Why MAGA wants the Epstein list — and won’t settle for less



What’s happening with Donald Trump and Pam Bondi’s mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein files is a textbook example of the rake-stepping that tripped up the president’s first term. The timing is worse this time, too — because it stands in sharp contrast to the mostly smooth, high-functioning operation of Trump’s second term so far.

Something’s clearly going on behind the scenes — something so sensitive that it’s backing this administration into corners that no number of Ben Shapiro explainers can easily talk us out of. I won’t speculate here on what exactly that “something” is. You’ve earned the right to connect your own dots in this post-COVID, post-trans-the-kids world.

We are in a civil war — spiritual, political, cultural. And the last thing we can afford right now is to split our ranks over a human toilet like Jeffrey Epstein.

But the politics of this mess? That’s what I want to talk about.

A movement that’s moved on

As someone who came of age politically reading Buckley, Kirk, Friedman, and Reagan — before I ever knew the gospel — I’ve often found myself at odds with parts of the MAGA movement. My political DNA was shaped by ideas. MAGA has shifted into something else entirely, something rawer, more primal. Less interested in debating the “oughts” and more obsessed with exposing the corruption and rot.

In that sense, DeSantis vs. Trump wasn’t just a primary — it was a proxy war. And MAGA told people like me, flat out: We’re not ready for your high-minded conversation. First, we’ve got to name names and slash some tires.

One of those names, from the very beginning, was Epstein — and anyone who set foot on his infamous island.

Trump himself promised to release the Epstein list more than once on the 2024 campaign trail. So did members of his inner circle. That pledge became a symbol — a MAGA line in the sand. Break it, and you break trust. Think Bush 41’s “read my lips” betrayal, but this time with the stakes multiplied by a base that’s already been burned too many times.

The movement wants its perp walk. And until it gets it, as the prophets Hetfield and Ulrich once said, nothing else matters.

The fracture under way

Still think this is just internet drama? Then explain why George Conway is reposting Glenn Beck. Did you have that on your 2025 bingo card?

 

Or why Jake Tapper — yes, that Jake Tapper — thinks this is his comeback moment. He’s calling for the release of the Epstein list and the tapes, not because he cares about justice, but because he knows exactly how deep the wound could go. He sees the opportunity to turn a hairline fracture in Trump’s base into a compound break.

RELATED: The Epstein case proves one thing: The elites are protected

  Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

And here’s the thing: He might succeed.

Unless someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or the Justice Department decides it’s worth risking serious chaos in the GOP, this issue won’t just fester. It’ll metastasize.

If this controversy had erupted while Trump was pushing votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or preparing to bomb Iran, would the base have stood firm? Maybe not. Because this hits differently. This feels moral. Existential. A test of whether Trump’s still serious — or if power has tamed him as it tamed so many before.

The clock is ticking

And what happens in 2026?

Republican turnout in the low 90s won’t cut it — not with a deflated, demoralized base that sees Epstein accountability as a promise on par with Trump’s other major blunders. COVID. Fauci. The shots. Pile on Elon Musk’s third-party siren song, and that’s maybe just enough to peel off five points, and you’ve got a perfect storm of apathy, betrayal, and collapse.

This is the math no one wants to run — but it’s already penciled in.

The Trump team’s answers are getting the red-pen treatment in real time. The political class can pretend this is a sideshow. It isn’t. It’s the main stage, and the spotlight’s burning hot.

We are in a civil war — spiritual, political, cultural. And the last thing we can afford right now is to split our ranks over a human toilet like Jeffrey Epstein.

Wikipedia co-founder: Epstein, elite rings, and occult portals — what they don’t want you to know



Co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger found God in an unconventional way.

When he was introduced by a friend to the world of Jeffrey Epstein and the elites, he was forced to reckon with the idea that our culture is ruled by those who will do anything to defend their own immoral horrors.

