Guess Which Two Cabinet Members Trump Advisers Hate the Most?

Even the Trump administration doesn’t like Pam Bondi.

The attorney general has been at the epicenter of some of Trump 2.0’s biggest scandals. In the last several months, Bondi has purged antitrust officials at the Justice Department, refused to answer critical questions in defiance of Senate oversight hearing protocol, and—most egregious to the White House—sparked MAGA outrage when her own agency issued a memo contradicting her on the existence of Jeffrey Epstein’s so-called “client list.”

All considered, Bondi now ranks as the White House’s least favorite Cabinet secretary, according to an informal survey of several presidential advisers by Wired’s Inner Loop newsletter.

“Worst, Bondi,” they begin. “2/ Bondi. 3/ Bondi. 4/ Bondi. 5/ HegsethRFKTulsiNoem.”

Just one secretary shared the unwelcome spotlight: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who, like Bondi, has also fumbled the administration’s talking points about the president and his pedophilic sex trafficker ex–“best pal.” Breaking from the DOJ’s narrative, Lutnick described Epstein to the New York Post podcast as “the greatest blackmailer ever.” He also didn’t bother trying to make Trump’s cozy association with Epstein more palatable. Lutnick referred to Epstein as a repugnant creep while recalling an instance in which he was invited by Epstein to tour his infamous East 71st Street townhouse.

“I say to him, ‘Massage table in the middle of your house? How often do you have a massage?’” Lutnick told the Post. “And he says, ‘Every day.’ And then he gets, like weirdly close to me, and he says, ‘And the right kind of massage.’

“In the six to eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again,” he added.

None of the Trump advisers surveyed by Wired were willing to speak about the Trump-Epstein connection, or connect the dots between Bondi and Lutnick’s sagging popularity with their handling of the scandal.

The Epstein story has remained an anomaly in Trump’s political career. For the better part of a decade, the MAGA leader became adjusted to an undyingly loyal base that rarely skews from or challenges his political vision. But Trump’s proximity to Epstein and the disgraced financier’s heinous crimes has been an outlier, prompting doubts that have undercut Trump’s influence with large swaths of his followers.

The White House’s official spokesperson brushed off the Wired story, suggesting instead that Trump’s Cabinet are beyond reproach within MAGA’s inner folds.

“The entire premise of this story is ridiculous—which is to be expected for Wired,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “The President’s entire cabinet is working to flawlessly execute his agenda to Make America Great Again and he is pleased with each of their successes and hard work.”

David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic, helped ghostwrite a speech for the Israeli U.N. ambassador in 2014—at the same time as he profiled the ambassador for the magazine.

Frum’s galling, undisclosed conflict of interest was exposed via the ambassador’s hacked emails, first reported by Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain for Drop Site.

In 2014, Israel was in the midst of waging war in Gaza, ultimately killing over 2,200 Palestinians and wounding over 11,000. It was Israel’s most devastating campaign against the Palestinians since the 1967 war, according to UNRWA. As the country faced criticism for its conduct, allies like Frum reached out to Israeli government officials to offer their support in spinning the narrative, according to Drop Site.

In Frum’s case, he could offer more to the Israeli cause than just money or positive news coverage: Before coming to The Atlantic, he had been a speechwriter for George W. Bush.

Frum contacted Ambassador Ron Prosor on July 31, 2014, during the height of the war, in an email titled, “an earlier draft of that speech I sent you.” The speech, seemingly meant to be delivered to the U.N. Security Council, described the war as “the most tenacious challenge to the free world in decades,” and asked Americans to continue to support Israel. “This version was drafted by Seth Mandel of Commentary, with whom I’ve been working,” Frum wrote in his email.

Only one day before, Frum had contacted Prosor from a different email address, with a different request: to interview him for The Atlantic. The ensuing profile praised Prosor for his “toughness,” and painted a sympathetic portrait of Israel as unfairly maligned on the global stage. “In many ways, and on many days, it feels as if the whole UN system is concerned with the monitoring and critiquing of one small member nation,” Frum wrote.

It’s not known whether Prosor delivered Frum’s speech at the U.N. (Frum was competing with British journalist Douglass Murray for the honor, the leak also reveals). But to secretly draft a speech for a foreign government official, all the while rapturously profiling him from a place of presumed journalistic objectivity, is an egregious ethical breach.

