In ICE’s Own Words, It’s “Wartime” in America

On January 3, four days before the horrific killing of Renee Nicole Good, the Department of Homeland Security put out a press release. The headline bragged: “ICE Announces Historic 120% Manpower Increase, Thanks to Recruitment Campaign That Brought in 12,000 Officers and Agents.”

The statement went on to boast (bolded language in the original): “After receiving more than 220,000 applications to join ICE from patriotic Americans, ICE blew past its original hiring target of 10,000 new officers and agents within a year. In fact, we have more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000. With these new patriots on the team, we will be able to accomplish what many say was impossible and fulfill President Trump’s promise to make America safe again.”

It appears that Good’s executioner—and it’s hard to think of a more apt word for someone who fires three point-blank shots at the head of an obviously unarmed civilian who is trying to drive away—was not one of these “new patriots.” The incident his defenders have taken to invoking, in which he was dragged by a car and ended up with 33 stitches, reportedly happened last June, before the hiring spree. But even that raises the obvious question: If he was injured, if he was “traumatized” by that event, as Vice President JD Vance said Thursday, what in the world was he doing still out in the field?

An investigation may answer that question (or, since it’s going to be led by Kash Patel’s FBI, maybe it won’t). But our common sense, and what we have learned in the last year about these people, tells us that he was still in the field for the same reason that ICE has hired 12,000 people in six months, recruiting specifically for people with an enthusiasm for guns and the military. The Trump administration wants to force showdowns that lead inevitably to what happened in Minneapolis Wednesday.

Take a look at the recruitment social media post that DHS placed on X last August: “Serve your country! Defend your culture! No undergraduate degree required!”

Let’s break that down. “Serve your country.” OK, nothing objectionable about that. But then we take a very Trumpian-Millerian turn: “Defend your culture.” Who is that aimed at? What set of emotional reactions is that command supposed to fire, and in whom? What “culture,” precisely, is it referring to? And finally, the reassurance that the job is open to practically anyone.

Well, anyone of a certain mindset, that is. On New Year’s Eve, ICE announced that it was initiating a new $100 million recruitment campaign that it referred to as a “wartime recruitment” strategy. The campaign, as The Washington Post put it, will target people “who have attended UFC fights, listened to patriotic podcasts, or shown an interest in guns and tactical gear.”

Any organization that goes from 10,000 to 22,000 in six months has hired some very unqualified people. If that organization is, say, the Candy Stripers, that might not be much of an issue. But if the organization is one that gives its employees badges and masks and riot gear and SIG Sauer P320 semiautomatic pistols (or maybe a Glock 19, to which the agency began transitioning last year), you’ve got a problem.

That’s exactly what Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Corey Lewandowski (whose exact role at DHS is the focus of many questions) have done. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill passed last July, you might recall, tripled ICE’s budget, from around $10 billion a year to close to $30 billion. All told, as Margy O’Herron of the Brennan Center pointed out last year, the bill “allocates more than $170 billion over four years for border and interior enforcement, with a stated goal of deporting one million immigrants each year. That is more than the yearly budget for all local and state law enforcement agencies combined across the entire United States.” She added that “the largest percentage increase goes to finding, arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants already living in the U.S., most of whom have not committed a crime and many of whom have had lawful status.”

It’s clear what all this adds up to. There will be more Renee Goods. And they will all be smeared and trashed by Trump and his followers. Vance said Thursday, as have any number of MAGA-ites on social media, that she was driving right at the shooting officer. Proof of this, they say, lies in the fact that first bullet hole went through her windshield.

Yes, it did. But look at where it went through the windshield. It’s all the way over to the right, just a couple of inches from the driver’s-side pillar. If she was driving right at him, wouldn’t that bullet hole be closer to the center of the windshield? The video shows clearly that she was turning the car to the right. But even if there is ambiguity about the first shot, there is no ambiguity whatsoever about the second and third.

