store