Kash Patel Lets Slip How He’ll Stall Releasing the Epstein Files

The Trump administration is releasing “as much” of the Epstein files as it can—at least, the components that are “lawful,” according to FBI Director Kash Patel.

Speaking with Fox News Tuesday evening, Patel insinuated that there were some documents related to the investigation of child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein that can’t be readily released.

“Mr. Director, our viewers also are just—they are chomping at the bit on why it took the Epstein files so long to be released,” said host Laura Ingraham. “Any regrets there? Was that an unforced error, should we have gotten them out earlier? Just get them all out there? Just thought I’d give you a chance to react to that.”

“Yeah, look, this FBI has produced 40,000 pages of documents to Congress. To put that in comparison, [Christopher] Wray put out 13,000 in seven years and [James] Comey put out 3,000,” Patel responded, referring to his two predecessors.

Of course, Wray and Comey were not mandated by a law passed specifically to release the documents. After months of dragging their feet, Republicans in both chambers of Congress passed a bill to release the investigation files related to Epstein and his potential associates. Donald Trump signed the bill on November 19, starting a 30-day timer on the documents’ release.

“We’re committed to transparency. We are putting out as much as we can that is lawful and that is not prohibited by court orders. And those are the things the DOJ is fighting, still, with judges in court to make sure we can reveal everything without breaking the law,” Patel continued.

“That’s what we’re committed to doing. We’re doing it as fast as we can,” Patel added, before abruptly changing the topic.

The House Oversight Committee released more than 20,000 emails last month that it had obtained from Epstein’s estate. The documents included multiple mentions of Trump, such as in a 2011 email, when Epstein expressed he was grateful Trump had stayed quiet about details of Epstein’s life. The “dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,” Epstein wrote, despite detailing how Trump had spent hours at one of Epstein’s properties with a known victim.

It turns out that Donald Trump’s tariffs aren’t good for private-sector jobs.

A new report from payroll processor ADP found that private employees lost nearly 32,000 jobs in November, far off analyst projections that they would add 10,000 jobs. The data is a sharp decline from October, when businesses overall added 47,000 jobs, according to the ADP’s revised estimate.

“Larger companies are still hiring,” wrote Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, on X. “Smaller firms (under 50 workers) are doing the layoffs. It’s been a very tough year for small biz due to tariffs and more selective spending from lower and middle-class consumers.”

Indeed, smaller employers seem to be taking the biggest hit, having lost 120,000 jobs. Medium firms added 51,000 jobs, whereas the largest businesses added 39,000 jobs. To the Trump administration, though, it’s all the fault of the government shutdown and Democrats, as Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutink said on CNBC Wednesday.

“No, no, it’s not tariffs,” Lutnik said, in response to a question from CNBC’s Sara Eisen. “Remember, you had the Democratic shutdown, right, and what do you think happens to small business, the people who do business with the U.S. government, they know they’re not getting paid, so they slow down their projects.

“Remember, as you deport people, that’s gonna suppress private job numbers of small businesses. But they’ll rebalance, and they’ll regrow, so I think this is just a near-term event, and you’ll see as the numbers come through over the next couple of months, you’ll see that all pass,” Lutnick added.

But Lutnick’s only doing damage control. Domestic manufacturing, as measured by the Institute for Supply Management Manufacturing index, fell for the ninth month in a row, showing that the tariffs are hurting an area that Trump boasts they will improve. And private companies, including wholesale retailer Costco, are suing the government to get a refund of the tariffs they’ve paid.

Trump has made erroneous claims that tariffs are paid by other countries, not companies or consumers, and that they are bringing in a windfall in revenue that is diminishing the need for any other taxes. That is demonstrably false. All of this shows that tariffs are not helping but hurting the American economy and American workers.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doesn’t think he’s the most problematic member of Donald Trump’s Cabinet.

Hegseth said Tuesday that he wouldn’t trust deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller to babysit his kids, when asked about it on a podcast hosted by Miller’s wife.

“Who would you trust to babysit your kids?” Katie Miller asked. “This can only be another member of the Cabinet.”

“I mean, not your husband or Marco,” Hegseth said, to laughs. “I would trust the vice president. I mean, I’ve known Sean Duffy for years. I would trust him.”

Hegseth was seated beside his own wife, Jennifer Rauchet, who interjected that Duffy “would just call one of his kids.”

“I would trust Brooke Rollins or Pam. Tulsi’s incredible,” Hegseth added, referring to the agriculture secretary, the U.S. attorney general, and the director of national intelligence.

Hegseth then extended his playful lack of faith, saying that he believed Miller would be most likely to need help in an emergency.

“Who is the most likely to call you after hours in an emergency?” asked Katie Miller.

“Stephen Miller,” Hegseth responded, without missing a beat.