Good was executed. And now her reputation and life and values are being killed. Perhaps taking cues from Noem, who accused Good of an act of “domestic terrorism,” Vance referred to the victim as part of a left-wing conspiracy. A reporter asked him to amplify on that, and he couldn’t. He also said Good represented a “lunatic fringe.”

No, Mr. Vice President. Renee Good represents tens of millions of honest, decent, and patriotic Americans. Tens of millions of us who want to live in a humane and compassionate multiracial democracy where citizens, even if they are trying to obstruct a law enforcement action they object to (there is still some question whether Good was doing this), are subjected to the legal process and given their rights and not shot point-blank, where people who aren’t citizens but are otherwise law-abiding don’t have to live in fear, and where the “culture” we “defend” is a culture based not on blood and soil but the rule of law.

The real lunatic fringe in this country is the one that sanctions the execution of a citizen and then spends days smearing her and that imagines itself to be at war with its own people and precipitates these kinds of confrontations in the first place. That fringe is doubling down, and hiring and hiring and hiring. This is going to get much worse.

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again,” Donald Trump told rallygoers in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in August 2024. “We’re going to make it affordable again.” He said it over and over and over. “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again. We’ll do that. We’ve got to bring it down,” he told a Wisconsin crowd that October.

Well. Guess what? Prices are up. And they’re not just up, at least in some cases, because of random, impersonal market forces. They’re up because Trump raised them, through his tariffs. But mostly, they’re up because politicians, even presidents, don’t have the power to lower prices quickly and unilaterally.

I thought everyone knew this. I thought everyone was at least sophisticated enough to understand that inflation is kind of complicated and has to do with a number of factors that can’t be easily erased or reversed. I mean, that’s not a particularly advanced political or economic concept. A president can’t just say, “Beef prices, I command thee down!” and beef prices go down. We live in the real world, not some fairy-tale land; there’s no legal limit to the snow here, as there was in Camelot.

And yet—apparently a lot of people did believe him. Well, you know what? I’m not in the habit of calling people idiots. Elected Republicans, yes. A lot of them are idiots, and hypocrites and liars and worse. But regular people—I try to stay away from calling them idiots. They have pressures, they don’t really follow politics, and even in the present case, I understand that a few million voters turned to Trump because Joe Biden seemed to be responsible for inflation (and was, to a certain extent), Kamala Harris didn’t plausibly explain how she’d do things differently, and Trump was the only other entrée on the menu. Those people, I sort of get.

But if you really, truly, deeply believed that Trump would lower prices quickly? I’m sorry. You’re an idiot.

I keep wondering how people could have fallen for this. How could people not know, after living through Trump’s first term, that he’ll say anything—whatever works for him in the moment? Did people really just forget that? Apparently, they did. I have to keep reminding myself: There are a lot of people who pay attention to politics the way I pay attention to gymnastics—for a few weeks every four years. They’ve never understood that Trump is worse—far, far worse—than your average pol in the way he’ll just say whatever sounds good at the time.

Did they think he could fix things because he’s a businessman? You know—a businessman with six bankruptcies? Anyone capable of even a semblance of critical thinking who spent 10 minutes examining Trump’s business career could see that what he mostly did was drive companies into the ground, stiff contractors, fend off lawsuits, and skate through it all because he was a celebrity, which he figured out how to parlay into profit by selling the right to put his name on buildings.

And finally, I suspect a lot of people bought it because a lot of other dishonest people were pushing it. And here, of course, I mean the right-wing propaganda machine—from Fox News to podcasters to the algorithmic narcotics pushers on social media who are rapidly turning half the nation into a bunch of rage-baited nitwits—that helped elect him and that helps keep his poll numbers, anemic as they are, from being even worse.

It’s not as if it was some deeply held secret last year that presidents can’t just lower prices, or that tariffs increase prices. Plenty of people said so and warned that Trump had no answers. But the propagandists drowned the sane voices out.

