Trump

BILLINGS, Mont. — President Trump’s administration moved Wednesday to roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live, reviving a suite of changes to Endangered Species Act regulations during the Republican’s first term that were blocked under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The changes include the elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule” that automatically protects animals and plants newly classified as threatened. Government agencies instead would have to craft species-specific rules for protections, a potentially lengthy process.

Environmentalists warned the changes could cause years-long delays in efforts to save species such as the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl and North American wolverine.

“We would have to wait until these poor animals are almost extinct before we can start protecting them. That’s absurd and heartbreaking,” said Stephanie Kurose with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The proposals come as extinctions have accelerated globally because of habitat loss and other pressures. Prior proposals during Trump’s second term would revise the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act and potentially bypass species protections for logging projects in national forests and on public lands.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the administration was restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent while respecting “the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.”

The changes answer long-standing calls for revisions to the 1973 Endangered Species Act from Republicans in Congress and industries including oil and gas, mining and agriculture. Those critics argue the law has been wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth.

Another change proposed Wednesday tasks officials with weighing potential economic impacts when deciding what habitat is crucial to the survival of a species.

“These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense,” Burgum said in a statement.

The Interior Department was sued over the blanket protection rule in March, by the Property and Environment Research Center and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The two groups argued the rule was illegal and discouraged states and landowners from assisting in species recovery efforts.

PERC Vice President Jonathan Wood said Wednesday’s proposal was a “necessary course correction” from the Biden administration’s actions.

“This reform acknowledges the blanket rule’s unlawfulness and puts recovery back at the heart of the Endangered Species Act,” Wood said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

“We’ve already started working on that.” US President Donald Trump said his administration is searching for a possible resolution to the war in Sudan. He added that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had raised the conflict in a conversation with him.

The United States Department of Justice has acknowledged that the grand jury reviewing the case against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), did not receive a copy of the final indictment against him.

That revelation on Wednesday came as lawyers for Comey sought to have the indictment thrown out of court.

At a 90-minute hearing in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed outright, not only for the prosecutorial missteps but also due to the interventions of President Donald Trump.

Comey is one of three prominent Trump critics to be indicted between late September and mid-October.

The hearing took place before US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, and Comey’s defence team alleged that Trump was using the legal system as a tool for political retribution.

“This is an extraordinary case and it merits an extraordinary remedy,” defence lawyer Michael Dreeben said, calling the indictment “a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends”.

The Justice Department, represented by prosecutor Tyler Lemons, maintained that the indictment met the legal threshold to be heard at trial.

But Lemons did admit, under questioning, that the grand jury that approved the indictment had not seen its final draft.

When Judge Nachmanoff asked Lemons if the grand jury had never seen the final version, the prosecutor conceded, “That is my understanding.”

It was the latest stumble in the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Comey for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to senators while under oath.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to the two charges, and his defence team has led a multipronged effort to see the case nixed over its multiple irregularities.

Scrutiny over grand jury proceedings

Questions over the indictment — and what the grand jury had or had not seen — had been brewing since last week.

On November 13, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie raised questions about a span of time when it appeared that there appeared to be “no court reporter present” during the grand jury proceedings.

Then, on Tuesday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick took the extraordinary step of calling for the grand jury materials to be released to the Comey defence team, citing “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps”.

They included misleading statements from prosecutors, the use of search warrants pertaining to a separate case, and the fact that the grand jury likely did not review the final indictment in full.

Separately, in Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Nachmanoff pressed acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan about who saw the final indictment.

After repeated questions, she, too, admitted that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Halligan oversaw the three indictments against the Trump critics: Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

All three have denied wrongdoing, and all three have argued that their prosecution is part of a campaign of political vengeance.

Spotlight on Trump-Comey feud

Wednesday’s hearing focused primarily on establishing that argument, with Comey’s lawyers pointing to statements Trump made pushing for the indictments.

Comey’s defence team pointed to the tense relationship between their client and Trump, stretching back to the president’s decision to fire Comey from his job as FBI director in 2017.

Comey had faced bipartisan criticism for FBI investigations into the 2016 election, which Trump ultimately won.

Trump, for example, accused the ex-FBI leader of going easy on his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, calling him a “slime ball”, a “phony” and “a real nut job”.

“FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds,” Trump wrote on social media in May 2017.

Comey, meanwhile, quickly established himself as a prominent critic of the Trump administration.

“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president,” Comey told ABC News in 2018.

He added that a president must “embody respect” and adhere to basic values like truth-telling. “This president is not able to do that,” Comey said.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Comey’s defence also pointed to the series of events leading up to the former FBI director’s indictment.

Last September, Trump posted on social media a message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling Comey and James “guilty as hell” and encouraging her not to “delay any longer” in seeking their indictments.

That message was “effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution”, according to Dreeben, Comey’s lawyer.

Shortly after the message was posted online, Halligan was appointed as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

She replaced a prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who had reportedly declined to indict Comey and others for lack of evidence. Trump had denounced him as a “woke RINO”, an acronym that stands for “Republican in name only”.

Dreeben argued that switcheroo also signalled Trump’s vindictive intent and his spearheading of the Comey indictment.

But Lemons, representing the Justice Department, told Judge Nachmanoff that Comey “was not indicted at the direction of the president of the United States or any other government official”.

An Indiana lawmaker who has yet to make a decision on whether to back President Trump’s push to have Republicans redraw the state’s congressional boundaries was the victim of a swatting call that brought sheriff’s deputies to his home.

The call, in which someone reported a fake emergency at the Terre Haute home of state Sen. Greg Goode on Sunday, came hours after Trump criticized Indiana lawmakers for not moving forward with the plan and singled out Goode and Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray. Trump has been trying to persuade Republican-led states across the country to aggressively redraw their congressional maps to help the GOP hold the U.S. House in next year’s midterm elections.

Deputies were sent to Goode’s home after receiving an email “advising harm had been done to persons inside a home,” according to a statement from the Vigo County Sheriff’s Office.

“All persons were secure, safe, and unharmed. Investigation showed that this was a prank or false email (also known as ‘swatting’),” the statement said. The incident is under investigation.

Goode, a Republican, wrote on social media that the responding deputies were “under the impression of a domestic violence emergency.” He thanked the deputies for acting professionally.

“While this entire incident is unfortunate and reflective of the volatile nature of our current political environment, I give thanks to God that my family and I are ok,” Goode wrote.

Trump singled out Goode and Indiana Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray while demanding that Republicans move forward with a redistricting plan for Indiana. Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation.

“Because of these two politically correct type ‘gentlemen,’ and a few others, they could be depriving Republicans of a Majority in the House, a VERY BIG DEAL!” Trump wrote on his social media platform.

Bray, the Republican leader of Indiana’s Senate, announced Friday that his chamber will no longer meet to vote on redistricting, citing a lack of support from his members even after pressure from the White House. Vice President JD Vance has visited multiple times to make the case.

Goode, a Republican member of the Senate, has not publicly stated his position on redistricting and says he will not make a decision without seeing a map and legislation introduced for lawmakers’ review.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The goal of swatting is to get authorities, particularly a SWAT team, to respond to an address by making bogus claims of violence happening inside.

Democrats need to gain just three seats to win control of the House next year, leading to Trump’s strong-arming of GOP-controlled states. Legislatures or commissions in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have adopted new maps to boost Republicans’ odds, while California and Virginia are poised to counter Trump’s push and redraw their own maps to benefit Democrats.

Weber writes for the Associated Press.

