extremes

Fox News doesn’t want to talk about the crude doodle of a naked woman, with its creepy message printed across her breasts and torso, and a signature — “Donald” — in her pubic area.

And it certainly doesn’t want to draw attention to a newly released photo of the convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein holding an oversized check signed “DJTRUMP,” with a caption that reads, “Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women! Sells ‘fully depreciated’ [female’s name redacted] to Donald Trump for $22,500.”

While just about everyone has had something to say about the most damning documents yet to come out of the so-called Epstein files, America’s No. 1 cable news network has opted to sit this one out.

Questions about President Trump’s shared history with the nation’s most notorious sex offender shot to the top of news feeds Tuesday after the Republican-led House Oversight Committee released documents to the public that it had subpoenaed from the Epstein estate. The material included notes, drawings and photos from friends and associates to Epstein on his 50th birthday in 2003.

Donald Trump, his future wife Melania, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago in 2000.

(Davidoff Studios Photography / Getty Images)

The “body art” letter that appears to be written by Trump features this bizarre, imaginary conversation:

Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.
Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.
Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I already know what it is.
Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Yes, we do come to think of it.
Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

Fox News on Tuesday suppressed the skeezy birthday note like a dark family secret and instead focused on safer, more comfortable subject matter, like Bill Clinton. But there wasn’t much to say since the birthday greeting that appeared to have been signed by the former president lacked drawings of naked females or implications about buying girls and/or women for sex. The short passage praised Epstein’s “childlike curiosity.” Thankfully, Fox had other breaking stories to chase.

Host Sean Hannity focused on a deadly North Carolina train stabbing and how it implicated Democrats’ “woke” criminal policies. Earlier in the day, Fox News was busy plumbing the depths of the Biden “autopen” scandal after a “bombshell report.”

Fox News’ website was equally as busy avoiding the nation’s top story. It led with “Charlotte mayor scores primary reelection victory amid national backlash over gruesome train murder” and another breaking story: “Hellfire missile bounces off mysterious orb in stunning UAP footage shown to Congress.”

Its story on the scandalous documents? “Inside Epstein’s infamous ‘birthday book’: Clinton’s note, poolside candids and bizarre animal pics.” The piece was toward the bottom of the page, tucked away like dirty laundry. It never once mentioned Trump.

Ghislaine Maxwell compiled the birthday book, collecting sentiments from Epstein’s friends and then gifting the album to her high-rolling financier bestie. Less than two decades later, she would be convicted of sex trafficking, among other charges. Epstein died in jail of a reported suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on similar charges. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison term.

Trump said Tuesday when asked to respond to the birthday letter, “I don’t comment on something that’s a dead issue. I gave all comments to the staff. It’s a dead issue.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday during a briefing that “the president did not write this letter. He didn’t sign this letter.” She said the administration would be open to a handwriting expert reviewing the signature on the letter.

But several news organizations have beaten them to it and compared the signature on the Epstein letter against Trump’s signature on other documents, and found them to be similar.

The alleged Trump letter was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July, when the president denied writing it and said it was “a fake thing.” He filed a lawsuit against the paper’s publisher, reporters and executives, including News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch.

The album also contains messages that appear to be from other notable personalities, including the current U.K. ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson; Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who was part of a legal team representing Trump during his first impeachment trial; and billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner.

The caption under the novelty-check photo appears to be written by Joel Pashcow, a Mar-a-Lago club member and former chairman of a New York real estate company. The woman’s name and photo are redacted in the caption and the image. Lawyers for Epstein’s estate removed the names and photos of women and minors who appeared in the book so possible victims of Epstein could not be identified.

Other drawings in the book make Trump’s alleged contribution look docile. They include a queasy illustration of Epstein handing out balloons to young girls. Fox did mention the drawings of Epstein being massaged by several topless women around a pool, and the one of a zebra having sex with a lion. How much time until it’s suggested that it could be the work of Biden’s autopen? 5,4,3…

“A budget is a moral document,” as numerous human rights activists have said over the decades. If that is true, then the so‑called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” represents a grotesque example of the immorality of US leadership in 2025.

It is a budget that slashes Medicare and Medicaid by $930bn over the next decade and could leave as many as 17 million without healthcare insurance. The cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – a food aid scheme for Americans living in deep poverty – will render about 1 million vulnerable people ineligible for the basic human right of not starving. The US social welfare system – one that President Franklin D Roosevelt and Congress introduced with the Social Security Act of 1935 and President Lyndon B Johnson extended with Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 – is on its way to an emergency room.