Imagine that Kamala Harris had said she was going to lower grocery prices immediately, on day one. You know what would have happened? She’d have been laughed off the campaign trail. Mocked relentlessly. And not just by the right wing. By mainstream economic commentators. By liberal pundits. By me.

That’s because we—mainstream commentators, liberal pundits, and the millions of Americans who still do actually read stuff, weigh evidence, connect dots—would have known it was a preposterous and desperate lie. And we’d have said so. She’d have been savaged. She and her people no doubt knew this, which is why she didn’t talk like that.

She did address the issue. She did say she’d bring prices down. But she didn’t say silly things like “from day one,” and she offered some specifics about how she’d try to bring them down. She vowed to go after corporate price-gouging. You’ll recall that she was attacked even for this, on the grounds either that such gouging was allegedly rare or that most states already had laws against it, or it was just more proof she was a not-so-secret Marxist.

Otherwise, her plan to lower prices consisted of the usual dreary, time-consuming, reality-based stuff: expanding the child tax credit to reduce the costs of raising children; expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, to give more money back to lower-income taxpayers; providing housing tax credits to make homeownership more affordable.

Oh, and one more thing: She proposed extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies—exactly the hammer that’s about to thwack 20 million Americans over the head because Trump refuses to do this and has ordered the Republicans in Congress to follow suit.

So she put forward some plans. But plans are so ho-hum. Trump, in contrast, promised he’d cut the cost of a new home in half. Half! How? By slashing regulations! What regulations? You know—regulations! The evil, very, very bad ones! Sing along with me, to the tune of “Camelot”: “No regulation ever shall raise prices …”

So he goes back to Pennsylvania, as he did this week, and face-plants at the first MAGA rally of his second presidency by making fun of the whole idea of “affordabili-tee,” even pronouncing the word in such a way as to make light of the idea. Of course he did. He has no idea what to do about all this. So he has to make it sound like a “Democrat” hoax.

Oh—and that “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus” he gave himself on the economy in that Politico interview. That’s five pluses. I’ve noticed on cable news a lot of people reducing it to four. Understandable. Four has a more natural rhythm to it, as we know from the world of music. But Trump, of course, had to gild the faux-gold lily and add a fifth. That fifth “plus,” for those attuned to the psychological trip wires that exist in that swampy brain of his, is his secret admission that he knows things aren’t good. Yet he had the gall to lecture his rallygoers: “You’re doing better than you’ve ever done.” Imagine Joe Biden having said that in 2023.

So, to those who voted for TRUMP in the belief that he would “lower prices” on DAY ONE, I ask you: Do you think this man who lives in a Gilded Mansion gets what you’re going through? Do you think he’s EVER been to a supermarket in his life? Do you think he could guess the Price of a Gallon of Milk? A head of his beloved Iceberg Lettuce? I beg of you. PLEASE. WAKE UP!! He is Playing You. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Pete Hegseth is having one of the worst weeks a Cabinet secretary has had in recent American history. It’s very richly deserved. He’s a bombastic idiot. He’s a liar. And he’s a weasel: Under fire for a second military strike on an alleged drug boat, which killed two survivors of the first strike and was possibly a war crime, he has publicly shifted all responsibility to a uniformed Naval officer who cannot defend himself in public. Finally, I’d add that he has utter contempt for the historic rules of honorable military engagement, but the video that emerged this week of him paying rhetorical homage to those rules back in 2016 when Democrats ran the Pentagon proves that he doesn’t even live according to that benighted “principle” and instead operates on the basis of no principle other than the usual Republican ones—political advantage and power.

He’s a disaster as defense secretary. But here’s a question that must be pondered this week: Didn’t we all know this? Wasn’t there ample reason to suspect that a talk-show host would be in way over his head in running the largest corporation in the U.S. government? Could anyone—anyone—look in the mirror back in January and say to themselves: “Yes, of all the possible nominees in this vast country to run the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth is the best possible choice”?