In the days and weeks after the 2020 election, partisans across the country used lies and deceit to try to defraud the American people and steal the White House.

Although Joe Biden was the clear and unequivocal winner, racking up big margins in the popular vote and electoral college, 84 fake electors signed statements certifying that Donald Trump had carried their seven battleground states.

He did not.

The electoral votes at issue constituted nearly a third of the number needed to win the presidency and would have been more than enough to reverse Biden’s victory, granting Trump a second term against the wishes of most voters.

To some, the attempted election theft is old (and eagerly buried) news.

The events that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol and attempt to block Biden from taking office occurred half a decade ago, the shovel wielders might say, making them as relevant as those faded social-distancing stickers you still see in some stores. Besides, Trump was given a second turn in the White House by a plurality of voters in 2024.

But it’s only old news if you believe that justice and integrity carry an expiration date, wrongdoing is fine with the passage of enough time and the foundational values of our country and its democracy — starting with fair and honest elections — matter only to the extent they help your political side prevail.

It bears repeating: “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to overturn the outcome of a presidential election,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University. “If people can engage in that kind of conduct without consequence or accountability, then we have to worry about it happening again.”

Which is why punishment and deterrence are so important.

Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the criminal case against six Republicans who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump had won the state’s electoral votes. Those charged include Nevada’s GOP chairman, Michael McDonald, and the state’s representative on the Republican National Committee, Jim DeGraffenreid.

The ruling focused on a procedural matter: whether the charges should have been brought in Douglas County, where the fake certificates were signed in the state capital — Carson City — or in Clark County, where they were submitted at a courthouse in Las Vegas. A lower court ruled the charges should have been brought in Douglas County and dismissed the case. The high court reversed the decision, allowing the prosecution on forgery charges to proceed.

As well it should. Let a jury decide.

Of course, the Nevada Six and other phony electors are but small fry. The ringleader and attempted-larcenist-in-chief — Donald “Find Me 11,780 Votes” Trump — escaped liability by winning the 2024 election.

This month, he pardoned scores of fake electors and others involved in the attempted election heist — including his bumbling ex-attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani — for any potential federal crimes. The move was purely symbolic; Trump’s pardoning power does not extend to cases brought in state courts.

But it was further evidence of his abundant contempt for the rule of law. (Just hours after taking office, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 defendants — including some who brutalized cops with pepper spray and wooden and metal poles — who were involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.)

Efforts around the country to prosecute even those low-level schemers, cheaters and 2020 election miscreants have produced mixed results.

In Michigan, a judge threw out the criminal case against 15 phony electors, ruling the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they intended to commit fraud.

In New Mexico and Pennsylvania, fake electors avoided prosecution because their certification came with a caveat. It said the documentation was submitted in the event they were recognized as legitimate electors. The issue was moot once Trump lost his fight to overturn the election, though some in Trump’s orbit hoped the phony certifications would help pressure Pence.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, looks askance at many of the cases that prosecutors have brought, suggesting the ballot box — rather than a courtroom — may be the better venue to litigate the matter.

“There’s a fine line between what’s distasteful conduct and what’s criminal conduct,” Muller said. “I don’t have easy answers about which kinds of things should or shouldn’t be prosecuted in a particular moment, except to say if it’s something novel” — like these 2020 cases — “having a pretty iron-clad legal theory is pretty essential if you’re going to be prosecuting people for engaging in this sort of political protest activity.”

Other cases grind on.

Three fake electors are scheduled for a preliminary hearing on forgery charges next month in Wisconsin. Fourteen defendants — including Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — face charges in Georgia. In Arizona, the state attorney general must decide this week whether to move forward with a case against 11 people after a judge tossed out an indictment because of how the case was presented to grand jurors.

Justice in the case of the 2020 election has been far from sure and swift. But that’s no reason to relent.

The penalty for hijacking a plane is a minimum of 20 years in federal prison. That seems excessive for the fake electors.

But dozens of bad actors tried to hijack an election. They shouldn’t be let off scot-free.

Nov. 18 (UPI) — A federal court ordered Texas on Tuesday to throw out its redrawn Republican-friendly congressional maps for the 2026 election after finding it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.

The 2-1 order by the three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas is a significant setback for Republicans after they pushed through an unusual redistricting of Texas’ congressional seats to insulate their slim House majority ahead of next year’s midterms.

President Donald Trump openly urged Texas state lawmakers to adopt the new congressional map in order to help the party’s prospects in Washington. Democratic lawmakers responded by fleeing the state in what was ultimately an unsuccessful attempt to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass the new maps.

State Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat who led the quorum break, welcomed the court’s ruling in a post on X.

“Texas House Dems stood up to Abbott & Trump,” he wrote. “We broke quorum & we fought in the courts! We did not back down.”

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He criticized what he called partisan gerrymandering in Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and New York. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats, and the now-scrapped redistricting was expected to give the party an edge by diluting Democratic strongholds.

But U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, instead focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

In his ruling, Brown cited a July letter from U.S. Department of Justice officials to Paxton and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, directing the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown wrote that the letter was difficult to assess because it contained “so many factual, legal and typographical errors.” But Brown pointed out that Abbott cited the letter as the reason he added congressional redistricting to the legislature’s special session earlier this year.

The vote represents a major step in the years-long effort to make government documents on the late sex offender public.

The United States Congress has approved a bill to release government documents related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, clearing the way for making the files public.

The House of Representatives adopted the measure in a 427-1 vote on Tuesday, sending it to the Senate, which swiftly agreed to pass it by unanimous consent even before it was formally transmitted to the chamber.

Once the bill is formally approved, it will go to the desk of President Donald Trump, who said he would sign it into law.

The case of Epstein – a financier who sexually abused girls and young women for years – has sparked intrigue in the US for years, given his connections to powerful people in the media, politics and academia, including ties to Trump.

Trump initially opposed releasing the files, calling the controversy around the late sex offender a “hoax” before reversing course this month.

The president and his Department of Justice do not need to wait for Congress to pass the legislation to release the files. They have the authority to make them public.

Before the vote on Tuesday, members of Congress who have been leading the bill – Democrat Ro Khanna and Republicans Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene – spoke alongside survivors of Epstein’s abuse outside the US Capitol.

“We fought the president, the attorney general, the FBI director, the speaker of the House and the vice president to get this win. They’re on our side today, so let’s give them some credit as well,” Massie told reporters.

Jena-Lisa Jones, one of the survivors, held up a photo of herself when she was 14 – the age when she met Epstein.

“I was a child. I was in ninth grade. I was hopeful for life and what the future had held for me. He stole a lot from me,” she said.

Epstein first pleaded guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution with a minor in 2008. He served 13 months in a minimum-security prison and was allowed to leave for 12 hours a day to work. Critics said the punishment did not match the severity of the offence.

After the Miami Herald investigated the prosecution against Epstein, federal authorities reopened the case against him, arrested him and charged him with sex trafficking of minors in 2019.

Two months later, he was found dead in his jail cell in New York City. His death was ruled a suicide.

Epstein’s associates over the years included former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew and former US President Bill Clinton.

Even after his first conviction, Epstein continued to have close personal relationships with influential figures, including former Harvard University President Larry Summers, who recently apologised for maintaining ties to the sex offender.

On Tuesday, Trump lashed out at an ABC News reporter who quizzed him about why he would not release the files on his own, stressing that Epstein was a major donor for Democratic politicians.

“You just keep going on the Epstein files. And what the Epstein is is a Democrat hoax,” the US president said.