This is one of the steepest rollbacks of social welfare programmes in the US since their inception in 1935. Many will attribute it to Project 2025. But the disdain for social welfare in the US has always been present – because the US cannot be the US without millions of Americans who must work on the cheap, so that a select few can hoard wealth and power, and mega-corporations can hoard resources.

That the US has had a mediocre and begrudging social welfare system for the past 90 years is nothing short of a miracle. While much of the Western world and other major empires either established or modernised their social welfare systems in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the US persisted with limited government intervention for citizens. Only radicals within the US labour movement typically advocated a national social welfare policy. Until the Great Depression of the 1930s, only individual states – not the federal government – provided limited economic relief to unemployed people or their families.

US Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins played a critical role in persuading Roosevelt to pursue what would become the Social Security Act of 1935. Once enacted, this provided the elderly, the unemployed, disabled workers, and single mothers with federal assistance for the first time. But both of the bill’s champions were aware that there would be opposition to the federal government assuming responsibility for providing benefits to Americans, even with unemployment at 25 percent.

Leading business tycoons such as Ford Motor Company founder Henry Ford expressed their disdain for federal social welfare. “No government can guarantee security. It can only tax production, distribution, and service and gradually crush the poor to pay taxes,” Ford said. Alf Landon, a millionaire oilman who served as Republican governor of Kansas and ran against Roosevelt in 1936, also opposed the Social Security Act, on the grounds that the tax burden would further impoverish workers. “I am not exaggerating the folly of this legislation. The saving it forces on our workers is a cruel hoax,” Landon stated in a 1936 speech, also fearing that the federal government would eventually dip into Social Security funds to pay for other projects.

Even when Congress enacted the Social Security Act in August 1935, the compromises made served to racialise, feminise, and further limit social welfare provision. The bill excluded agricultural workers like sharecroppers (two‑thirds white and one‑third African American, who were overrepresented in this work), domestic workers (in which Black women were overrepresented), nonprofit and government workers, and some waiters and waitresses from welfare benefits. It took amendments in the 1950s to rectify some of the racial, gender, and class discrimination embedded in the original legislation.

Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1964-65 prompted resistance and helped catalyse a new conservative movement. Johnson sought to add Medicare and Medicaid to the Social Security regime, provide food assistance via programmes such as Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and SNAP (originally Food Stamps), and expand Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Republican and future US President George HW Bush ran unsuccessfully for Senate in Texas in 1964 against a pro‑Medicare Democrat, calling Johnson’s plan “socialised medicine” – a Cold War‑era slur equating it with communism. Racial segregationist Strom Thurmond remarked of social welfare programmes, in general – and Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid plans, specifically – “You had [the poor] back in the days of Jesus Christ, you have got some now, and you will have some in the future,” a pitiful excuse for refusing to reduce poverty or extend federal assistance.

The entire conservative pushback against what Republicans termed “entitlements” grew from the expansion of the welfare state under Johnson. So much so that when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, “his administration slashed Medicaid expenditures by more than 18 percent and cut the overall Department of Health and Human Services budget by 25 percent”. Those and other austerity measures in the 1980s resulted in one million fewer children eligible for free or reduced‑price school lunches, 600,000 fewer people on Medicaid, and one million fewer accessing SNAP – according to one study.

I can speak to the effect of such cuts directly. As a teenage recipient of AFDC and SNAP during the Reagan years – the second eldest of six children (four under the age of five in 1984) in the New York City area – I can say that the $16,000 in annual state and federal assistance between 1983 and 1987 felt like a cruel joke. It barely covered housing, offered minimal healthcare via underfunded public clinics, and still left us without food for a week every month. If this is what they call “entitlements”, then I was clearly entitled to almost nothing.

In the past 30 years, leaders who opposed the federal social welfare apparatus have celebrated their victories with disturbing heartlessness. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole declared gleefully in 1995 that he “was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare… because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965”. During his 2008 presidential campaign, the late Republican senator John McCain proposed $1.3 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, along with a huge “overhaul” of Social Security to balance the federal budget. Fiscal conservative Grover Norquist infamously said he wanted to “get it [social‑welfare programmes] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. US Speaker Mike Johnson claimed last week that Trump’s budget would usher in “a new golden age”. Budget priorities that ultimately harm those in poverty, restrict access to healthcare, and force people to work for food aid or medical care are nothing short of monstrous.

Ninety years – and 44 years of tax breaks later – the greed and callousness of conservatives and the far right have precipitated yet another round of tax cuts favouring the uber wealthy and mega-corporations. It is only a matter of time before those whose grandparents once benefitted from Social Security and New Deal‑era welfare will seek to gut what remains of America’s Swiss‑cheese safety net.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.