Of course we knew this. And yet, he made it through. Why? I see three reasons, all tangled up with one another, because they all describe different aspects of the total moral decay of the Republican Party.

Let’s start with the most obvious reason: Trump wanted him. In other words, no President Trump, no Secretary Hegseth, not in a jillion years. It took an ill-informed demagogue who dodged the draft and thinks soldiers buried in Arlington Cemetery are “suckers” and thinks cable news is the pinnacle of human endeavor to come up with an appointment like this. And this, as we all know, is why Trump chose him: He was a snarling cable host who looked the part and hated DEI. People knew at the time. Exiled Republican Adam Kinzinger posted last November, when Trump nominated Hegseth: “Wow. Trump picking Pete Hegseth is the most hilariously predictably stupid thing.”

But of course, few Republicans were willing to say so, which brings us to reason two: the total abdication of constitutional responsibilities by Trump’s party. Well, not quite total. Three Republicans did vote against Hegseth: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell. JD Vance had to hustle up to the Capitol to break the tie.

But what that means is that 47 senators who had to know better (well, Tommy Tuberville excepted) voted for him. Mississippi’s Roger Wicker has been in the news this week because he chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee and is thus deeply involved in the question of how Congress will proceed in probing the second strike on that vessel on September 2. And, as Wicker is not tightly identified with the MAGA movement, I’ve seen him referred to this week as a comparative voice of reason.

Really? Go watch his statement back in January explaining his vote for Hegseth to see what a voice of reason he was then. “Admittedly, this nomination is unconventional,” he allowed. But so was Trump, when he flitted down that escalator. “That may be what makes Mr. Hegseth an excellent choice,” he continued. Hegseth would bring “a new warrior ethos” and “energy” and “fresh ideas.” Those descriptors might in fact be accurate, but not in a good way.

Wicker has been around Washington for three decades. He’s a former Air Force officer. There is zero chance he actually believed those words that he spoke that January day. But he spoke them, and 46 of his colleagues mouthed similarly mendacious platitudes.

Those platitudes received endless repetition on Fox News and the other right-wing propaganda outlets, which brings us to the third reason why it’s possible for such an unqualified hooligan to lead the world’s largest military. The right-wing “media” serves as an enforcer in such situations. GOP senators know very well that if they break with Trump on a big vote, the propaganda mill will target them, and that rich agribusiness magnate back home who’s a MAGA fire-breather will primary them next time, and Trump will endorse him, and goodbye Senate.

These outlets also enforce the acceptance of a certain reality among the rank and file—in which, in the current case, all the talk last winter about Hegseth’s drinking problem and his running that nonprofit into the ground were just deep-state lies. They create for the audience a world that is the direct opposite of reality.

Speaking of which … a poll came out this week—commissioned by the conservative Manhattan Institute, no less—that sought to give America a fuller portrait than we usually get of the beliefs and feelings of today’s GOP. The pollster asked a few questions about conspiracy theories. Find your hat, please, and hold onto it.

One-third, exactly 33 percent, think vaccines cause autism. A little more, 36 percent, think NASA faked the moon landing. Also, 37 percent think the Holocaust was “greatly exaggerated.” Forty-one percent think the September 11 attacks were carried out by actors beyond Al Qaeda and were “likely orchestrated or permitted by the U.S. government.” And 51 percent, as opposed to 40 percent who disagreed, believe the 2020 election was stolen. (Interesting side result, on another question: Fifteen percent of the poll’s respondents admitted to being racist!)

I’m not saying we can trace all this directly to Fox News. As far as I know, even Fox isn’t peddling Faurisson-esque Holocaust denialism. But Fox and the others have certainly promoted a milieu in which their consumers are encouraged to question nearly all statements of fact if liberals seem to believe those facts. From there, the algorithms of social media take over, and we’re off to the parallel-reality races.