Earlier in the day when asked why Trump would not make the documents public, Massie said Epstein’s connections were above partisan politics.

“I believe he’s trying to protect friends and donors. And by the way, these aren’t necessarily Republicans,” Massie said. “Once you get to a billion dollars, you see, you transcend parties.”

WASHINGTON — When President Trump doesn’t like someone, he knows how to show it. In just the last few days, he’s described Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as a traitor, mocked Rep. Thomas Massie’s second marriage after his first wife died and demanded that comedian Seth Meyers get fired from his late-night television show.

But he had nothing bad to say about two people roiling his party: white nationalist Nick Fuentes and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host recently hosted Fuentes for a friendly interview, where he declined to challenge his guest’s bigoted beliefs or a remark about problems with “organized Jewry in America.”

Asked about the controversy that has been rippling through Republican circles for weeks, Trump did not criticize Fuentes and praised Carlson for having “said good things about me over the years.”

The president’s answer echoes his longstanding reluctance to disavow — and sometimes, his willingness to embrace — right-wing figures who have inched their way from the political fringe to the Republican mainstream.

“We are disappointed in President Trump,” said Morton Klein, president of the conservative Zionist Organization of America, adding that he should “rethink and retract” his comments.

The threat of antisemitism, which has percolated across the political spectrum, will likely be a recurring political issue in the coming year, as Democrats and Republicans battle for control of Congress in the midterms. Although Trump has targeted left-wing campus activism as a hive of anti-Jewish sentiment, Fuentes’ influence is a test of whether conservatives are willing to accommodate bigots as part of their political coalition.

A top conservative group faces antisemitism controversy

The turmoil has already engulfed the Heritage Foundation, a leading think tank whose president Kevin Roberts initially refused to distance himself from Carlson. A member of Heritage’s board of trustees, Robert George, announced his resignation Monday, which followed a recent decision by an antisemitism task force to sever its ties with the organization.

Although Roberts has apologized, George said “we reached an impasse” because he didn’t fully retract his original support for Carlson.

“I pray that Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,’” George wrote on Facebook, quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, an evangelical conservative activist and film producer, joined Heritage’s antisemitism task force in June but stepped away when Roberts refused to resign.

“If we aren’t solid on condemning antisemitism, shame on us,” she said Monday.

Cardoza-Moore praised Trump’s record on supporting Israel but said he fell short on Sunday while talking about Carlson and Fuentes.

“We can all agree — and I wish — that he would have gone further,” she said.

It’s unclear what kind of pressure Trump will face despite his previous dalliance with Fuentes, who had dinner with the past-and-future president at his Mar-a-Lago club in between his two terms.

“I don’t think President Trump during his first or second term could be acting more strongly to prevent antisemitism,” said Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He noted Trump’s first-term relocation of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and, more recently, the president’s handling of the war in Gaza.

This is not the first time Trump has shied away from criticizing fringe elements on the right. During his first campaign for president, Trump initially declined to disavow support from white nationalist David Duke, saying, “I just don’t know anything about him.”

He claimed there were “very fine people on both sides” during racist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. While running for reelection, he told the extremist Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

Trump’s unwillingness to condemn either Fuentes or Carlson has the potential to prolong a rift within the Republican Party. On Sunday, as he prepared to fly back to Washington from a weekend in Florida, Trump praised Carlson and said “you can’t tell him who to interview.”

“If he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don’t know much about him — but if he wants to do it, get the word out,” Trump said. “People have to decide.”

Fuentes liked what he heard, posting “Thank you Mr. President!” on social media.

Trump’s remarks run counter to a wave of objections that have flowed from key Republicans. The issue will be the focus of a planned gathering of pro-Israel conservative leaders on Tuesday in Washington called “Exposing and Countering Extremism and Antisemitism on the Political Right.”

The event features U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and Klein, of the Zionist Organization of America.

Perkins said the event has been discussed for some time. “But with recent comments by folks like Tucker, there was an urgency to go ahead and hold the conference,” he said.

The recent annual summit of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas was similarly focused on condemning antisemitism within the party, a shift from the original plans to celebrate the ceasefire in Gaza and the return of Hamas-held hostages.

Brooks said at the time, “We are at this point in what I consider sort of the early stages of an undeclared civil war within the Republican Party, as it relates to Israel, and antisemitism and the Jewish community.”

“And it’s really going to be our challenge going forward to combat that before it has a chance to grow and metastasize in the Republican Party,” Brooks said.

During one part of the conference, college students waved red signs that read, “Tucker is not MAGA.”

Trump addressed the summit by prerecorded video, using his time to promote his administration’s support for Israel. He did not mention the controversy that had dominated the conference.

Megerian and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The House is poised to vote overwhelmingly on Tuesday to demand the Justice Department release all documents tied to its investigation of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

President Trump, who initially worked to thwart the vote before reversing course on Sunday night, has said he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. For that to happen, the bill will also need to pass the Senate, which could consider the measure as soon as Tuesday night.

Republicans for months pushed back on the release of the Epstein files, joining Trump in claiming the Epstein issue was being brought up by Democrats as a way to distract from Republicans’ legislative successes.

But that all seismically shifted Sunday when Trump had a drastic reversal and urged Republicans to vote to release the documents, saying there was “nothing to hide.”

“It’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The reversal came days after 20,000 documents from Epstein’s private estate were released by lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee. The files referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

In private emails, Epstein wrote that Trump had “spent hours” at his house and “knew about the girls,” a revelation that reignited the push in Congress for further disclosures.

Trump has continued to deny wrongdoing in the Epstein saga despite opposing the release of files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker. He died by suicide while in federal custody in 2019.

Many members of Trump’s MAGA base have demanded the files be released, convinced they contain revelations about powerful people involved in Epstein’s abuse of what is believed to be more than 200 women and girls. Tension among his base spiked when Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in July that an “Epstein client list” did not exist, after saying in February that the list was sitting on her desk awaiting review. She later said she was referring to the Epstein files more generally.

Trump’s call to release the files now highlights how he is trying to prevent an embarrassing defeat as a growing number of Republicans in the House have joined Democrats to vote for the legislation in recent days.

The Epstein files have been a hugely divisive congressional fight in recent months, with Democrats pushing the release, but Republican congressional leaders largely refusing to take the votes. The issue even led to a rift within the MAGA movement, and Trump to cut ties with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who had long been an ardent support of the president.

“Watching this actually turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” Greene said at a news conference Tuesday in reference to the resistance to release the files.

Democrats have accused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of delaying the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, because she promised to cast the final vote needed to move a so-called discharge petition, which would force a vote on the floor. Johnson has denied those claims.

If the House and Senate do vote to release the files, all eyes will turn to the Department of Justice, and what exactly it will choose to publicly release.

“The fight, the real fight, will happen after that,” Greene said. “The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files? Or will it all remain tied up in an investigation?”

Several Epstein survivors joined lawmakers at the news conference to talk about how important the vote was for them.

Haley Robson, one of the survivors, questioned Trump’s resistance to the vote even now as he supports it.

“While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I’m grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can’t help to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Robson said.

If signed into law by Trump, the bill would prohibit the attorney general, Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

In the spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and ordered it to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said the Trump administration will be forced to release the files with an act of Congress.

“They will be breaking the law if they do not release these files,” he said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is set to fete Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday when the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia makes his first White House visit since the 2018 killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship had been sent into a tailspin by the operation targeting Khashoggi, a fierce critic of the kingdom, that U.S. intelligence agencies later determined Prince Mohammed likely directed the agents to carry out.