Frum is still at The Atlantic, where he recently published a piece arguing against recognizing Palestine as a state.

In response to this story, The Atlantic’s Anna Bross told TNR in a statement, “David was not an employee of The Atlantic in 2014. He did not write the speech referenced in the 2014 email. He advised a friend, pro bono.

“This was 11 years ago. David has since become an employee of The Atlantic, and like all our editorial staff, follows our rigorous standards for the disclosure of potential conflicts. Of course, our staff writers are not allowed to advise political, corporate or diplomatic figures, pro bono or otherwise.”

While Frum may not have technically been an employee, as The Atlantic claims, he did hold the title of Senior Editor at the magazine while working on contract in 2014, at the time that he sent those emails to Prosor.

This story has been updated.

The Pentagon has to provide The New York Times information about Elon Musk’s security clearances, a federal judge ruled Wednesday—and the billionaire’s own posting habits helped decide the case.

In September 2024, the Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking “a list of security clearances” granted to Musk, including “any details about the extent and purview of each of the clearances.”

The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, which handles security clearances, denied access, arguing that the “privacy interest” of Musk “outweighs disclosure.” Shortly thereafter, the Times took the DCSA to court.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Musk himself had reduced his privacy interest by publicly boasting that he holds a “top secret clearance”—and discussing his drug use (including ketamine and marijuana) and contacts with foreign leaders (including Russian President Vladimir Putin), both of which are factors that the DCSA is supposed to consider for security clearance decisions.

“His posts on X on these topics have collectively garnered over 2 million views,” Cote observed.

Moreover, the judge noted, the Times’ request was far from sweeping, covering only a single two-page list of the security clearances of the billionaire, who, as the former head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, was granted “special government employee” status.

Outweighing Musk’s privacy interests is public interest in “whether the leader of SpaceX and Starlink holds the appropriate security clearances,” Cote said. Also, “courts have repeatedly recognized a public interest in understanding the thoroughness, fairness, and accuracy of government investigations and operations.”

Musk’s admissions about ketamine and the Kremlin “only enhance the public interest in disclosure,” the judge wrote, and the document could “provide meaningful insight” into the DCSA’s vetting processes.

If there are any further concerns about Musk’s privacy, Cote stated, the government can propose redactions for a private review by the court by next Friday.

Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they plan to force a vote on President Donald Trump’s extrajudicial military strikes on foreign vessels he claims are smuggling drugs.

Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine announced their intention to force a vote on the Trump administration’s decision to execute military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean. The government has provided no evidence that the vessels were linked to drug cartels, or that the individuals on board were drug smugglers. Having conducted no searches, no arrests, and no trials, the military had them summarily executed.

“If a president can unilaterally put people or groups on a list and kill them, there is no meaningful limit to his use of force,” Schiff wrote in a post on X.

Last month, the duo introduced a privileged resolution to stop the strikes under the War Powers Act, which grants Congress sole authority to decide whether the United States is at war.

But Trump seemed unbothered by the resolution. Last week, multiple congressional committees received a memo asserting that the president had declared a state of “non-international armed conflict” against boats that are part of “designated terrorist organizations.” But if the U.S. is at war, that’s for Congress to decide—not Trump. And if allowed to use this justification, Trump could potentially declare war against any group he wants.

While the issue may have some difficulties making its way through the GOP-controlled House and Senate, it seems that the Democratic effort already has some bipartisan support, at least from Republican Senator Rand Paul, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration’s policy on the strikes.

“I think blowing up speedboats in the Caribbean isn’t the answer,” Paul said on Newsmax Wednesday. He pointed out that 25 percent of searches of suspected drug-trafficking boats yielded no actual drugs. Using that logic meant it was more than likely one of the boats the military had blown up wasn’t actually a smuggling vessel.

The Trump administration has been less than forthcoming about the details of the extrajudicial strikes—for starters, how many there have actually been.