It’s no wonder in such a world that a man like Hegseth could rise to his current position, sustained and protected by cowardice and lies. And it’s no wonder that he’s ordering the clearly illegal targeting of vessels and making allegations about them without offering any evidence. This is exactly where the moral rot that has consumed the Republican Party in this century was bound to land us.

I’m sitting here early Friday morning with the home pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post up on my screen. The president of the United States, as you know by now, has accused six Democratic legislators of sedition, or, as Donald Trump inevitably puts such things, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” adding that it is “punishable by DEATH!” He also re-Truthed a comment reading “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

Trump says a lot of outrageous things, and we know why he says them. First, he’s an unhinged sociopath who knows nothing about American history (George Washington is literally the last person who’d behave as above, more on which later). Second, when he is attacked, as he was here—or as he believes he was; the sextet was actually just stating a fact of American tradition and law—he strikes back in the most juvenile way possible, since his emotional development was arrested at about age 13 (which is perhaps being generous). And third, he’s trying to distract from an otherwise bad week—arguably the worst of his second presidency, as his own party moved essentially in unanimity against him on the Epstein matter (something that, speaking of American history, I’m not sure has ever happened before).

So we know all that about him, and we’ve come to accept it. But come on. Hang them? Elected representatives of the people? Who have all served their country in the armed forces or in risky intelligence work? Not that that last point should matter one way or the other, but it does count for something. Senator Mark Kelly, for example, flew 39 combat missions during the Persian Gulf War. This was around the same time that Trump was working overtime to suppress a documentary about him that showed him to be the gangster and conman we all know him to be today.

But put these personal details to the side, and stick to the mere objective fact: A sitting president of the United States has called for the execution of six legislators. I don’t know this for certain, but it seems nearly impossible that this has happened before. I don’t think Abraham Lincoln did it, and he was dealing with actual traitors. Maybe, you know, Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan did it on a bad day. Or Andrew Johnson. He was temperamentally capable of something like this. But that hardly makes it defensible. As they were three of the worst presidents in U.S. history, that only makes it worse.

OK. Back to the Times and the Post now. How in the world is this not the top story this morning? Indeed: How is it not the only headline above the fold, the kind of headline they usually reserve for world wars?

But it’s not. It’s not even close. On my Post home page around 7 a.m. Friday, you have to spin the scroll wheel on the mouse about seven times even to see the headline and subhed, which do not, incidentally, mention the “death” part at all. (The story did appear on the upper left of the front page of today’s physical paper.) At the Times, I had to give the scroll wheel four spins before I saw the story; the headline does quote Trump’s words “punishable by death.” But the Times didn’t even put it on the front page of their physical paper—there was only a single-sentence reference to the story in a small box titled “More on the White House,” as if this was just more ho-hum news from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

When I peeked at the Times on Thursday night, I noted that the headline did not even mention the death part. It read: “In Outburst, Trump Accuses Democrats of Sedition Over Video to Military.” Sweet Jesus, Times. It’s a small thing, perhaps. But “outburst”?! It’s a telling little example of how mainstream news headline writers continue to try to use the normal conventions of objective journalism style to describe behavior that is an offense against normalcy.

The headline writers at the two papers would undoubtedly snicker at me. I’m being alarmist. Trump says a lot of things. He doesn’t really mean it. Or, even if he does mean it in the moment, it’s not really to be taken seriously. It can’t happen here.

I’m sorry. Those are all the rationalizations of people who have decided that anti-alarmism is the proper, neutral posture toward Trump. I won’t psychoanalyze them and say why, although I have my theories. I’ll just say that they—and many people like them who package mainstream news for tens of millions of readers and viewers and listeners—have shown us time after time after fatiguing time that they believe that Trump’s outrageous remarks need to be “contextualized” and that we shouldn’t get too worked up over them.