“One hundred percent,” added Rauchet.

“Stephen, you know it’s true. You know it’s true,” poked Hegseth, looking directly at the camera. “There’s others on the list, but he’s on top of the mountaintop.”

“It is true,” Katie Miller relented.

Hegseth, meanwhile, is under fire from practically every element of government for a wide array of scandals that range from reports of alcoholism to Nazi accusations and allegations that he has violated international human rights law in the Caribbean.

Hegseth’s careless, monthslong killing spree against small boats in international waters has claimed the lives of at least 83 people, and has pushed congressional Republicans to consider whether Hegseth should be stripped of his position altogether.

GOP-led panels in the House and Senate dialed up their scrutiny of the Pentagon this week, demanding a full account of a double tap that took place on September 2, mercilessly killing survivors of a U.S. drone strike.

The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees are both demanding audio and video of the incident. “We’re going to conduct oversight, and we’re going to try to get to the facts,” vowed Senator Roger Wicker Monday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is planning to court-martial Democratic Senator and military veteran Mark Kelly for saying—nearly verbatim—the same thing he himself said about soldiers not having to follow “unlawful orders” almost a decade ago. 

On Tuesday, Kelly posted a clip of the defense secretary giving a speech in 2016, when he was still an anchor for Fox News. 

“I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,” Hegseth said. 

Hegseth’s statement is nearly identical to the one Kelly and five other Democratic members of Congress and military and intelligence veterans made in a video last month, in which they stated that “this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” and that “our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

This very measured video led the president to call for the “seditious six” to be hanged, and Hegseth to threaten to court-martial Kelly. 

“The video made by the ‘Seditious Six’ was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline,’” Hegseth wrote on X last month. “Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ—and he knows that. As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions....  Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.” 

The hypocrisy here is obvious. Of course Hegseth has a clip of him agreeing exactly with what Kelly and the other members of Congress expressed because refusing to carry out unlawful orders from the president is a very rational and widely accepted concept. Hegseth’s issue is that the president is his boss, and he wants nothing more than to be the best lackey he can be. 

“I think he’s correct, and it’s exactly what we said,” Kelly told CNN on Tuesday. “But when we said it, Pete Hegseth now … says what we said was false and reckless. And I think it begs the question—what has changed? And it’s pretty obvious. What has changed is we have an unqualified secretary of defense who only cares about sucking up to this president, and loyalty to this president. That’s the difference.” 

A prominent cardiologist is calling bullshit on President Donald Trump’s MRI story.

Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, who served as a cardiologist for the late Vice President Dick Cheney, dismissed the White House’s outrageous explanation for the 79-year-old Trump’s repeated visits to the doctor.

A recent memo from Dr. Sean Barbabella, physician to the president, disclosed that Trump had received a chest and abdominal scan as a “preventative” measure for men in his age group.

“There’s no chance that this was just sort of routine preventative care. First of all, it’s not part of routine preventative care,” Reiner explained. “There aren’t patients who come to see me or any of my colleagues who we say, ‘Let’s just scan your whole body!’”

Reiner noted there was a lot of information missing from the doctor’s memo. “The president’s doctor didn’t even disclose what kind of scan. The president said MRI, all that the president’s physician said was advanced imaging. Did he have an MRI? Did he have a CT? Did he have both?” Reiner said.

“And what he didn‘t say is whether the president had a scan of his brain. He didn’t say he didn’t, he just included some data from the chest and abdominal scans. So it’s not plausible or really credible to believe that they just decided to do some preventative screening for a third time this year.”

Trump’s October visit to Walter Reed came six months after his annual physical exam. For days afterward, the White House refused to explain the reason for his second visit. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed it was his “routine yearly checkup,” but clearly that wasn’t true. Meanwhile, anyone with eyes can see signs that the president has diminishing mental faculties. It appeared that he could barely stay awake throughout a lengthy Cabinet meeting Tuesday, and when he spoke, he was incoherent and confused.

Trump has repeatedly claimed he had no idea why he got an MRI scan or what part of the body the doctors were even looking at. Still, he claimed his results were “absolutely perfect.” Barbabella’s memo detailing Trump’s October visit to Walter Reed said that the president “remains in excellent overall health.”

The Trump administration is halting immigration applications for people from 19 countries that were already subject to travel bans or restrictions.

Applications linked to those countries, including for green cards and citizenship, will be paused, according to a memo from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS. The countries in question are the same ones subject to travel bans and restrictions thanks to an executive order from President Trump in June.

The order banned citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from traveling to the U.S. It also placed restrictions on travel for citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

At the time, people from all of those countries who were already legally in the U.S. didn’t face any restrictions. The new measure, however, pauses all immigration and citizenship applications, including green cards, and can only be lifted at the discretion of USCIS’s Director Joseph Edlow, according to the memo. A similar plan was already in the works last month, but it seems last week’s alleged shooting of National Guard troops by an Afghan national spurred it into action.