But seven years later, the dark clouds over the relationship have been cleared away. And Trump has tightened his embrace of the 40-year-old crown prince he views as an indispensable player in shaping the Middle East in the decades to come. Prince Mohammed, for his part, denies involvement in the killing of Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen and Virginia resident.

Khashoggi will likely be an afterthought as the two leaders unveil billions of dollars in deals and huddle with aides to discuss the tricky path ahead in a volatile Middle East. They’ll end their day with an evening White House soiree, organized by first lady Melania Trump, to honor the prince.

“They have been a great ally,” Trump said of the Saudis on the eve of the visit.

Rolling out the red carpet

Technically, it’s not a state visit, because the crown prince is not the head of state. But Prince Mohammed has taken charge of the day-to-day governing for his father, King Salman, 89, who has endured health problems in recent years.

Most foreign leaders who come to meet with Trump are driven up to the doors of the West Wing, where the president often greets them. But Prince Mohammed, accompanied by the Saudi prime minister, will be welcomed with an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn.

An Oval Office meeting and luncheon in the Cabinet Room will follow.

Trump will then see the crown prince off in the afternoon but he’s expected to return to the South Lawn, with the first lady, to welcome the crown prince when he returns for the evening East Room dinner.

In addition to White House pomp, the two nations are also planning an investment summit at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday that will include the heads of Salesforce, Qualcomm, Pfizer, the Cleveland Clinic, Chevron and Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil and natural gas company, where even more deals with the Saudis could be announced.

Fighter jets and business deals

Ahead of Prince Mohammed’s arrival, Trump announced he has agreed to sell the Saudis F-35 fighter jets despite some concerns within the administration that the sale could lead to China gaining access to the U.S. technology behind the advanced weapon system.

Trump’s announcement is also surprising because some in the Republican administration have been wary about upsetting Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors, especially at a time when Trump is depending on Israeli support for the success of his Gaza peace plan.

But the unexpected move comes at a moment when Trump is trying to nudge the Saudis toward normalizing relations with Israel.

The president in his first term had helped forge commercial and diplomatic ties between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates through an effort dubbed the Abraham Accords.

Trump sees expansion of the accords as essential to his broader efforts to build stability in the Middle East after the two-year Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

And getting Saudi Arabia — the largest Arab economy and the birthplace of Islam — to sign on would create an enormous domino effect, he argues. The president in recent weeks has even predicted that once Saudi Arabia signs on to the accords, “everybody” in the Arab world “goes in.”

But the Saudis have maintained that a clear path toward Palestinian statehood must first be established before normalizing relations with Israel can be considered. The Israelis, meanwhile, remain steadfastly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

The U.N. Security Council on Monday approved a U.S. plan for Gaza that authorizes an international stabilization force to provide security in the devastated territory and envisions a possible future path to an independent Palestinian state.

Assurances on U.S. military support

The leaders certainly will have plenty to talk about including maintaining the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, mutual concerns about Iran’s malign behavior, and a brutal civil war in Sudan.

And the Saudis are looking to receive formal assurances from Trump defining the scope of U.S. military protection for the kingdom, even though anything not ratified by Congress can be undone by the next president.

Prince Mohammed, 40, who has stayed away from the West after the Khashoggi killing, is also looking to reestablish his position as a global player and a leader determined to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil by investing in sectors like mining, technology and tourism.

To that end, Saudi Arabia is expected to announce a multi-billion dollar investment in U.S. artificial intelligence infrastructure, and the two countries will lay out details about new cooperation in the civil nuclear energy sector, according to a senior Trump administration official who was not authorized to comment publicly ahead of the formal announcement.

A coalition of 11 human rights groups ahead of the crown prince’s visit called on the Trump administration to use its leverage to press Saudi authorities, who badly want to broaden its business and defense connections with the U.S., to make concrete commitments on human rights and press freedom during the visit.

The activists say Saudi authorities continue to harshly repress dissent, including by arresting human rights defenders, journalists, and political dissidents for criticism against the kingdom. Human rights organizations have also documented a surge in executions in Saudi Arabia that they connect to an effort to suppress internal dissent.

“Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is trying to rebrand himself as a global statesman, but the reality at home is mass repression, record numbers of executions, and zero tolerance for dissent,” Sarah Yager, Washington director at the group Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “U.S. officials should be pressing for change, not posing for photos.”

Madhani writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Josh Boak and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is set to welcome Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia at the White House, emphasizing the rehabilitation of the crown prince’s global standing after the controversial assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, and the strengthening of U.S.-Saudi relations. This visit marks bin Salman’s first return to the White House in over seven years, and he will experience a grand ceremonial reception orchestrated by Trump. The discussions are anticipated to enhance security cooperation, promote civil nuclear collaboration, and explore substantial business opportunities, including issues around a $600 billion investment commitment made during Trump’s earlier visit to Saudi Arabia.

However, despite these discussions, major advancements in Saudi Arabia’s normalization of relations with Israel are not expected. This meeting highlights the critical partnership between the U.S., the world’s largest economy, and Saudi Arabia, the leading oil producer, a relationship that has become a focal point for Trump during his presidency, particularly as the international outrage related to Khashoggi’s murder has diminished over time. While U.S. intelligence indicates that bin Salman sanctioned Khashoggi’s assassination, he has publicly distanced himself from the act, accepting accountability only in his capacity as leader.

The agenda includes strategic talks at the White House, a lunch in the Cabinet Room, and a formal black-tie dinner. Notably, Trump has indicated plans to approve the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, a significant policy adjustment that would be the first U.S. sale of these aircraft to the nation, potentially shifting the military dynamics in the region. Alongside military discussions, Saudi Arabia seeks new security guarantees, with expectations of an executive order from Trump forming a defense pact similar to that offered to Qatar, but less comprehensive than a NATO-style treaty.

Experts express that Trump is keen to forge a diversified partnership that secures Saudi Arabia’s alignment away from China’s influence, thereby deepening cooperation across security, finance, and technology sectors. Additionally, Trump is likely to push for Saudi involvement in the Abraham Accords to normalize relations with Israel, a notion the Saudis are hesitant to embrace without clear advancements towards Palestinian statehood amid current regional conflicts.

The overarching goal for Trump regards solidifying a broader Middle East peace arrangement through Saudi participation in the Accords, which represent a crucial geopolitical pivot. While pressure on bin Salman regarding normalization with Israel is expected, analysts believe that a U.S.-Saudi security agreement could still be established independently of significant progress on this front. Overall, the visit aims to reaffirm the longstanding U.S.-Saudi alliance while navigating the complex regional context.

With information from Reuters

Vote on release of Justice Department files on late sex offender is expected to pass in the Republican-controlled House.

WASHINGTON — In political exile at his mansion in Florida, under investigation for possessing highly classified documents, Donald Trump summoned his lawyer in 2022 for a fateful conversation. A folder had been compiled with 38 documents that should have been returned to the federal government. But Trump had other ideas.

Making a plucking motion, Trump suggested his attorney, Evan Corcoran, remove the most incriminating material. “Why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room, and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out,” Corcoran memorialized in a series of notes that surfaced during criminal proceedings.

Trump’s purported willingness to conceal evidence from law enforcement as a private citizen is now fueling concern on Capitol Hill that his efforts to thwart the release of Justice Department files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation could lead to similar obstructive efforts — this time wielding the powers of the presidency.