“A friend of mine was opening my eyes to the existence of various — call them elite pedophile rings. Epstein was not the only one. You can look up the NXIVM case,” Sanger tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“And then there’s, like, ‘Pedowood,’ which is what we call the prevalence of pedophilia in Hollywood. It’s very weird that a lot of the people who are involved, or at least accused of being involved, in such activities have occult beliefs,” he continues.


According to Sanger, his friend knew some of these people personally and confirmed that’s why “they use all of these symbols,” like “the old one-eye.”

“People still notice that, but they used to do that all the time. I think they avoid it now, but generally speaking, a lot of movie posters would show up with this. That’s an occult symbol,” he explains.

Those who partake in these morally bankrupt rituals are willing to put a lot on the line to defend them, which Sanger explains must “at least mean that the spirit world is true” and that “demons exist.”

And because it opened his eyes to evil, he realized that its opposite, good, exists as well.

“Doesn’t that mean that it’s possible that God exists?” he says.

And that’s why, as he found himself digging deeper into the occult, he did not want to “open any portals.”

“I didn’t want to get into it,” he tells Stuckey. “But one thing I learned is that if you look at Masonic symbology, it’s based on a lot of Old Testament, like, temple symbology. What occultists like to do is to invert biblical symbols.”

“So, in other words, pervert them, twist them,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Epstein case proves one thing: The elites are protected



Late Sunday night, the Department of Justice and FBI released a two‑page memo to Axios claiming they found no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein kept a “client list,” blackmailed powerful figures, or was murdered in his cell. The memo clings to the original narrative that Epstein died by suicide in 2019.

To prop up that conclusion, the government published a three-page inventory of items seized from Epstein’s New York property: hard drives, tapes, sex toys, a false passport, and materials labeled with grotesque descriptions.

The Epstein case isn’t over. It is the Rosetta stone of public corruption.

Are we seriously supposed to accept that the case is suddenly closed? Attorney General Pam Bondi once told Fox News a “client list” was literally “sitting on [her] desk.” Now? Crickets. Influencers like Elon Musk are calling it “the final straw,” arguing that the memo is government theater to shield powerful elites.

This newly released list information isn’t just damning — it’s clarifying. No matter what you believe about Epstein’s past, his connections, or the murky circumstances of his death, the physical material collected by law enforcement points to five unavoidable conclusions. Each one raises a deeper and more disturbing question about the integrity of our institutions.

In short, the Epstein narrative is far from closed.

1. Epstein wasn’t a lone predator

The new evidence released from the Justice Department reads like a logistics inventory: dozens of electronic devices, thousands of photos, labeled albums, surveillance tapes, foreign passports, and even blueprints. One man doesn’t accumulate this kind of material — not without help, not without infrastructure.

This wasn’t just one depraved individual hiding a secret life. This was an operation. There were logistics. There was coordination. It was built to function and built to last. It was designed to serve a purpose — and to avoid detection.

2. The digital footprint is too large

Hundreds of hard drives, USBs, CDs, backup servers — some with sick labels such as "girl pics nude book 4.” Employee directories, flight logs, video archives. The kind of data capable of telling a full story — not just of crimes committed, but of the people who enabled them or turned a blind eye.

And yet, the real scandal isn’t just the content of these files. It’s how little the public has been allowed to see. Where is the transparency? Why hasn’t this material been disclosed in full?

3. Intel agency involvement is no longer a fringe theory

An Austrian passport with Epstein’s face. Connections in multiple countries. A global footprint. Honeytrap-style setups. These aren’t signs of a rich playboy — they’re signatures of intelligence tradecraft.

The precision, the longevity, the immunity from exposure for decades — none of it is accidental. None of it should be dismissed. To suggest that this might have had intelligence involvement isn’t conspiratorial. It’s logical.

4. The system’s silence is telling

If any ordinary citizen had even one-tenth of what was found in Epstein’s homes — underage photos, encrypted files, coded file names, international travel records — they would already be serving a life sentence. Yet here, we’re met with silence. No high-profile prosecutions. No public hearings. No accountability.

The lack of consequence is the consequence. The silence of the system is itself a kind of answer — and it’s deafening.

