Trump’s Sham “Reversal” on the Epstein Files
Donald Trump’s “sudden reversal” on the so-called “Epstein Files Transparency Act” may signal that his hold on his MAGA base and his GOP supporters in Congress has weakened somewhat, but it is doubtful that it will result in the actual release of any Epstein files that might be embarrassing to him.
Let’s be clear about this: Trump isn’t calling on anybody to “release” anything. Instead, he is calling on Congress to support passing a bill. The manifest insincerity of this position is almost comical: Trump could have ordered his lapdog Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files with nothing more than a four-word tweet, or even just the nod of his head. He is, after all, the head of the Executive branch of government, and the Attorney General does his bidding and serves at his pleasure. But instead of simply telling Bondi to release the Epstein files, Trump has now grudgingly supported asking Congress to do it for him.
What’s with that?
What’s with that is that Trump’s supposed “reversal” on disclosure of the Epstein files is not a reversal at all. It’s a tactical move, not a strategic one. The strategy remains the same: delay or, better yet, prevent the release of anything in the files that might embarrass him or, worse, suggest that he had knowledge of Epstein’s predation on young girls. The tactic is to use the escape hatches in the Epstein Files Transparency Act to thwart potentially harmful disclosures.
The Act, on its face, looks like it requires the attorney general to make public all of the DOJ and FBI files relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But it doesn’t. Rather, it contains loopholes a mile wide, more than enough to permit the appearance of full disclosure, but not the thing itself.
The Act authorizes the attorney general to “withhold or redact” portions of the record that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” It also permits withholding of material to be kept secret in the interest of “national defense or foreign policy” pursuant to criteria established in an “Executive order.”
The requirement that the withheld information be “narrowly tailored and temporary” is fool’s gold. It is so ambiguous as to be meaningless, especially as it is likely to be interpreted by the Bondi DOJ.
“Narrowly tailored” will almost certainly be interpreted by Bondi to include anything that relates to individuals involved in the investigation. Who’s going to be covered? Why not everybody, including not only targets, but also information about innocent witnesses that might, if disclosed, jeopardize the investigation? Bondi will likely insist that the DOJ is going to do a comprehensive investigation into everyone mentioned in the Epstein files including, although without specifically naming, Trump and others within his orbit. That tact will be presented as “proof” that Bondi has depoliticized the DOJ. Think of Bondi saying something like this: “We will pursue all of the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor. We are not limiting our investigation to a handful of specific people. Justice for the abused girls requires us to investigate everybody, including innocent witnesses, who came into close proximity with Epstein while he was committing his heinous acts.”
Forget the fact that Bondi announced some four months ago that after conducting an “exhaustive review” of the Epstein files the DOJ “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties,” whereas she will now likely claim that just such an investigation prohibits disclosure of the files. That doesn’t matter. What, you were expecting consistency or honesty?
Then there’s the requirement that any withholding be “temporary.” But what does “temporary” mean? Not much. Expect the Bondi DOJ to acknowledge that while temporary perhaps means not forever, it nevertheless covers the time it will take to complete the investigation and any related prosecutions. All of that could be dragged out for years, up to and beyond the end of Trump’s term in office.
Finally, there’s the “national defense or foreign policy” loophole. Determining what fits into that bucket is left to “criteria established by an Executive order.” Might withholding information damaging to the reputation of a sitting president of the United States be in the interest of “national defense or foreign policy” when the president is attempting to end a war in Ukraine, start a war in Venezuela, restructure our relationship to NATO, place tariffs on the entire world, win a Nobel peace prize, and on and on forever? Yes, it very well might because guess who gets to answer that question: Trump himself, via an “executive order.”
Do you have any doubt that Trump has already discussed all of this and developed a game plan with his enablers Pam Bondi and Kash Patel?
Please, get real.
Trump hasn’t changed anything real here. Even if the Epstein Files Transparency Act makes its way through the House and the Senate, and is then signed by the president, there is no guarantee – or even a likelihood – that anything in the DOJ’s files that is embarrassing to Trump will ever see the light of day, at least not while Trump remains in office. To the contrary, the Act only distracts attention from the fact that Trump could have easily ordered Bondi to release the files all by himself and gives him the cover of a legislatively approved process that will do more to delay or even prevent disclosure than to facilitate it.
So celebrate the fact that Trump’s sham “reversal” on the Epstein Files Transparency Act may be evidence that Trump has lost some of his sway with his MAGA base and his GOP enablers, but don’t believe for a minute that passage of the Act will result in disclosure of anything in the DOJ files that might suggest that Trump, although perhaps not a participant in Epstein’s predation of young girls, may nevertheless have known about it.
Trump and Bondi are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.
This fight is far from over.