Since resuming office in January, Trump has opposed releasing files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls. But bipartisan fervor has only grown over the case, with House lawmakers across party lines expected to unite behind a bill on Tuesday that would compel the release of the documents.

Last week, facing intensifying public pressure, the House Oversight Committee released over 20,000 files from Epstein’s estate that referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

Those files, which included emails from Epstein himself, showed the notorious financier believed that Trump had intimate knowledge of his criminal conduct. “He knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, referring to Trump as the “dog that hasn’t barked.”

Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), a member of the oversight committee, noted Trump could order the release of the Justice Department files without any action from Congress.

“The fact that he has not done so, coupled with his long and well documented history of lying and obstructing justice, raises serious concerns that he is still trying to stop this investigation,” Min said in an interview, “either by trying to persuade Senate Republicans to vote against the release or through other mechanisms.”

A spokesperson for Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that altering or destroying portions of the Epstein files “would violate a wide range of federal laws.”

“The senator is certainly concerned that Donald Trump, who was investigated and indicted for obstruction, will persist in trying to stonewall and otherwise prevent the full release of all the documents and information in the U.S. government’s possession,” the spokesperson said, “even if the law is passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.”

After the House votes on the bill, titled the Epstein Files Transparency Act, bipartisan support in the Senate would be required to pass the measure. Trump would then have to sign it into law.

Trump encouraged Republican House members to support it over the weekend after enough GOP lawmakers broke ranks last week to compel a vote, overriding opposition from the speaker of the House. Still, it is unclear whether the president will support the measure as it proceeds to his desk.

On Monday, Trump said he would sign the bill if it ultimately passes. “Let the Senate look at it,” he told reporters.

The bill prohibits the attorney general, Pam Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting the publication of “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

“Because DOJ possesses and controls these files, it is far from certain that a vote to disclose ‘the Epstein files’ will include documents pertaining to Donald Trump,” said Barbara McQuade, who served as the United States attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 until 2017, when Trump requested a slew of resignations from U.S. attorneys.

Already, this past spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to work with hundreds of agents to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and directed them to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

“It would be improper for Trump to order the documents destroyed, but Bondi could redact or remove some in the name of grand jury secrecy or privacy laws,” McQuade added. “As long as there’s a pending criminal investigation, I think she can either block disclosure of the entire file or block disclosure of individuals who are not being charged, including Trump.”

Destroying the documents would be a taller task, and “would need a loyal secretary or equivalent,” said Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh.

Jeffreys-Jones recalled J. Edgar Hoover’s assistant, Helen Gandy, spending weeks at his home destroying the famed FBI director’s personal file on the dirty secrets of America’s rich and powerful.

It would also be illegal, scholars say, pointing to the Federal Records Act that prohibits anyone — including presidents — from destroying government documents.

After President Nixon attempted to assert executive authority over a collection of incriminating tapes that would ultimately end his presidency, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, asserting that government documents and presidential records are federal property. Courts have repeatedly upheld the law.

While presidents are immune from prosecution over their official conduct, ordering the destruction of documents from a criminal investigation would not fall under presidential duties, legal scholars said, exposing Trump to charges of obstructing justice if he were to do so.

“Multiple federal laws bar anyone, including the president or those around him, from destroying or altering material contained in the Epstein files, including various federal record-keeping laws and criminal statutes. But that doesn’t mean that Trump or his cronies won’t consider trying,” said Norm Eisen, who served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

The Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Eisen, has sued the Trump administration for all records in the Epstein investigation related to Trump, warning that “court supervision is needed” to ensure Trump doesn’t attempt to subvert a lawful directive to release them.

“Perhaps the greatest danger is not altering documents but wrongly withholding them or producing and redacting them,” Eisen added. “Those are both issues that we can get at in our litigation, and where court supervision can be valuable.”

Jeffreys-Jones also said that Trump may attempt to order redactions based on claims of national security. But “this might be unconvincing for two reasons,” he said.

“Trump was not yet president at the time,” he said, and “it would raise ancillary questions if redactions did not operate in the case of President Clinton.”

Last week, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to Democratic figures, including Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s co-founder and a major Democratic donor.

He made no request for the department to similarly investigate Republicans.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

In recent days, as the United States House of Representatives approached a potential vote about releasing the Epstein files, President Donald Trump pivoted on the hot-button topic.

Trump and members of his administration had sought to undermine efforts to release the files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. And Trump has been dismissive of the push to make the files public, calling the case “pretty boring stuff” in July and repeatedly referring to it as a Democratic “hoax.”

Then, on November 16, he told House Republicans to vote in favour of the release.

His shift came after lawmakers cleared a significant hurdle on November 12, netting 218 signatures on a petition to force a vote on a bill to release the files within 30 days. The House is expected to vote on that bill this week. Previously, it was considered unlikely the legislation would pass in the Senate; it remains to be seen whether Trump’s latest statement will cause senators to reconsider.

Epstein moved in the same social circles as Trump in the 1990s, including attending parties at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private Palm Beach, Florida, club. The two were photographed together in social settings multiple times. They later had a falling out, a rift that some reporters dated to late 2007.

Palm Beach County prosecutors investigated Epstein after reports that a 14-year-old girl was molested at his mansion. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges related to soliciting prostitution from someone under 18. He received preferential treatment during the criminal investigation and served about a year in jail, largely on work release.

In 2018, The Miami Herald published an extensive investigation into the case, and the next year, Epstein was arrested on federal charges for recruiting dozens of underage girls to his New York City mansion and Palm Beach estate from 2002 to 2005 to engage in sex acts for money. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019, and investigators concluded he died by suicide.

We asked the White House why Trump changed his stance on releasing the files. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, “President Trump has been consistently calling for transparency related to the Epstein files for years – by releasing tens of thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request” and calling for investigations into “Epstein’s Democrat friends”.

Here’s what Trump has said in 2024 and 2025 about releasing the Epstein files.

While campaigning in 2024, Trump said he would release the files

In June 2024, Fox and Friends co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy asked Trump if he would declassify various files, including those related to 9/11 and former President John F Kennedy.

“Would you declassify the Epstein files?” Campos-Duffy said.

“Yeah, yeah, I would,” Trump said.

The clip spread on social media, and Trump’s campaign account also shared it.

🚨 President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files pic.twitter.com/JalLWFkRDZ

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) June 3, 2024

During the same interview, Trump also said, “I guess I would.” He added, “You don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phoney stuff in there because there is a lot of phoney stuff with that whole world, but I think I would.”

On a September 2024 episode of the Lex Fridman podcast, during a discussion about releasing some of the Epstein documents, Trump said, “Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it.” He added that he’d be “inclined” to do it and said, “I’d have no problem with it.”

In 2025, Trump was dismissive of the Epstein files

Early in the second Trump administration, Trump officials –  including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, who became the FBI director – said they supported releasing the files.

In late February at a White House event, Bondi released what she called the “first phase” of “declassified Epstein files” to conservative influencers. It largely consisted of documents that had already been made public.

In a July 12 Truth Social post, Trump expressed frustration about the Epstein files. Speaking to reporters on July 15 on the White House lawn, Trump said the files “were made up by Comey. They were made up by Obama. They were made up by Biden.” We rated that claim Pants on Fire.

Trump said the FBI should focus on investigating other issues, such as voter fraud, and that his administration should “not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about”.

In a July 16 interview with Real America’s Voice, a conservative outlet, Trump said, “I think in the case of Epstein, they’ve already looked at it and they are looking at it and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible. But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years.”

On August 22, a reporter asked Trump if he was in favour of releasing the files.