Trump said in 2016 that people at his rallies should beat up protesters. Oh, relax—maybe he was joking. He said there was a Second Amendment solution for Hillary Clinton. Well, that was ambiguous. He clearly and repulsively mocked a journalist with physical disabilities. Well, it wasn’t completely clear what he was referring to. Barack Obama was spying on him. Well, there may be no evidence, but that’s Trump being Trump. And so on, times a thousand.

Question: What will it take? Where is the line that Trump must cross for these people to say to themselves, “OK. That’s enough. We are alarmed, and we believe America should be alarmed, and we are going to cover this like it’s the crisis it is.” If calling for six legislators to be hanged doesn’t clear that bar, what will?

These legislators did nothing wrong. They said, “You can refuse illegal orders … you must refuse illegal orders.” This is correct and true. It is what recruits are taught in every branch of the military. It prevents a president from turning the military into his own personal army, and as such, it’s one of the key principles that keeps a democratic republic from careening into dictatorship.

As to why they felt moved to make this video in the first place—well, we don’t really know the answer to that yet, but you don’t have to be George Patton to know that Trump would like to use the military to do whatever he wants it to do. TNR’s Greg Sargent interviewed one of the six Democrats, Representative Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, for his Daily Blast podcast today. Here’s what she had to say:

Sargent: It sounds to me like all of you who have military or intelligence experience are hearing from inside these institutions that there’s real and actual concern, live concern, that people are being asked to carry out illegal orders. Is that what’s going on?

Houlahan: It’s partially what’s going on. It’s also sort of the buildup of the last nine or ten months, where we have watched this president kind of push on every boundary, try to break every circuit, so to speak, and overload us all with attempts to figure out where the lines are in the law. And so it’s not just in the military realm—though of course that’s what this particular podcast or broadcast is about—but it is abundantly evident with more than 149 instances over the last months of the president putting out orders of one form or another that have then been pushed to the courts in some way, shape, or form.

Houlahan went on to tell Sargent that she had “had a few conversations with people who have indicated discomfort with sort of the current state of affairs” and that “I know my colleagues have had similar kinds of conversations.” I would imagine we’ll be hearing more about this.

The country should be thanking these six for making this public warning, both because it described a very real threat to the Constitution and because, in eliciting a crazed response from Trump, the video showed America a new and even more depraved level of his dangerous ignorance. George Washington, please. Washington is the most anti-Trump leader not only in American history but probably in the history of the modern world.

Washington advocated a certain degree of mercy toward prisoners of war. When he captured more than 900 Hessians at Trenton in 1776, he not only didn’t hang them—he ordered that his troops do them no harm. Instead of being hauled off to prisons, they were sent to farms and allowed to work. And, of course, we all know—or I hope we all know—that Washington directly rebuffed his chance to become America’s dictator in 1783. Trump, as usual, hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about.

But Trump himself is only part of the problem here. The other part is a media that collectively thinks we ought to just shrug these things off as Trump being Trump. Yes; it is Trump being Trump. And that’s precisely the problem. Does someone literally have to die before these “outbursts” merit a banner headline? Or even then, will they counsel us not to be alarmed—to consider the context? These people are going to help contextualize us into dictatorship.

This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky. Sign up here.

The key thing about Donald Trump’s presidency, when you examine it alongside the history of every other Oval Office occupant, is that to understand what drives him day-to-day, you have to have a handle on his psychology—all those twisted urges and impulses that twitch through his brain. This is because so much of what he does is by pure instinct—id unchecked by superego; animal urge unmitigated by conscience. That, plus the fact that all he really cares about is how he looks on TV (more specifically, Fox News and Newsmax). Who can doubt that part of what he loves about bombing those boats in the Caribbean is that he loves seeing them go boom on a big screen?

