Politics

Trump’s Justice Department has forged ahead in this case even as it has withdrawn from several other voting lawsuits brought under the Biden administration. By Alexander Shur for Votebeat What happened? A federal appeals court ruled Monday against a Wisconsin town that disavowed electronic voting machines, siding with the U.S. Justice Department’s argument that this would unfairly harm voters with disabilities. What’s the dispute? Leaders of Thornapple, a town of 700 people in northern Wisconsin’s Rusk County, voted in 2023 to stop using electronic voting machines, in favor of allowing only hand-marked ballots. They did without the machines for two elections in a row, in April and August 2024. The DOJ, under the Biden administration, sued the town in September 2024, arguing that its decision violated the Help America Vote Act, which requires every “voting system” to be accessible for voters with disabilities. Accessible voting machines allow voters with disabilities to hear the options on the ballot and use a touch-sensitive device to mark it. The town argued that it wasn’t subject to the federal law’s accessibility provision because its use of paper ballots didn’t constitute a “voting system.” A district court judge rejected the town’s argument last September, and ordered it to use electronic voting machines for the November presidential election. The town appealed that order, but did use a machine in November. Related | Election officials face limited options as federal security resources fall away On Monday, a three-judge panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower-court order, finding that “individuals with disabilities would lack the opportunity to vote privately and independently if they only had access to a paper ballot.” The court based that finding partially on Thornapple Chief Inspector Suzanne Pinnow’s testimony about a blind woman who relied on her daughter’s assistance to fill out a ballot, and a man who had a stroke and who needed Pinnow to guide his hand so he could mark a ballot. Who are the parties? The DOJ had sued two northern Wisconsin towns and their officials in September after both decided not to use electronic voting equipment for at least one federal election. One of the towns, Lawrence, immediately settled with the Justice Department, vowing to use accessible voting machines in the future. Related | Trump launches new ‘lawless’ attack on voting rights Thornapple officials decided to fight the case. They’re currently represented by an attorney with the America First Policy Institute, a group aligned with President Donald Trump. Why does it matter? The case reaffirms what has long been election practice in Wisconsin: Every polling place must have an electronic voting machine that anybody can use but is especially beneficial for voters with disabilities. Distrust of voting machines, which has grown on the right following misinformation about the 2020 election, has led to a movement to ban them across Wisconsin. But the Thornapple case shows that for now, municipalities still have obligations under federal law to allow voters to cast ballots on electronic machines. The case is relevant nationally, too. Since Trump took office in January, the U.S. Justice Department has withdrawn from multiple voting-related cases. But the Justice Department forged ahead in this lawsuit, signaling that, at least for now, it is not backing the movement to forgo electronic voting equipment entirely. What happens now? Thornapple is “considering our options,” said Nick Wanic of the America First Policy Institute. The case could get appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court or proceed in the lower federal court. Although the order that required Thornapple to use accessible voting machines applied only to the November 2024 election, at this point, two federal courts in this case have ruled that towns must have accessible voting machines for people with disabilities. Related | Work on new voting system guidelines already in motion after Trump executive order “Voters with disabilities already face many barriers in the electoral process, and making sure they have access to a voting system which allows for basic voting rights to be met is a minimum — and legal — standard that they should not be worried about when exercising their right to vote,” said Lisa Hassenstab, public policy manager at Disability Rights Wisconsin.