“I’m in support of keeping it open,” he said. “Innocent people shouldn’t be hurt, but I’m in support of keeping it totally open. I couldn’t care less. You got a lot of people that could be mentioned in those files that don’t deserve to be, people – because he knew everybody in Palm Beach. I don’t know anything about that, but I have said to Pam (Bondi) and everybody else, give them everything you can give them because it’s a Democrat hoax.”

On September 3, a reporter asked Trump a question about efforts to release the Epstein files and if the Justice Department was protecting any friends or donors.

Trump said it was a “Democrat hoax that never ends” and “we’ve given thousands of pages of files”.

This month, Trump called for releasing the files

Trump came out in support of releasing the files after it became clear the House was headed in that direction.

The House Oversight Committee, on November 12, released about 20,000 pages of documents from Epstein’s estate.

Trump directed prosecutors to investigate Democrats and told Republicans to vote in favour of releasing the files.

Trump has often noted Epstein’s ties to former President Bill Clinton. In a November 14 Truth Social post, Trump asked the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s involvement with Clinton.

Typically, prosecutors do not release files during an ongoing investigation, so Trump’s announcement raised questions about whether the Justice Department will withhold certain files even if Congress votes to release them.

When a reporter asked Trump on November 14 about releasing the files, he said, “I don’t care about it, released or not.”

Two days later, in a November 16 post, Trump said, “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown.’’

Summers says he will be taking a step back from engagements after his emails discussing personal and political matters with Epstein made public.

Former Harvard president Larry Summers has apologised and says he will be stepping back from public life after his email exchanges with the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public.

“I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognise the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein,” Summers said in a statement published by CBS News on Monday.

“While continuing to fulfil my teaching obligations, I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me,” he said.

The emails were among the 20,000 pages of documents obtained from Epstein’s estate and released last week by the United States House Committee on Oversight amid ongoing questions about the ex-financier’s relationship with President Donald Trump.

Epstein died by suicide in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He was previously convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor, but he served a light 13-month sentence. Before his downfall in 2019, Epstein was in constant contact with world leaders, celebrities, and high-profile figures like Summers.

The emails between Epstein and Summers span from at least 2017 to 2019 and cover a range of topics, including US foreign policy to Trump’s first presidency, as well as personal matters.

In one email from 2017, Summers advises Epstein that his “pal”, billionaire Thomas Barrack Jr, should stay out of the press following a Washington Post story about Barrack Jr’s relationship with both Trump and political lobbyist Paul Manafort.

“Public link to manafort will be a disaster,” he wrote. “This is a staggering [expletive] show.”

In another December 2018 email, Summers asks Epstein for help securing an invitation to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which Epstein appears to turn down.

Summers previously served as Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and as an adviser to President Barack Obama. He also served as the president of Harvard from 2001 to 2006, when he was forced to resign over remarks suggesting that women were less adept at maths and science than men due to biological differences.

His recent posts include board member at OpenAI and distinguished senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress, according to NBC News. He remained a tenured professor at Harvard after stepping down.

In his emails with Epstein, Summers appears to have held on to his beliefs about women more than 10 years later. In one October 2017 email to Epstein about an event that included “lots of slathering to Saudis”, he wrote that he “yipped about inclusion”.

“I observed that half the IQ in world was possessed by women without mentioning they are more than 51 percent of the population …,” he wrote in the email to Epstein.

In another email the same month, written at the height of the #MeToo movement, Summers appeared disenchanted with the wave of resignations over sexual and personal misconduct by US public figures.

“I’m trying to figure why American elite think if u murder your baby by beating and abandonment it must be irrelevant to your admission to Harvard, but hit on a few women 10 years ago and can’t work at a network or think tank,” he said in the email to Epstein.

In another email exchange between late November and early December 2018, he and Epstein discuss his relationship with a female colleague at length and how Summers – who was then in his mid-60s – should handle the situation.

“Think for now I’m going nowhere with her except economics mentor. I think I’m right now in the seen very warmly in rearview mirror category. She did not want to have a drink cuz she was ‘tired.’ I left the hotel lobby somewhat abruptly. When I’m reflective, I think I’m dodging a bullet,” Summers wrote to Epstein.

“Smart. Assertive and clear. Gorgeous. I’m [ expletive],” Summers wrote in a follow-up email describing the woman, before later concluding a “cooling off” period was needed.

US president defends economic policies as polls show growing angst among voters over prices.

United States President Donald Trump has defended his administration’s record on lowering prices as he faces growing discontent from Americans over the cost of living.

In a speech to McDonald’s franchise owners and suppliers on Monday, Trump claimed credit for bringing inflation back to “normal” levels while pledging to bring price growth lower still.

“We have it down to a low level, but we’re going to get it a little bit lower,” Trump said.

“We want perfection.”

Returning to his regular talking point that Democrats had mismanaged the economy, the Republican president blamed cost pressures on former US President Joe Biden and insisted Americans were “so damn lucky” he won the 2024 election.

“Nobody has done what we’ve done in terms of pricing. We took over a mess,” Trump said.

Trump, whose 2024 presidential campaign focused heavily on the cost of living, has struggled to win over Americans with his protectionist economic message amid persistent affordability concerns.

In an NBC News poll released this month, 66 percent of respondents said Trump had fallen short of their expectations on affordability, while 63 percent answered the same for the economy in general.

Voter angst over prices has been widely identified as a key reason Republicans suffered a shellacking in off-year elections held early this month in multiple states, including New Jersey and Virginia.

Despite repeatedly playing down the effects of his tariffs on prices, Trump on Friday signed an executive order lowering duties on 200 food products, including beef, bananas, coffee and orange juice.

Trump has also floated tariff-funded $2,000 rebate cheques and the introduction of 50-year mortgages as part of a push to address affordability concerns.

While inflation has markedly declined since hitting a four-decade high of 9.1 percent under Biden, it remains significantly above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.

The inflation rate rose to 3 percent in October, the first time it hit the 3 percent mark since January, although many analysts had expected a higher figure due to Trump’s trade salvoes.

Trump, who is well known for his love of McDonald’s, spent a considerable portion of Monday’s speech praising the fast-food chain and casting the company as emblematic of his economic agenda.

“Together we are fighting for an economy where everybody can win, from the cashier starting her first job to a franchisee opening their first location to the young family in a drive-through line,” he said.

Trump also offered “special thanks” to the fast-food giant for rolling out more affordable menu options, including the reintroduction of extra value meals, which were phased out in 2018 and are priced at $5 or $8.

“We’re getting prices down for this country, and there’s no better leader or advocate than McDonald’s,” he said.

A magistrate judge in the United States has issued a stern rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, criticising its handling of the indictment against a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey.

On Monday, Judge William Fitzpatrick of Alexandria, Virginia, made the unusual decision to order the release of all grand jury materials related to the indictment.

Normally, grand jury materials are kept secret to protect witnesses, defendants and jurors in cases of grave federal crimes.

But in Comey’s case, Fitzpatrick ruled there was “a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law”, and that greater transparency was therefore required.

He cited several irregularities in the case, ranging from how evidence was obtained to alleged misstatements from prosecutors that could have swayed the grand jury.

“The procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote in his 24-page decision.

Fitzpatrick clarified that his decision does not render the grand jury materials public. But they will be provided to Comey’s defence team, as the former FBI director seeks to have the indictment tossed.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, underscoring the unusual nature of the proceedings.

“However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”

Scrutiny of US Attorney Halligan

The decision is the latest stumble for interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump whom he then appointed as a top federal prosecutor.