Speaking for the U.S Navy’s 250th anniversary Sunday, Trump claimed that there had been yet another strike the day before—a claim that the Pentagon has not confirmed, according to Reuters. Two U.S. officials told the outlet they were unaware of any such operation that day, though it’s possible the president could have been referring to a strike that occurred on Friday that killed four alleged drug traffickers. And last month, when speaking about a previous strike that he had posted about on social media, Trump claimed that the military had struck three boats, not just the two shown in the video.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have only formally announced four strikes, but the actual number could be as high as six. It seems it’s proven difficult to obtain accountability when the president so readily lies.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene isn’t quite the MAGA acolyte she once was.

Greene has publicly broken with Donald Trump several times since his inauguration, differing from her “favorite president” on issues ranging from artificial intelligence to Russia’s assault on Ukraine. She’s also sparred with the White House over the executive branch’s apparent hostility toward demands to release the Epstein files.

Even Trump has started to notice the Georgia lawmaker’s lone agent status among her far-right peers in recent months, even calling senior Republicans to inquire about her loyalty.

“What’s going on with Marjorie?” the president has asked, two GOP sources with direct knowledge of the conversations told NBC News.

The initial fissure point traces back to May, when the White House corralled Greene away from a Senate bid in Georgia. At the time, Trump’s political team had commissioned a poll that indicated Greene would lose the race to Democrat Jon Ossoff by double digits.

“I’m not some sort of blind slave to the president, and I don’t think anyone should be,” Greene told NBC Wednesday. “I serve in Congress. We’re a separate branch of the government, and I’m not elected by the president. I’m not elected by anyone that works in the White House. I’m elected by my district. That’s who I work for, and I got elected without the president’s endorsement, and, you know, I think that has served me really well.”

Greene, notably, won her district in 2020 without the president’s endorsement. Viewed as something of a joke when she first arrived on Capitol Hill in 2021, the renowned conspiracist has since become a powerful independent agent, apparently beholden to no party and no man.

“So I get to be independent as a Republican,” Greene said, “and I think what helps [Trump] the most is when he has people that are willing to be honest with him and not just tell him what they think he wants to hear.”

Now, Greene claims she has zero interest in serving in the Senate, blaming the upper chamber for the current federal failure.

“I don’t want to serve in that institution. Look at them. They’re literally the reason why the government is shut down right now,” Greene said. “I think all good things go to die in the Senate, and I certainly don’t want to go there. But I think those are just attacks to try to marginalize me or try to sweep me off, so to speak. And I really don’t care.”

Republicans are running out of excuses for refusing to swear in Democratic Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva.

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan was left grasping at straws to explain away the delay during an interview with CNN’s The Source Tuesday night. While claiming that Grijalva couldn’t possibly enter the lower chamber due to Congress’s current pro forma session, he also admitted that he forgot that two of his Republican colleagues were sworn in during a pro forma session in April, just one day after they won their special elections.

“There’s two people on the floor, or, you know, whatever, there’s—but normally, it’s done in front of the full House, so that new member in a special election gets a, I think, in some ways, a kind of a neat experience, where they get to talk to the House, their first day, getting sworn in,” Jordan told CNN. “And that’s happened every single time that I can recall, with any new member elected in a special, in the middle of a congressional session.”

“But a couple months ago, he swore in Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine in a pro forma session,” pressed host Kaitlan Collins.

“I didn’t—I actually didn’t even know that, when they were sworn in,” Jordan said. “But I always remember when it happens, the delegation is up front, and that person is sworn in.”

“Do you think it has anything to do with the discharge petition, and that she could be the 218th signature, for the Jeffrey Epstein files?” asked Collins.

“No, I think it’s—I think it’s—to make the clear point, we have voted to fund the government at levels, all the Democrats supported, and they now won’t support it, because they’re bringing up an issue that, frankly, was not even part of the campaign last year,” Jordan said.

Grijalva won the special election in Arizona last month to replace her late father, Raul Grijalva, making her the first Latina the Grand Canyon State has sent to Congress. She’s also the last signature that the House needs on a petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.

Grijalva had already vowed to sign the bipartisan petition advancing the immediate release of the Epstein files. Just four Republicans have penned their signatures on the petition, demanding more transparency from the Trump administration regarding the investigation into deceased pedophilic sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his potential associates. Those conservative lawmakers include Representatives Thomas Massie, Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene—the last of whom told NewsNation Tuesday that she’s faced more pressure on the petition than any other issue.