Rep. Wesley Hunt may be about to make an already chaotic Texas GOP Senate primary even messier. The Houston-area congressman has reserved ad time on Fox News in the Washington, D.C., market, with the spot scheduled to air on Saturday, according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact. Axios reports Hunt is also spending six figures on ads in the Dallas and Houston media markets—an unmistakable sign he’s eyeing a statewide run. And this isn’t his first appearance outside his district. In April, a political action committee ran biographical ads about Hunt in cities far from Houston—including Washington, D.C., and West Palm Beach, Florida, home to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago—according to the Associated Press. Medium Buying, another ad-tracking firm, says Hunt’s congressional campaign also aired spots on Newsmax in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio from July 12-18. Rumors of Hunt running for Senate have been swirling for months. But this latest media blitz marks his clearest signal yet. Axios reports the newest ad features Hunt alongside his wife and three young children, with a voiceover declaring: “Family, faith, freedom. These are the values that define Texas, and they’re the values that define Wesley Hunt.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton The message seems aimed at creating a stark contrast with Attorney General Ken Paxton, the scandal-plagued front-runner who’s now going through a high-profile divorce. State Sen. Angela Paxton filed last week on “biblical grounds,” accusing her husband of adultery and saying the couple has lived apart for over a year. Paxton didn’t exactly deny the allegations. Instead, he released a statement saying, “I could not be any more proud or grateful for the incredible family that God has blessed us with, and I remain committed to supporting our amazing children and grandchildren.” That kind of baggage may give Hunt the opening he needs. He’s been emphasizing his military background—a time-tested selling point for Texas Republicans—and his ads have reached beyond major metros, airing in Amarillo, San Antonio, and Waco. With Paxton mired in scandal and Sen. John Cornyn trailing badly in primary polling, Hunt could emerge as a viable alternative for Republican voters fed up with both. Cornyn, who has held his seat since 2002, still has party leadership support, but that might not be enough to carry him through a tough primary. Sen. John Cornyn Even Trump is holding back. According to Senate GOP sources, White House officials recently told Minority Whip John Thune that the president plans to stay neutral, at least for now. He’s waiting to see if Cornyn can close the gap before weighing in. Meanwhile, more potential candidates are eyeing the race. Rep. Ronny Jackson—Trump’s former White House physician—is also said to be considering a bid. And Democrats are preparing for their own fight. Former Rep. Colin Allred, who challenged Ted Cruz in 2024, has already entered the race. But other high-profile Democrats—Rep. Joaquin Castro, state Rep. James Talarico, and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke—are also considering runs, setting the stage for a possible intraparty showdown. For now, the Republican field is fractured, the front-runner is under scrutiny, and the establishment pick is struggling. If Hunt enters, it almost guarantees a fierce primary fight. So, yes—grab your popcorn. Texas Republicans are gearing up to tear each other apart—again.

Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back. Everybody hates Emil What’s it like having more than 900 former employees from your current job write a letter saying you shouldn’t get to be a judge? Does it feel worse or better than over 75 former state and federal judges writing a letter saying that you shouldn’t be a judge? Emil Bove gets to find out which stings more, since both letters were sent to the Senate in opposition to Bove’s nomination to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. How dare they interfere with Bove’s reward for having been one of President Donald Trump’s many criminal defense attorneys? Regrettably, we’re long past the point where Bove’s track record of allegedly demanding his employees defy federal court orders would be enough of a reason for Senate Republicans not to confirm him. However, the GOP knows full well that Bove is an absolutely appalling candidate and the best approach was to simply break the rules and jam Bove through the Senate Judiciary Committee by refusing to let Democrats even air their objections, so this now moves to the whole Senate. There, the GOP will likely confirm Bove, because they will do whatever Trump wants and have given up on the whole advice and consent thing. Related | Democratic senators are fed up with GOP colleagues’ bullsh-t Trump’s D.C. prosecutor pick not exactly a champion of law enforcement Jeanine Pirro, shown in 2024 Jeanine Pirro, last seen pitching a fit about bottled water, provided written answers ahead of her Senate confirmation hearing as Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. Her answers did not exactly instill confidence that Pirro, who is vying to be the top prosecutor, backs the blue. Or perhaps it’s just that Pirro has an incredibly faulty memory, which also seems like a suboptimal feature for a United States attorney. “I am also not aware that ‘rioters who were convicted of violent assaults on police officers’ were given ‘full and unconditional pardons,’” she said in her written statement, regarding the cases around the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Huh. You’d think she’d have seen that, what with it being covered everywhere and her having had a job in TV news.  Pirro also apparently couldn’t recall saying, on her own radio program, that DOJ prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases should be criminally charged.  Ultimately, none of Pirro’s shortcomings mattered to the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they advanced her nomination to the full Senate. Going to be so terrific to have another election denier in the administration, right?  