A specialist in insurance law with no prosecutorial background, Halligan was tapped earlier this year to replace acting US Attorney Erik Siebert in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Trump has indicated he fired Siebert over disagreements about Justice Department investigations.

According to media reports, Siebert had refrained from seeking indictments against prominent Trump critics, such as Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing insufficient evidence.

But that appears to have frustrated the president. Trump went so far as to call for Comey’s and James’s prosecutions on social media, as well as that of Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

“They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote in a post addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”

Halligan took up her post as acting US attorney on September 22. By September 25, she had filed her first major indictment, against Comey.

It charged Comey with making a “false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to the US Senate, thereby obstructing a congressional inquiry.

A second indictment, against James, was issued on October 9. And a third came on October 16, targeting former national security adviser John Bolton, another prominent Trump critic.

All three individuals have denied wrongdoing and have sought to have their cases dismissed. Each has also accused President Trump of using the legal system for political retribution against perceived adversaries.

Monday’s court ruling is not the first time Halligan’s indictments have come under scrutiny, though.

Just last week, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie heard petitions from James and Comey questioning whether Halligan’s appointment as US attorney was legal.

As she weighed the petitions last Thursday, she questioned why there was a gap in the grand jury record for Comey’s indictment, where no court reporter appeared to be present.

Inside Fitzpatrick’s ruling

Fitzpatrick raised the same issue in his ruling on Monday. He questioned whether the transcript and audio recording of the grand jury deliberations were, in fact, complete.

He pointed out that the grand jury in Comey’s case was originally presented with a three-count indictment, which it rejected. Those deliberations started at about 4:28pm local time.

But by 6:40pm, the grand jury had allegedly weighed a second indictment and found that there was probable cause for two of the three counts.

Fitzpatrick said that the span of time between those two points was not “sufficient” to “draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate”.

Either the court record was incomplete, Fitzpatrick said, or the grand jury weighed an indictment that had not been fully presented in court.

The judge also acknowledged questions about how evidence had been obtained in the Comey case.

The Trump administration was facing a five-year statute of limitations in the Comey case, expiring on September 30. The indictment pertains to statements Comey made before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020.

To quickly find evidence for the indictment, Fitzpatrick said that federal prosecutors appear to have used warrants that were issued for a different case.

Those warrants, however, were limited to an investigation into Daniel Richman, an associate of Comey who was probed for the alleged theft of government property and the unlawful gathering of national security information.

No charges were filed in the Richman case, and the investigation was closed in 2021.

“The Richman materials sat dormant with the FBI until the summer of 2025, when the Bureau chose to rummage through them again,” Fitzpatrick said.

He said the federal government’s use of the warrants could violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the unreasonable search and seizure of evidence. He described the Justice Department’s actions as “cavalier” and asserted that no precautions were taken to protect privileged information.

“Inexplicably, the government elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

He speculated that prosecutors may not have sought a new warrant because the delay would have allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the Comey case.

“The Court recognizes that a failure to seek a new warrant under these circumstances is highly unusual,” he said.

Fitzpatrick also raised concerns that statements federal prosecutors made to the grand jury may have been misleading.

Many of those statements were redacted in Fitzpatrick’s ruling. But he described them as “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the grand jury process”.

One statement, he said, “may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jury that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government’s evidence”.

Another appeared to suggest that the grand jury “did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause” — and that more evidence would be presented later on.

Calling for the release of the grand jury records on Monday was an “extraordinary remedy” for these issues, Fitzpatrick conceded.

But it was necessary, given “the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings”, he ultimately decided.

US president signals major arms deal before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the White House.

United States President Donald Trump says he will greenlight the sale of advanced F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, signalling a departure in how Washington handles sophisticated weapons transfers to Arab countries.

Trump made the announcement on Monday at the White House, just one day before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is due to visit. “We’ll be selling F-35s,” the president told reporters, lauding Washington’s ties with Riyadh.

 “Yeah, I am planning on doing it. They want to buy them. They’ve been a great ally,” Trump said.

The decision marks a substantial win for Riyadh as Trump works to persuade Saudi Arabia to establish official ties with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords.

But Saudi officials have repeatedly reasserted the kingdom’s commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions recognition of Israel on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

The potential arms deal between Washington and Riyadh raises questions about preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge, which is enshrined in US law. Some Israeli officials have already voiced opposition to the transfer of F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia.

The US has a decades-old commitment of ensuring Israel retains superior military capabilities over potential regional adversaries.

The principle, first established under President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and formally adopted by President Ronald Reagan, has guided American arms sales in the Middle East for more than four decades.

Every US administration since has pledged to preserve Israel’s ability to emerge victorious against any likely combination of regional forces.

The F-35, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is widely regarded as the world’s most advanced fighter jet, featuring technology that makes it difficult for enemy defences to detect.

Critics in Israel have warned the sale could erode the country’s longstanding military superiority in the region.

Yair Golan, an opposition politician and former deputy chief of the Israeli army, said the move risked opening “an arms race in the Middle East” that could undermine advantages Israel has held for decades. He also blasted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as being “failure-prone”.

“The qualitative military edge, which has been the cornerstone of Israel’s security for many decades, is being squandered,” Golan said.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also said Israel must maintain its aerial superiority in the region.

“We are in the Middle East – we cannot get confused. We extend a hand to anyone who truly wants to extend a hand and not harm the State of Israel, but we must preserve our superiority,” he told the Jewish News Syndicate on Monday.

The timing of Trump’s announcement, just before Prince Mohammed’s visit to the White House, underscores the US administration’s efforts to deepen ties with Riyadh as part of its broader Middle East strategy.

Washington has historically managed concerns about Israel’s military edge by either downgrading weapons systems sold to Arab states or providing upgraded versions and additional equipment to Israel.

Prince Mohammed’s visit comes as the shaky ceasefire in Gaza continues amid near-daily Israeli violations.

On Monday, when asked about a potential F-35 deal with Riyadh, Trump invoked the US attack on Iran in June, which he said “obliterated” the country’s nuclear facilities.

Saudi Arabia was not involved in those strikes, but the kingdom’s official news agency, SPA, reported on Monday that Prince Mohammed received a handwritten letter from Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian before his trip to Washington – without providing details about its content.

If the F-35 sale materialises, Saudi Arabia would become the first Arab country in the F-35 programme.

In 2020, Trump approved the sale of F-35 jets to the United Arab Emirates after Abu Dhabi agreed to establish formal ties with Israel. But the deal fell through after Joe Biden succeeded Trump in 2021 amid concerns by US lawmakers over the security of the technology.

The US Congress can disapprove weapon sales authorised by the president and his secretary of state.

Since the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, Uncloseted Media has been checking in every 100 days to document each move in the administration’s ongoing and relentless attack on the LGBTQIA+ community. These last few months have continued the trend of each 100 days being worse than the last. Trump has weaponized the assassination of Charlie Kirk to put an even bigger target on trans Americans, and he has been testing out new rhetoric, claiming that Democrats want “transgender for everybody,” a line he’s now used so many times that we couldn’t include every reference. With that in mind, here’s the administration’s complete track record on LGBTQIA+ issues from days 201-300.

Aug. 9, 2025

Trump announces that he is nominating Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce as deputy ambassador to the United Nations. Bruce, an out lesbian, opposes transgender health care for minors and claims LGBTQIA+ Pride commercials “really do damage to the gay and lesbian community.”