5. Every elite institution is on trial

This is no longer just about Epstein. It’s about what happens when justice is optional, when media chooses complicity over courage, when law enforcement protects the powerful rather than prosecutes them, when truth is buried because its exposure might be inconvenient for people in the right circles.

Until this case is fully exposed, every elite institution in America carries a stench it cannot wash off. Public trust is hemorrhaging, and no press release can stop the bleeding.

RELATED: Liz Wheeler unleashes fury: FIRE Pam Bondi over Epstein cover-up scandal!

  Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A civic reckoning

To dismiss public concern about Epstein as a “conspiracy theory” is to admit that we no longer believe in basic civic accountability. The demand for answers is not fueled by paranoia — it’s a moral and constitutional obligation. If we shrug off what those files contain, we declare that truth is now negotiable, justice is a luxury reserved for the unimportant, and power is a permanent shield for the perverse.

The Epstein case isn’t over. It is the Rosetta stone of public corruption. And if we don’t get to the bottom of it — if we allow the truth to remain buried — we will never restore what’s already been lost.

Mass Migration Destroys The West Like Crowd Controls Destroy The Mona Lisa

The goal of allowing ever more people in, while egalitarian, actually diminishes the experience for everyone.

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

  Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class



For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists" and "terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

At some point, the conclusion becomes obvious: The outrage over Trump’s rhetoric has little to do with his words. It has everything to do with the groups he opposes. His critics don’t hate how he speaks. They hate what he threatens.

If rhetoric really mattered, then Democrats would call out their own side for the endless stream of vile speech and political violence. But they don’t. They won’t. Because they know it’s not about tone. It’s about power.

Would the Trump-haters change their tune if a more well-mannered Republican — House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), or even Dr. Oz — pushed Trump’s policies? Don’t bet on it. Democrats didn’t tone down their vitriol even after two assassination attempts against Trump, the second by a man, Ryan Routh, who explicitly cited Democratic rhetoric and media hysteria as his motivation.

Legacy media rage against Trump not because he speaks crudely, but because he disrupts their agenda. He guts bloated agencies, cuts funding to woke nonprofits, and works to dismantle bureaucracies like the Department of Education — which caters to teachers’ unions but has done zilch to improve American learning.

Trump also dares to enforce immigration law. After Democrats spent years encouraging waves of illegal immigration, he tried to reverse the damage — and they called him a “tyrant.” He asserts that men are men and women are women, even as the ruling class invents new genders and demands compliance.

RELATED: Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power

  Blaze News Illustration

The ruling class can get away with its double standard because its multiple armies close ranks to defend any lie or exaggeration from its government placeholders. When Biden labeled Trump’s voters as terrorists, the foreign policy blob, the think-tank class, and the media all fell in line. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations echoed the claim, amplifying a fantasy of right-wing extremism while excusing left-wing bigotry.

Search engines bury criticism of Democrats while promoting glowing defenses of their nastiest remarks. The same media that spent years covering for Biden’s obvious cognitive decline and told you it’s a conspiracy theory to question his mental fitness to serve now say they had no idea anything was wrong. Trust them.

And don’t forget the cultural cleanup crews. During Pride Month, every major corporation, institution, and media outlet falls in lockstep. No dissent. No nuance. Just forced applause for whatever new orthodoxy the cultural left pushes. (Though that might be changing.)

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly. Even modest success in weakening their grip on government, culture, or education terrifies them. Because once that monopoly breaks, their entire edifice could fall.

That’s why Trump provokes such hysteria. Not because he insults people. But because he threatens the system that protects their power.

And maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

DEI Should Have Ended Harvard’s ‘Elite’ Status 60 Years Ago (Or More)

Racial discrimination in favor of minorities at so-called elite schools was already widespread by the early 1970s.

European Populism Is Rising Against An Oppressive Political Elite

Europe’s political class has turned its back on the people it was supposed to protect. The people have taken notice.