DOJ working on what really matters: forced assimilation Given that it isn’t really enforcing civil rights or voting rights, the DOJ has plenty of time for a project that is sure to increase efficiency and should definitely be a top priority: overseeing a government-wide effort to eliminate multilingual services. You may be thinking this doesn’t sound like something the DOJ should be overseeing, what with its job as the nation’s top cop and enforcer of civil rights, but somehow folks at the DOJ have time on their hands, despite the fact that they’ve lost thousands of employees. Nonetheless, they’re making the implementation of Trump’s racist, nativist executive order proclaiming English as the official language of the United States.  According to the DOJ, eliminating multilingual services will force people to assimilate, but it sure looks intended to make it harder for non-English speakers to navigate the government.   Judicial ethics, DOJ style The Trump administration is continuing its quest to frame lower courts as a threat to the rule of law. The rest of us know that the only truly lawless court here is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is giving Trump whatever he wants and kneecapping the lower courts in the process.  This time around, it’s the DOJ whining that a judge said something true about the administration’s actions.  At the March 2025 Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the federal courts, a leaked memorandum obtained by hard-right rag The Federalist alleges that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg told Supreme Court Justice John Roberts that his colleagues were “concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.” Well, yes? Like, multiple times? Like, in front of Boasberg just about a week later, when they defied his court order to turn around the deportation planes bound for Venezuela? A DOJ whistleblower provided emails showing that Emil Bove, currently on the threshold of a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, told DOJ attorneys they would need to weigh telling the courts “fuck you” and ignore a court order.  The Department of Justice logo is seen on a podium before a press conference on May 6 in Washington. To be scrupulously fair to conservatives—a grace they extend to no one else—Boasberg’s reported comments at the Judicial Conference slightly predated the plane-deportation case. However, by the time of Boasberg’s reported remarks, there was already litigation about Trump’s illegal removal of members of independent agencies, challenging the administration’s expedited removal process and funding freezes. With the administration fighting those every step of the way, often relying only on the assertion that if the president does it, it’s legal, it isn’t surprising that judges were concerned about the possibility of defying court orders.  Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, another of Trump’s former criminal defense lawyers, is running around framing Boasberg’s mild comments as evidence that judges are biased against Trump. Hilariously, the Federalist’s post also complains about how this is extra-unfair because Trump is also a personal defendant in multiple lawsuits, and how dare the courts not treat him well. Not sure why the fact that the president is mired in personal lawsuits matters here.  There’s also the whole thing of how The Federalist obtained the memorandum on which Blanche’s breathless accusations are based. The Federalist

PoliticusUSA is 100% independent news for readers who want their information with no corporate influence. Please support our work by becoming a subscriber. Subscribe now Donald Trump clearly has something to hide in the Epstein files, and members of Congress aren’t buying his distractions and bogus attempts at looking like he is doing something. On MSNBC, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said that Trump’s order to AG Pam Bondi to get the Epstein grand jury testimony released is a sham. Rep. Jayapal said:  Look, this incredible fury of defensiveness from Donald Trump is just showing that he’s got something to hide. Calling for Pam Bonde to release the grand jury testimony is a tiny piece of the whole thing. As you and I both know, that is a very long, complicated legal process, first of all. But secondly, it involves a lot of redactions. Essentially, if you look at her letter, she says, redact anybody’s name that is important to protect privacy. And there are a whole bunch of other files, photographs, videos, testimony that is not going to be released with the grand jury testimony. Read more

Caribbean Matters is a weekly series from Daily Kos. Hope you’ll join us here every Saturday. If you are unfamiliar with the region, check out Caribbean Matters: Getting to know the countries of the Caribbean. While much of the recent reporting around the racist Trump administration’s anti-Caribbean actions has focused on ICE and deportation, not as much attention has been given to President Donald Trump’s travel bans and their impact. So here are some recent reports: CitizenX co-founder and CEO Alex Recouso posted: Recently, a potential travel ban affecting several Caribbean countries has raised significant concerns among travelers, investors, and citizens of these nations. … If you’re planning to travel to the Caribbean, have business interests in the region, or are considering citizenship-by-investment programs, these developments deserve your attention. The implications extend beyond mere travel inconvenience—they could affect economic stability, investment value, and the global mobility that many seek through Caribbean citizenship programs. And Oumou Fofana reported for Essence: The Trump administration is considering a dramatic expansion of its travel ban policy, which would impose entry restrictions on citizens from 36 additional countries, primarily in Africa and the Caribbean, according to a State Department memo reviewed by The Washington Post. The memo, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, sets a 60-day deadline for these nations to meet new security and documentation requirements. Countries that do not comply risk facing full or partial entry bans to the United States. This move follows a presidential proclamation signed earlier this month that blocked entry or imposed partial restrictions from 19 nations, including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela, according to Reuters. That order went into effect on June 9. Now, the administration’s internal memo reveals a larger list of countries under review.  