Jordan’s interview was a long clash with Collins, as they also butted heads over health care subsidies, immigration, and government spending.

House Speaker Mike Johnson doesn’t seem the least bit disturbed that President Donald Trump wants to lock up Illinois Democrats amid his federal takeover of Chicago.

During a press conference Wednesday, Johnson was asked whether he agreed with Trump’s outlandish plea to imprison Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker for supposedly failing to protect ICE officers.

“Should they be in prison? Uh, should the mayor of Chicago and the governor of Illinois be in prison? Um, I’m not the attorney general, I’m the speaker of the House, and I’m trying to manage the chaos here, I’m not following the day to day on that,” Johnson said.

But the Louisiana Republican didn’t settle for a simple nonanswer, and how he felt about the president’s threat became all too clear.

“I do know that they resisted the introduction, or the offering of National Guard troops in Chicago, which is a terribly dangerous city, which has been destroyed—in the process of being destroyed under liberal, Democrat governance and their terrible polices,” Johnson continued.

He cited Trump’s federal crackdown in Washington, D.C., claiming that the streets of the nation’s capital were finally safe because Trump had “used the resources that were available to him to bring order to the chaos.”

“If we can do that in the other major cities in the country where they’re having crime crises, that should be seen as a positive, and I think most Americans see it that way,” he said.

Clearly, Johnson thinks Illinois Democrats should be grateful that Trump has decided to invade their cities with National Guard troops and immigration enforcement officers, rather than sue the federal government to stop the deployment of federal forces. A judge declined to immediately block the administration but warned, “If I were the federal government, I would strongly consider taking a pause on this until Thursday.” The National Guard has landed in Chicago nonetheless.

Over the weekend, a protest broke out after a fuming Border Patrol officer fired multiple shots at a protester who was part of a convoy of vehicles trailing agents on patrol. The Department of Homeland Security blamed “JB Pritzker’s Chicago Police Department” for refusing to help secure the area. The Chicago mayor has also moved to establish “ICE-free zones” that have infuriated the White House.

Notably, this isn’t the first time the president has threatened to imprison his political enemies, or anyone who stands in the way of what he wants.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is facing scrutiny online for his claim about the president’s possession of “plenary authority” in an odd CNN interview earlier this week.

Asked Monday if the Trump administration would abide by U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut’s ruling temporarily blocking the deployment of National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon, Miller abruptly stopped an answer after invoking that legal concept.

The White House aide noted that the administration was appealing the decision. “Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has plenary authority, has—” Miller added, before stopping short and staring into the camera, blinking silently, as CNN host Boris Sanchez asked if he could hear him.

Returning after a commercial break, the interviewer said the moment was spurred by a “technical difficulty,” telling Miller, “It seems like some wires got crossed.” Returning to his answer, Miller did not mention “plenary authority” again.

“I was making the point that under federal law, Section Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has the authority, anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient, to federalize the National Guard to carry out a mission necessary for public safety,” Miller said.

The clip has gone viral online, with many social media users speculating that there was no technical malfunction; Miller, they claim, had glitched out of panic, after accidentally revealing the authoritarian designs of the administration.

The term “plenary power,” after all, refers to “complete power over a particular area with no limitations.”

CNN’s statements cast doubt on the internet theories, as does the fact that Miller has used the phrase before. Nonetheless, his apparent claim that the president enjoys absolute, unfettered power to federalize the National Guard is indeed eyebrow-raising—and incorrect. As evidenced by Immergut’s ruling, the president’s power in that area is subject to certain constraints.

Under the statute to which Miller seemingly referred, the president can federalize the National Guard under narrow circumstances: to “repel” an “invasion,” “suppress” a “rebellion,” or execute laws that he is unable to “with the regular forces.” But, according to Immergut, these conditions were not satisfied in Portland—despite the administration’s hysterical claims—and the deployment would injure Oregon’s state sovereignty.

In decrying the ruling throughout the week—including equating it with “illegal insurrection”—Miller has shown his disdain for the entire concept of judicial review.

Miller has previously mused about “plenary authority.” After the president attempted to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, Miller told reporters that “the president’s authority, as the head of the executive branch, to terminate executive branch employees is a plenary authority”—overlooking certain constitutional and statutory constraints.