So, when we analyze this administration, we have to look for the psychological “tells” in a way we simply didn’t with any other president, because the other presidents, no matter their politics, weren’t emotional 5-year-olds who lived in an impenetrable image bubble created and maintained by their staffs and their propagandists with press passes. And the psychological tell of the week? Hauling Representative Lauren Boebert into the White House Situation Room to try to break her down and make her change her vote on the Jeffrey Epstein discharge petition.

Think about this purely as a presidential decision. We don’t know whether this was his idea or if an aide hatched this plan and he liked it, but it amounts to the same thing. Yeah, we can picture Trump thinking: the Situation Room; secret, private, all those fancy screens and maps—that’ll intimidate her.

When LBJ had a recalcitrant member of Congress to win over, he invited him up to the Truman Balcony for a bourbon. Trump locked Boebert in the room that’s supposed to be used to monitor military operations. It’s where Barack Obama watched Seal Team Six take out bin Laden. It’s unclear whether Trump was there. One assumes he was. But willing hacks Pam Bondi and Kash Patel showed up. Wait, what? What was their presence meant to imply? Why did the attorney general and the FBI director need to be present on a legislative matter? Was the idea to hint to Boebert that she could face some sort of legal consequences if she didn’t capitulate? On a congressional vote?

Boebert laughed it all off, but she didn’t cave. In fact, the strong-arming apparently left her all the more convinced Trump may be hiding something. Hard to imagine I’d ever be saying this, but: good for her. And for her colleague Nancy Mace, whom Trump simply called, in the old-fashioned way. But both stood their ground, and next week, the House will vote to compel Bondi’s Justice Department to release the files, with possibly up to 100 Republicans voting to do so.

Trump is clearly in a dead panic about this. We saw this week the reason why. Many of the Epstein emails released this week were—at least in the court of public opinion—incriminating to one degree or another; none more so than the one Epstein wrote to an unnamed acquaintance in December 2018, in which he announced: “i am the one able to take him down.” Also: “I know how dirty donald is.” (He was too lazy to hit the shift key, apparently.)

Trump, as always, says it’s all a lie and he did nothing wrong. And a few of the released emails can be read to support this claim. But just stop and think: We are sitting here, in November 2025, in the middle (or the beginning-middle) of a credible investigation into whether the president of the United States engaged in sex acts with underage girls. (And when media allies such as Megyn Kelly publicly try to finesse the differences between having sex with a 5-year-old versus having sex with a 15-year-old, that’s not a good sign.)

There’s still plenty of reason to think we’ll never get a satisfactory answer about Trump’s place in Epstein’s grotesque constellation of decadent elites. Trump still has a number of roadblocks to put in the way of getting to the point of the files being released. First and foremost, there’s the Senate. Because once the House votes to release the files, then the Senate has to. I haven’t seen much handicapping on this yet. But it would have to clear the 60-vote cloture hurdle, meaning that 13 Republicans would have to vote with the Democrats to bring the matter to final passage.

Then, of course, even if it does pass the Senate, Trump can veto it. At that point, two-thirds of each House would be required to override the veto. And even then, if all that happens, there’s still Bondi. She could just say, No, I’m not going to do it. Yes, that would be defying an act of Congress. Do you really have trouble picturing her doing that?

Of course, if this gets to that point, we’ll have a major national scandal on our hands, for one simple reason that will be crystal clear to a comfortable majority of the American people: If Trump and his goons are going to those lengths to keep these files from being made public, then he must obviously have something bad to hide.

That’s what makes this different from every other Trumpian contest of wills. In his battles with Democrats, with woke universities, with liberal law firms, with people he doesn’t like being in America, he’s always had a position that some percentage of Americans found compelling, for whatever reason. That’s why they cheer his bullying and don’t care about his lies.

This, however, is different. He’s not defending anything that could remotely be called a principle, and he’s not slaying any America-hating dragons. He’s just covering up his own potential monstrous crimes. Given the way we’ve already seen this issue divide MAGA land, even some percentage of Trump’s hard-shell base will surely see the difference.