Caribbean countries on the list include Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia. The list also includes countries in Central Asia and the Pacific, such as Kyrgyzstan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Meanwhile, the Washington Office on Latin America posted about the specifics of Trump’s proclamation: What does the proclamation say about Haitians, Cubans and Venezuelans in particular? Haitians In the proclamation, the President justified the inclusion of Haiti by claiming that “hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration,” which, according to the text, created threats to national security. As a result, the entry of Haitian nationals into the United States is fully suspended for both immigrants and nonimmigrants. Cubans Cuba is subject to partial travel restrictions under the proclamation. The President cited several reasons for this decision, including Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, its alleged failure to adequately cooperate with U.S. law enforcement, and its historical refusal to accept back its nationals who are subject to removal. Consequently, the entry of Cuban nationals as immigrants, as well as nonimmigrants traveling on B-1 (business), B-2 (tourist), B-1/B-2, F (student), M (technical studies), and J (exchange program) visas, is suspended. In addition, consular officers are instructed to limit the validity period of all other nonimmigrant visas issued to Cuban citizens. Venezuelans Venezuela’s inclusion in the proclamation is based on concerns over the country’s lack of a functioning or cooperative central authority for issuing civil documents and passports, as well as insufficient screening and vetting procedures. The text also notes that Venezuela has refused to accept the return of its nationals, despite more than 5,900 Venezuelans having been deported between January and June 2025. As a result, just as in the case of Cubans, Venezuelan nationals are barred from entering the United States as immigrants and as nonimmigrants on B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas. Similar to Cuba, consular officers must also reduce the validity period of all other nonimmigrant visas granted to Venezuelan nationals. Interestingly, while the Trump administration touts and promotes restrictions, Caribbean nations have been doing the exact opposite, furthering their plans for a future that will allow a freer flow of people from nation to nation.  People who live in the continental United States are used to a free flow between states—no visas or passports are required to travel from one state to another. Not so for Caribbean nations, who have been developing plans to tear down barriers between and among their membership for a number of years, which are now beginning to come to fruition. Unsurprisingly, I didn’t see any reporting on this in U.S. media.  But here are two reports from Barbados: YouTube Video YouTube Video The news of the launch attracted quite a bit of attention in the Caribbean press: For example, News Room Guyana posted this video report: YouTube Video But there have been security concerns raised by this new moment, which were addressed by Barbados Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Kerrie Symmonds: YouTube Video Carib21 Network weighed in from Jamaica with a similar take and concerns: YouTube Video Unsurprisingly, while Trump closes doors, the Caribbean moves to open them. Please share your thoughts and responses in the comments section below, and join me for the weekly Caribbean News Roundup. 

A cartoon by Clay Jones. Related | Trump melts down after lewd letter to Jeffrey Epstein is made public

It’s been absolutely fascinating to watch swaths of the MAGA base turn on President Donald Trump over—of all things—his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory. I just covered how conservatives on Reddit are losing their minds about it. But they’re not alone. Take Philip Anderson, a pardoned Jan. 6 insurrectionist: I can’t overstate what a sycophant this guy has been. This gives you a pretty good idea: He was staring down prison time for his role in the insurrection, but Trump bailed him out. To go from that kind of worship to … this? That’s not a small shift. And he’s not the only one. X is full of prominent right-wing influencers now questioning the faith: Every time this guy lost a job or a friend—or claimed to be stalked and harassed—it only deepened his love for Trump. That persecution complex is classic cult behavior.—it tightens the grip and makes it us vs. them. And more importantly, it shuts down dissent. But something is cracking, and the cult is splintering. Take Trisha Hope, a former Trump national convention delegate: She’s upset that Trump called her stupid. He actually called his supporters “weaklings” and “PAST supporters” and said, “I don’t want their support anymore!”  It’s a funny complaint, given that Trump has always called them stupid, famously saying, “I love the poorly educated.” But somehow, Trump’s open disdain had flown under their radar—until now. Whatever spell he cast has finally broken. Now, none of these people are about to develop empathy or fight for a just and caring society. They’re still dangerous conspiracy theorists. But they’ve turned on Trump because they believe he’s now complicit in the Epstein cover-up. And here’s the thing: Trump’s power depends entirely on the unwavering devotion of people like this. So what happens when that devotion falters? What happens if Elon Musk follows through on his threats to primary Republicans over Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill”—and actually succeeds, powered by this festering backlash on the far right? And what happens if the fractured right allows Democrats not just to win big in the House, but to do the seemingly impossible and retake the Senate? Trump’s influence is only as strong as his grip on his base. So what happens when that grip disappears? Shit is getting interesting.