Aug. 11, 2025

During a public safety press conference, Trump orders the National Guard to deploy in Washington, D.C., claiming it will curb crime despite it being down. While doing so, he attacks the LGBTQIA+ community, saying, “That’s why [Democrats] want men playing in women’s sports, that’s why they want transgender for everybody. Everybody, transgender.”

Aug. 12, 2025

Trump orders a review of the Smithsonian Institution to determine whether it aligns with his administration’s standards. He targets the museum’s exhibits on transgender athletes, ballroom drag and the evolution of LGBTQIA+ identities, as well as a painting of a Black trans statue of Liberty—that was later withdrawn by the artist—in the National Portrait Library.

The same day, the State Department releases a revised 2024 Human Rights Report that omits references to LGBTQIA+ people and erases mentions of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The report also removes critiques of governments for mistreating LGBTQIA+ communities. For example, it removes information about Hungary’s anti-LGBTQIA+ laws that encourage citizens to report their LGBTQIA+ neighbors and that ban depictions of homosexuality or gender transition in schools or the media.

Aug. 14, 2025

The Department of Education (DOE) launches an investigation into four Kansas school districts, accusing them of violating Title IX as they “permit students to participate in sports and access intimate facilities based on ’gender identity’ rather than biological sex.”

Aug. 15, 2025

Budget cuts stemming from Trump’s federal workforce reductions eliminate $600,000 in funding for the D.C. Office of LGBTQ Affairs for 2026.

The same day, the administration announces plans to eliminate gender-affirming care from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program starting in 2026, cutting coverage for over 8 million people. The policy would block access to hormones and surgeries for federal workers and their families.

Aug. 20, 2025

The media reports on court filings that reveal that the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued subpoenas to hospitals for private medical records of LGBTQIA+ patients 18 and younger. The DOJ requests billing data, communication with drug manufacturers, Social Security numbers and recordings from providers who treat gender non-conforming minors. Doctors across the country report threats and fear government retaliation.

“The subpoena is a breathtakingly invasive government overreach… It’s specifically and strategically designed to intimidate health care providers and health care institutions into abandoning their patients,” says Jennifer L. Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD law, an LGBTQIA+ legal group and civil rights organization.

Aug. 21, 2025

The White House publishes a list of 20 Smithsonian exhibits deemed “objectionable,” including many that highlight LGBTQIA+ and non-white artists. Targeted works include the American History Museum’s LGBTQ+ exhibit that explores queer and disabled identities, as well as a Title IX anniversary display featuring transgender athletes.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cuts $12 million of federal funding for California’s “Personal Responsibility Education Program,” which provides sex education to teens. HHS officials cite the state’s refusal to remove lessons on so-called “radical gender ideology.”

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upholds an executive order which directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cut more than 1,700 grants, nearly 200 of which provide funding for HIV/AIDS.

The New York Times reports that the Trump administration will withhold more than half of the congressionally appropriated $6 billion for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Experts say the cuts threaten HIV/AIDS services worldwide, as the Kenyan HIV/AIDs network NEPHAK announces layoffs and closures of health centers.

Aug. 23, 2025

ICE violently detains Brazilian trans woman Alice Correia Barbosa, later announcing plans to deport her.

Aug. 26, 2025

The administration warns U.S. states and territories that they will lose federal funding for sex education unless they “remove all references to gender ideology.” Forty-six states and D.C. receive letters ordering the purge of all “gender ideology” content within 60 days.

Aug. 28, 2025

The DOE orders Denver Public Schools to replace gender-neutral restrooms with sex-designated facilities within 10 days. If they don’t comply, the DOE suggests they will lose federal funding.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells Fox News that the HHS is studying whether gender-transition medications or antidepressants cause violence, citing a church shooting in Minneapolis by a transgender woman. Research shows no such connection, and nearly all mass shootings are committed by cisgender men.

Aug. 29, 2025

In an interview with the Daily Caller, a right-wing opinion website, Trump baselessly claims that banning transgender troops improves military readiness. He falsely links transgender identities to violence and repeats debunked claims about gender-affirming care.

Sept. 2, 2025

The Harvard Crimson posts Dean David J. Deming’s announcement that the university will no longer host programming for specific races or identity groups, signaling deeper cuts to diversity efforts. The move follows Trump’s demands that Harvard dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs or lose billions in federal research funding. Since Trump took office, Harvard has removed DEI language, closed identity-based offices and folded LGBTQIA+, women’s and minority programs into a single “Harvard Foundation.”

On a podcast with former George W. Bush special assistant Scott Jennings, Trump conflates crime with support for transgender people, saying Democrats are “fighting for criminals, just like they fought for transgender for everybody… all these crazy things.”

Sept. 3, 2025

After a settlement requiring the administration to restore health and science information to federal websites, HHS officials tell the Associated Press that they remain “committed to its mission of removing radical gender and DEI ideology from federal programs.” The reversal follows an executive order meant to eliminate the term “gender” from policies and delete public health pages about pregnancy risks, opioid addiction and AIDS.

During an Oval Office meeting with Polish President Karol Nawrocki, Trump once again says Democrats “gave us things like men playing in women’s sports, open borders for everybody, transgender for everybody.”

Sept. 4, 2025

In response to the Minneapolis mass shooting, CNN reports that the DOJ is considering restricting transgender Americans’ Second Amendment rights by building off of Trump’s trans military ban and using it as justification for a firearm ban—something that would only be possible by declaring them mentally “defective.” The proposal sparks backlash from the National Rifle Association, who says in a statement that they “will not support… sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.”

A Maine principals’ group challenges a subpoena from the DOJ that seeks athletic rosters statewide as part of the administration’s effort to ban transgender students from sports. The group argues the request would expose private student information unrelated to the case.

A federal appeals panel upholds an injunction blocking the Trump administration’s plan to deny accurate passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans. Judges rule the government failed to show how inclusive passports violate federal law. In its decision, the court writes:

“Based on the named plaintiffs’ affidavits and the expert declarations submitted by the plaintiffs, the district court made factual findings that the plaintiffs will suffer a variety of immediate and irreparable harms from the present enforcement of the challenged policy, including ‘a greater risk of experiencing harassment and violence’ while traveling abroad.”

Sept. 5, 2025

CNN uncovers years of homophobic and misogynistic posts by E.J. Antoni, Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Antoni, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, contributor to Project 2025 and a “bystander” on Jan. 6, has repeatedly mocked LGBTQIA+ people and journalists and appears to have been running an X account where he posted that “there is only one sexual orientation – everything else is a disorientation.” The administration would withdraw his nomination Sept. 30.

Sept. 8, 2025

Three military families sue the Department of Defense after the Trump administration’s ban on transgender health care. “This is a sweeping reversal of military health policy and a betrayal of military families who have sacrificed for our country,” says Sarah Austin, staff attorney at GLAD Law.

Speaking to the Religious Liberty Commission, Trump rambles, “On day one of my administration, I signed an executive order to slash federal funding for any school that pushes transgender insanity on our youth.” He goes on to falsely claim that some states can force children to transition without the parents knowing.

Sept. 9, 2025

A federal judge blocks the administration’s attempt to subpoena medical records of transgender minors at Boston Children’s Hospital. The court finds that:

“The Administration has been explicit about its disapproval of the transgender community and its aim to end GAC [gender-affirming care]. It is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ right to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.”

Sept. 11, 2025

The Wall Street Journal publishes a leaked Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives memo which falsely claims that shell casings found near the scene of Kirk’s murder were engraved with expressions of “transgender and anti-fascist ideology.”