“In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview, and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 is necessary,” the USCIS memo said, referencing immigration decisions made during the Biden administration.

The new order is discriminatory and punishes those who have successfully gone through the correct legal process. It amounts to not only punishing every new Afghan immigrant for the alleged actions of one, but also targets people from 18 other countries for seemingly arbitrary reasons. It seems very much like a racist attempt to overhaul U.S. immigration policy.

Senator Lindsey Graham is making an enemy out of the pope.

Pope Leo XIV called out Donald Trump on Tuesday for his aggressive attempts to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro out of power. And Graham was having none of it.

The South Carolina lawmaker pushed the pope to stay on the “right side of history” in a lengthy post on social media Tuesday, claiming that a “credible threat” of “military force” is the only way to enact change in Venezuela.

“Without a credible threat of the use of military force, nothing changes in Venezuela. When it comes to Maduro, the time for talking is closing. The time for action to end this reign of terror in Venezuela is upon us,” Graham wrote.

“I would urge the Holy Father to be on the right side of history when it comes to ending Maduro’s reign of terror on the Venezuelan people, the United States and others throughout the region.

“The use of military force to evict Maduro will only be required if Maduro insists on remaining as the illegitimate leader of a narcoterrorist state,” the Baptist continued. “He has stolen elections, collaborates with terrorist groups like Hezbollah, sits atop a notorious drug cartel and has flooded our country with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

“As President Trump said, when it comes to Maduro, we can do it the easy way or the hard way. I would urge the Holy Father to spend his time and energy persuading Maduro to take the easy way out—for all,” Graham wrote.

Since early September, the United States has destroyed at least 20 small boats traversing the Caribbean Sea that Trump administration officials deemed—without an investigation or interdiction—were smuggling drugs. At least 83 people have been killed in the attacks.

The attacks have been condemned by U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and foreign human advocates alike, including the U.N. human rights chief, who said in October that the strikes “violate international human rights law.”

While chalking the seemingly needless violence up to counter-narco-terrorism efforts, Donald Trump has simultaneously leveraged the aggression to try to shove Maduro out of power, something that he tried and failed to do in 2019.

Pope Leo recommended less violent options that the U.S. could take in the boiling feud. The first American leader of the Catholic Church told reporters Tuesday that it would be “better” to “find another way” to apply pressure, such as hosting a dialogue with Maduro or imposing economic sanctions on the South American nation, “if that is what they want to do in the United States.”

Even MAGA media outlet Newsmax is calling Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 2 boat bombings a war crime.

“It gives me no pleasure to say what I’m about to say, because I worked with Pete Hegseth for seven or eight years at Fox News,” Judge Andrew Napolitano said on air Tuesday. “This is an act of a war crime. Ordering survivors—who the law requires be rescued—instead to be murdered.”

Napolitano continued.

“There’s absolutely no legal basis for it. Everybody along the line who did it, from the secretary of defense to the admiral to the people who actually pulled the trigger, should be prosecuted for a war crime for killing these two people.”

Newsmax is tailor-made for a far-right audience, is the preferred network of President Trump, and has been virtually unwavering in its support for him. This kind of critique, especially coming from Hegseth’s former co-worker, speaks to just how poorly planned the explanation for this potential war crime was, and how widely panned the decisions have been from both the left and the right.

Republican Senator Rand Paul offered some scathing criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s efforts to push responsibility for the September 2 boat bombings away from himself and President Trump and onto Admiral Frank Bradley.

“In this sense, it looks to me like they’re trying to pin the blame on somebody else and not them,” Paul told reporters Tuesday evening. “There’s a very distinct statement [that] was said on Sunday—Secretary Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news, it didn’t happen. And then the next day from the podium at the White House, they’re saying it did happen.

“So either he was lying to us on Sunday, or he’s incompetent and didn’t know it had happened,” he continued. “Do we think there’s any chance that on Sunday the secretary of the defense did not know there’d been a second strike?”

The growing Republican criticism comes as Hegseth and the Trump administration zero in on their version of events for whether the boat bombing actually happened (it did), and who in particular gave the order for a second strike to kill the two survivors seen clinging to the wreckage after the first bombing. At Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, Hegseth claimed that he didn’t know there were survivors after the first strike, adding that the “fog of war” would have made it difficult to determine if anyone had survived. He passed responsibility for the decision entirely on to Bradley.

The administration’s explanation for committing what very well may be a war crime has been so botched and sloppy that it made Paul remember he’s a libertarian. And on his question of Hegseth’s incompetence or stupidity, the answer seems to be both.