Can the city of New York sell groceries more cheaply than the private sector? The mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani thinks so. He wants to start five city-owned stores that will be “focused on keeping prices low” rather than making a profit—what he calls a “public option” for groceries. His proposal calls for opening stores on city land so that they can forgo paying rent or property taxes. Skeptics have focused on economic obstacles to the plan. Grocers have industry expertise that New York City lacks; they benefit from scale; and they run on thin profit margins, estimated at just 1 to 3 percent, leaving little room for additional savings. Less discussed, though no less formidable, is a political obstacle for Mamdani: The self-described democratic socialist’s promise to lower grocery prices and, more generally, “lower the cost of living for working class New Yorkers” will be undermined by other policies that he or his coalition favors that would raise costs. No one should trust that “there’s far more efficiency to be had in our public sector,” as he says of his grocery-store proposal, until he explains how he would resolve those conflicts. Mamdani’s desire to reduce grocery prices for New Yorkers is undercut most glaringly by the labor policies that he champions. Labor is the largest fixed cost for grocery stores. Right now grocery-store chains with lots of New York locations, such as Stop & Shop and Key Food, advertise entry-level positions at or near the city’s minimum wage of $16.50 an hour. Mamdani has proposed to almost double the minimum wage in New York City to $30 an hour by 2030; after that, additional increases would be indexed to inflation or productivity growth, whichever is higher. Perhaps existing grocery workers are underpaid; perhaps workers at city-run stores should make $30 an hour too. Yet a wage increase would all but guarantee more expensive groceries. Voters deserve to know whether he’ll prioritize cheaper groceries or better-paid workers. (I wrote to Mamdani’s campaign about this trade-off, and others noted below, but got no reply.) [Read: New York is hungry for a big grocery experiment] In the New York State assembly, Mamdani has co-sponsored legislation to expand family-leave benefits so that they extend to workers who have an abortion, a miscarriage, or a stillbirth. The official platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, which endorsed Mamdani, calls for “a four-day, 32-hour work week with no reduction in wages or benefits” for all workers. Unions, another source of Mamdani support, regularly lobby for more generous worker benefits. Extending such benefits to grocery-store employees would raise costs that, again, usually get passed on to consumers. Perhaps Mamdani intends to break with his own past stances and members of his coalition, in keeping with his goal of focusing on low prices. But if that’s a path that he intends to take, he hasn’t said so. City-run grocery stores would purchase massive amounts of food and other consumer goods from wholesalers. New York City already prioritizes goals other than cost-cutting when it procures food for municipal purposes; it signed a pledge in 2021 to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food that it serves, and Mayor Eric Adams signed executive orders in 2022 that committed the city to considering “local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare, and nutrition” in its food procurement. Such initiatives inevitably raise costs. Mamdani could favor exempting city-run groceries from these kinds of obligations. But would he? Batul Hassan, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America steering committee and a supporter of Mamdani, co-authored an article arguing that city-run stores should procure food from vendors that prioritize a whole host of goods: “worker dignity and safety, animal welfare, community economic benefit and local sourcing, impacts to the environment, and health and nutrition, including emphasizing culturally appropriate, well-balanced and plant-based diets,” in addition to “suppliers from marginalized backgrounds and non-corporate supply chains, including small, diversified family farms, immigrants and people of color, new and emerging consumer brands, and farmer and employee owned cooperatives.” If one milk brand is cheaper but has much bigger environmental externalities or is owned by a large corporation, will a city-run store carry it or a pricier but greener, smaller brand? Mamdani has said in the past that he supports the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement, which advocates for boycotting products from Israel. That probably wouldn’t raise costs much by itself. And Mamdani told Politico in April that BDS wouldn’t be his focus as mayor. But a general practice of avoiding goods because of their national origin, or a labor dispute between a supplier and its workers, or any number of other controversies, could raise costs. When asked about BDS in the Politico interview, Mamdani also said, “We have to use every tool that is at people’s disposal to ensure that equality is not simply a hope, but a reality.” Would Mamdani prioritize low prices in all cases or sometimes prioritize the power of boycotts or related pressure tactics to effect social change? Again, he should clarify how he would resolve such trade-offs. Finally, shoplifting