Even if not for the exact reasons social media users believe, the “plenary authority” clip was indeed revealing, exemplifying the maximalist conception of presidential power pushed by Miller and the Trump administration.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi needed a cheat sheet of attacks to dodge Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s tough questions.

While sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Bondi repeatedly refused to answer questions from the Rhode Island Democrat about what happened to the $50,000 cash bribe border czar Tom Homan received from undercover FBI agents in 2024.

Reuters photographer Jonathan Ernst captured an image of the inside of a folder of notes Bondi referred to during questioning by Whitehouse. But her notes had nothing to do with her work as leader of the Department of Justice, or even the embattled border czar. Rather, Bondi had collected screenshots of social media posts, prewritten comebacks, and handwritten notes she hoped could give her a good “gotcha” moment.

The top of the folder showed a July X post from Whitehouse in which he’d called for an investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “No government official should be above the law,” he wrote.

Also included in the folder was a bulleted list of comebacks. Apparently, Bondi needed to prepare the remark “You are a total hypocrite” in advance.

She employed another one of her prewritten attacks when asked about Homan’s tax returns. “Senator, I would be more concerned if I were you when you talk about corruption and money, when you pushed for legislation that subsidized your wife’s company!” Bondi sneered.

“The questions here are actually pretty specific,” Whitehouse replied, undeterred. “So, having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right internet talking points is really not very helpful here.”

Below her catalog of clapbacks, Bondi had written a handwritten note “On Epstein” positing whether Whitehouse had ever accepted money from Reid Hoffman, who once invited Epstein to dinner. She used the tidbit to deflect from a question about whether the FBI had seized photos of President Donald Trump with half-naked young women from the safe at Epstein’s estate, as reported by author Michael Wolff.

“Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein’s safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing?” Whitehouse asked.

“You know, Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and make salacious remarks, once again trying to slander President Trump left and right, when you’re the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants, Reid Hoffman,” Bondi replied.

Again, Whitehouse continued unbothered. “The question is, did the FBI find those photographs that have been discussed publicly by a witness who claimed Jeffrey Epstein showed them to him. You don’t know anything about that?” he asked, and Bondi fell silent, having exhausted her scant notes.

It’s disturbing, but not surprising, that Bondi didn’t make actual preparations to answer tough questions from senators. It appears that the attorney general felt no obligation to be accountable to the American people about alleged efforts to cover up for Trump or his underlings, believing them all to be above the law.

Fractures atop the Republican Party are further complicating negotiations to end the government shutdown.

President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have not only failed to conjure a resolution to the ongoing shutdown, but they have also failed to conceal the tension bubbling beneath the surface.

So far, Trump’s strategy—which prioritizes punishing his political allies—has only tripped up his congressional counterparts.

On Monday, Trump stepped over his allies’ messaging when he told reporters he was “talking to Democrats” about cutting a deal on health care. He quickly walked it back, posting to Truth Social: “I am happy to work with the Democrats on their Failed Healthcare Policies, or anything else, but first they must allow our Government to re-open.”

On Tuesday, Johnson said that he had spoken with Trump “at length” about the urgent need to reopen the government—but Thune didn’t seem to be on the same page. That same day, the South Dakota lawmaker told reporters that there were “ongoing conversations” among party leadership.

Hours later, a draft White House memo reported by Axios revealed that the Trump administration was questioning the legality of the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which guarantees back pay for furloughed federal workers. Both Thune and Johnson had voted for it, but the Senate majority leader struggled to contain his frustration at Trump’s attempt to undermine it now.

“All you have to do to prevent any federal employee from not getting paid is to open up the government,” Thune told reporters Tuesday. “I don’t know what statute they are using. My understanding is, yes, that they would get paid. I’ll find out. I haven’t heard this up until now.

“But again it’s a very straightforward proposition, and you guys keep chasing that narrative that they’ve got going down at the White House and up here with the Democrats,” Thune added.

Johnson told reporters that he supported federal back pay and believed that the White House did, as well—but Trump quickly poured cold water on that.

“I would say it depends who we’re talking about,” Trump told reporters, just hours later. “For the most part, we’re going to take care of our people, but for some people they don’t deserve to be taken care of.”