A Strike for Liberation That Isn't One – Trump's Push for the Epstein Files Reveals Political Panic

It was an attempt to regain control - but above all, it reveals just how much it is slipping away from the president. On Thursday evening, Donald Trump announced that he was authorizing Attorney General Pam Bondi to request the release of grand jury testimony in the case of Jeffrey Epstein from federal court. What at first glance appears to be a transparent move is, upon closer inspection, a reaction to massive pressure - from the right. Trump’s conservative base, stirred up by rumors, conspiracy theories, and disappointed by the latest Justice Department report that found no evidence of a cover-up in the Epstein case, is demanding more: the release of all investigative files, all videos, all evidence. But Trump's directive remains selective. It concerns only the transcripts of a grand jury - a fraction of the material that exists in the case. And even that is likely to be difficult. Grand jury testimony is strictly protected under US law. Its release is only permitted under narrowly defined conditions - and those are unlikely to apply here. Pam Bondi, already being called a traitor in far-right Telegram channels and by MAGA influencers, promptly performed a political about-face. "We are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the transcripts," she wrote on social media - just hours after the Justice Department, together with the FBI, had once again declared Epstein’s death a suicide and officially closed the case. That she is now to release part of the documents her own agency had previously withheld seems less like a strategic maneuver than a publicly staged act of obedience to a president under pressure.

The reason for Trump's sudden initiative lies not least in a revelation by the Wall Street Journal. The paper had reported that Trump sent Epstein a birthday card for his 50th birthday in 2003 - complete with a suggestive drawing, a message of friendship, and a reference to “shared secrets.” Trump angrily denied the report, denounced the paper as “defamatory,” and announced a lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch - the owner of the publishing house. In a lengthy Truth Social post, he referred to himself in the third person, accused Murdoch of breaking a promise to retract the article, and named editor-in-chief Emma Tucker as the real culprit. The tirade culminated in the threat: “President Trump has already defeated ABC, CBS, and others - and now looks forward to holding the Wall Street Journal accountable.” But even if the court documents were released, it would amount to little more than a symbolic gesture. The grand jury transcripts represent only a tiny portion of the total files. Over the course of months, FBI agents and federal prosecutors reviewed thousands of documents, videos, and surveillance footage - including material from the detention facility where Epstein died. The government has stated that much of this video content depicts child sexual abuse - a fact Bondi cited as the reason for not releasing the material. But this argument convinces neither critics in Congress nor many Trump supporters, who now accuse the government of deliberately withholding evidence.

There is no shortage of indications pointing to institutional obstruction. That Epstein signed a cooperation agreement with the FBI as early as 2008 only became public much later - as did the fact that his so-called Black Book included not just politicians and businesspeople but also active FBI and CIA personnel. The fact that he possessed several valid diplomatic passports under false names, including from Saudi Arabia and Austria, was also never fully explained. After his death, when two of the jail’s surveillance cameras were “accidentally deleted,” the Justice Department promised an investigation. But even though a backup hard drive existed, the footage was never released. More troubling still is what cannot be publicly stated even today: the non-prosecution agreement of 2007 in Florida, negotiated by Trump’s future labor secretary Alexander Acosta, granted Epstein immunity - but also to “any potential co-conspirators.” A legal shield that included Ghislaine Maxwell. That Maxwell then continued to live in the US for years without interference, even though the FBI knew her whereabouts, is yet another piece in a mosaic of institutional failure - or deliberate inaction. At the center of the prosecution at the time was Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Her role remained largely in the shadows - until her sudden dismissal by the Trump administration in the summer of 2025. A dismissal that was never explained, but speaks volumes in the context of increasing political interference in sensitive legal proceedings.

From the victims' perspective as well, the prosecution left deep contradictions. Several victims reported being prevented by Justice Department officials from testifying at public hearings - supposedly to protect their privacy. In reality, they say today, it was about controlling media exposure. On Thursday evening, Republican lawmakers in the House finally gave in to pressure. They decided to lay the groundwork for a resolution calling on the Justice Department to release further investigative materials - a symbolic step, non-binding, but politically telling. It shows that even within their own party, mistrust of Trump is growing. Many Republicans no longer want to be held responsible for an information policy they can no longer support. This became especially clear in a comment by Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman. The former prosecutor dismissed Bondi's proposed motion as a transparent stunt. “Nice try, @AGPamBondi,” he wrote on X. “But what about videos, photos, and other recordings?” What remains is a president under siege from his base, constrained by the justice system, and overwhelmed by reality. And an attorney general torn between loyalty and the law. The Epstein case, it seems, is far from over - not legally, not politically, and certainly not socially. What Trump is selling as transparency is, in truth, a desperate attempt to regain control over a narrative that has long since slipped from his grasp. So let us return once more to a story we thought we had almost concluded - and focus on its beginning. For there lies the key to a truth that becomes more dangerous for Trump the closer one gets to it.

To be continued .....