has surged in New York in recent years. Many privately owned grocery stores hire security guards, use video surveillance, call police on shoplifters, and urge that shoplifters be prosecuted. Democratic socialists generally favor less policing and surveilling. If the security strategy that’s best for the bottom line comes into conflict with progressive values, what will Mamdani prioritize? [Read: Shoplifters gone wild] This problem isn’t unique to Mamdani. Officials in progressive jurisdictions across the country have added to the cost of public-sector initiatives by imposing what The New York Times’s Ezra Klein has characterized as an “avalanche of well-meaning rules and standards.” For example, many progressives say they want to fund affordable housing, but rather than focus on minimizing costs per unit to house as many people as possible, they mandate other goals, such as giving locals a lengthy process for comment, prioritizing bids from small or minority-owned businesses, requiring union labor, and instituting

The Justice Department asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein’s case at the direction of President Donald Trump amid a firestorm over the administration’s handling of records related to the wealthy financier. The move — coming a day after a Wall Street Journal story put a spotlight on Trump’s relationship with Epstein — seeks to contain a growing controversy that has engulfed the administration since it announced that it would not be releasing more government files from Epstein’s sex trafficking case. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche filed motions urging the court to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial. Todd Blanche The Justice Department’s announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump’s base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier. Trump’s demand to release the grand jury transcripts came after The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump’s name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein’s 50th birthday. The letter bearing Trump’s name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it “false, malicious, and defamatory” and promised to sue. Trump said he spoke to both to the paper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, and told them the letter was “fake.” “These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures,” the president wrote on social media. Related | Trump melts down after lewd letter to Jeffrey Epstein is made public The Justice Department said in the court filings that it will work with with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released. “Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,” Blanche wrote. But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Attorney General Pam Bondi had hyped the release of more materials after the first Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations. A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it’s likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information. The records would show testimony of witnesses and other evidence that was presented by prosecutions during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge.

Pete Buttigieg, who served as secretary of transportation under former President Joe Biden, made a surprise appearance Friday on “Pardon My Take,” a popular sports podcast. The guest spot comes as Democrats try to make inroads with young male voters, the core constituency of the so-called manosphere of online content. Buttigieg appeared to announce that internet personality Jersey Jerry had won the podcast’s “Lib of the Year” award. As Jersey Jerry looked on, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat featuring President Donald Trump’s signature, Buttigieg congratulated him on his “evolving perspective on immigration” and “being open to the idea that vaccines actually work.” Pete Buttigieg did a cameo on the Barstool podcast Pardon My Take presenting a Lib of the Year award lmao pic.twitter.com/u7jd3qsFYL — chyea ok (@chyeaok) July 18, 2025 “Pardon My Take” is one of the most listened to and watched sports podcasts. Buttigieg’s appearance on the program is even more notable since “Pardon My Take” is a part of Barstool Sports, which is led by outspoken conservative Dave Portnoy. Democrats have been fumbling for the past year to find a way to reach out to male voters, 55% of whom voted for Trump in last year’s presidential election, according to exit polls. Online podcasts and streams like “Pardon My Take” have been seen as a main pathway to reaching this demographic. During last year’s presidential campaign, Trump made multiple appearances on programs in the “manosphere,” while the campaign of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was more reluctant about reaching out to similar programming. Recently, liberal donors have also been strategizing on how to bankroll progressive content that appeals to men. Buttigieg, who also served as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, from 2012 to 2020, has been discussed as a likely candidate in the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries. By appearing on the podcast and reaching an audience that may be unaware of him or even hostile to Democrats, Buttigieg could be signaling plans to reach beyond the party’s traditional supporters if he decides to run.