Why voters are done compromising with the ‘America Last’ elite



One of the main forces driving the populist revolt against Washington stems from a simple truth: The ruling class openly prioritizes foreign interests over the needs of American citizens.

When millions of Americans — spanning political and economic divides — called on their leaders to put America first, the response was rejection.

Blue-collar factory workers, once loyal to the economic left, and Tea Party conservatives, committed to limited government, found rare common ground. Together, they asked their government to put the interests of the United States and its people above globalist agendas. That request was denied.

The political class chose to outsource American manufacturing, ship jobs overseas, and flood the domestic labor market with cheap foreign replacements. When they couldn’t export your job, they imported someone to take it.

At the same time, both parties prioritized foreign wars and border security — for other nations. While American communities faced rising crime and chaos from a deliberately open southern border, lawmakers sent troops, dollars, and attention to foreign front lines.

Washington refused to secure the United States. It focused instead on securing everyone else.

I welcome the growing ‘America Only’ movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am.

To be fair, the two parties expressed their abandonment of American interests differently. The Democrats embraced a fervent anti-patriotism that made clear their hostility and disloyalty to the United States. Democrats swooned over Colin Kaepernick, whose public disdain for the U.S. symbolized their broader worldview. In other words, Democrats embraced “America Never.”

The Republican establishment, despite the party’s base being vocally America First, sought out a compromise position with the Democrats, settling on “America Last” as the middle ground.

America Last is an unacceptable compromise to those of us clamoring for America First. The only rational countermeasure is “America Only” — a position that aims to shift the Overton window back toward the rightful prioritization of American sovereignty, industry, and citizenship. While I don’t believe the United States can completely decouple from the global economy, nor do I consider myself America Only, I welcome the shift in that direction to move the compromise position from America Last to America First.

  

Too many people in Washington on both sides of the aisle are passionate about defending Ukraine’s border, but they consider it vulgar and racist for Americans to secure our own border. Elites weep over the deportation of violent criminal aliens, yet are silent about their crimes and the victims affected by them. To this day, open-border ideologues claim that the man who murdered Laken Riley is the real victim — and they’ll never forgive her for being killed by one of their prized illegal aliens.

The ‘America Only’ compromise

The genesis of the MAGA movement is often summarized this way: “The Tea Party was the polite request. Donald Trump is the less polite request. It doesn’t get any more polite from here.” That same sequence applies to the uniparty, having rejected America First, which was the polite request. America Only is the less polite follow-up request.

We demanded that our own border be secured before weapons and tax money were sent to defend Ukraine’s border. The establishment responded by draining our country’s stock of munitions and sending them to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along with $175 billion. Congress’ bipartisan “compromise” was to keep the border wide open and effectively legalize the ongoing invasion. The government hired thousands of border agents, not to protect the border but to process those crossing it.

Moreover, we demanded fair, reciprocal trade, and in response, we got unilateral surrender to foreign mercantilism — our industrial exports widely blocked by tariffs and trade barriers from the same countries granted unlimited access to our markets.

These betrayals have pushed many conservatives who were once pro-trade, pro-legal immigration, and pro-Ukraine into an isolationist mindset that embraces protectionist tariffs, rejects all immigration, and doesn’t care any longer about Ukraine’s fate. This response is not only rational — it might be necessary to tell our government that prioritizing the United States and its citizens must henceforth be its top priority.

A wake-up call

For what it’s worth, I am not an isolationist. I stand solidly with Israel as a cultural and religious outpost that is a linchpin in Western civilization, and I support its current war effort — so long as U.S. troops are not involved. If Israel falls, it wouldn’t just reshape the map; it would embolden those who dream of a global caliphate, including in North America.

I can also be persuaded that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program is justifiable so long as the “we broke it, we bought it” policy is no longer operational. If we have to break it, we can break it and leave it until it needs breaking again.

At the same time, I also welcome the growing “America Only” movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am. A coalition of America Only and America First voters has the power to compel the Republican establishment and swing-district Democrats to understand that America First is the compromise position, and if they refuse, then they get nothing on their global wish list.