Online MAGA cope is now Congressional strategy

Right-wing influencers try blaming Democrats for hiding the Epstein files — and DC Republicans follow suit.

Right-wing influencers try blaming Democrats for hiding the Epstein files — and DC Republicans follow suit.

President Trump Hosts A Reception For GOP Members Of Congress
President Trump Hosts A Reception For GOP Members Of Congress
Tina Nguyen
Tina Nguyen is a senior reporter for The Verge, covering the Trump administration, Elon Musk’s takeover of the federal government, and the tech industry’s embrace of the MAGA movement.

When it comes to defending Donald Trump from the worst accusations, the MAGA influencer-industrial complex, whether out of loyalty or self-preservation, often defaults to whataboutism, arguing that the Democrats are just as guilty as Trump, or (ideally) worse. This principle has held true with the current Jeffrey Epstein saga, and as their audience’s anger against the Trump administration skyrockets, the MAGA influencer world is trying a new tack: blame the Democrats, not Trump, for keeping the “Epstein Files” under lock and key.

Trump, the person who could feasibly order the release of said documents, has spent the past few weeks trying to smother the drama from a few different angles, ultimately only fanning flames every time he attempted to deemphasize Epstein. He tried dismissing it during a Cabinet meeting (“Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?”), downplaying it on Truth Social (“Let’s … not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about”), and criticizing a reporter for asking about Epstein (“Are people still talking about this guy?”).

But there’s no indication that the MAGA-influencer complex will ever stop talking about Epstein, or that their audiences will ever let it go. But over the past week, the influencer class, and subsequently the GOP, has started to maneuver Trump’s spin into a more acceptable talking point, inspired by a recent Wall Street Journal bombshell reporting that the Justice Department had told Trump back in May that his name was in the pile of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. “Of course there’s going to be mentions of Epstein, who was a member of Mar-a-Lago until Trump kicked him out” over a decade ago, said Alex Jones, the Infowars host who’d spent the past several days raging about the Epstein Files. But while he had been calling for the head of anyone in the administration for failing to deliver, it was much easier to circle the wagon around Trump the moment that a mainstream publication tied him to bad behavior.

Laura Loomer, another prominent influencer who’d been criticizing the administration for its underwhelming response, also took the opportunity to try coming home by questioning where exactly Trump’s name appeared in the files, while also glazing Trump. “Are they trying to say that a file is somebody’s name in an address book?” she rhetorically asked Politico Playbook on Thursday, adding that she, too, had a large address book. “Some of those people in my address book have committed crimes. Does that mean I’m implicated in their crimes? President Trump is not a pedophile. And I look forward to seeing him sue every journalist and publication that is trying to imply that he is one.”

In the days and weeks since the Trump administration released their brief memo about the Epstein files, the MAGA influencer world — specifically, those who built their careers “just asking questions” about Epstein while also cozying up to Trump — has grappled with a difficult choice: either cater to their audience’s demand to keep asking what the elites are hiding about Epstein, or maintain their relationship and standing with the White House.

Some have chosen their audiences, gambling that their following is loyal beyond Trump, and that their influence isn’t contingent on their White House access. (Tucker Carlson, for instance, published a two-hour episode that was entirely focused on the Epstein conspiracies — one week after he implied that Epstein was a Mossad agent.) Others have completely flipped back to Trump, such as the influencer Catturd, an onetime Epstein truther who began implying that “the podcast bro ‘influencers’” now criticizing Trump may have taken Russian money to do so. (In 2024, US prosecutors indicted two employees of RT for illegally funneling money to spread Kremlin propaganda, alleging that they had put $10 million into a Tennessee-based media company whose description matched up with Tenet Media, which worked with Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and others.) Catturd then tweeted that he was “never abandoning Trump”, and spent the subsequent week calling for Barack Obama’s indictment and posting memes of press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

But for everyone else, it’s been difficult to have it both ways. Loomer’s attempt to pin the blame on Attorney General Pam Bondi, for instance, failed when Trump refused to fire Bondi, while influencers who attempted to convince their audience to move onto different topics saw their audience revolt (particularly if those influencers, such as Benny Johnson, cited their conversations with government officials as reason enough).

And before you dismiss it as sturm-and-drang on the internet, the very same dynamic can be seen in Congress, where the Republicans are trying their best to satisfy the base while appeasing the President — a task made difficult because their normal, everyday constituents also hold deep suspicions about the entire Epstein matter. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found that the vast majority of voters — including a majority of Republicans — believe that the government is hiding information about the infamous “client list”. And tellingly, only 35 percent of Republicans believed that the Trump administration was handling it well. (30 percent said Trump was not, and 35 percent were unsure.)

On Wednesday, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Department of Justice for the Epstein Files, with a majority composed of five Democrats and three Republicans. The two Republicans who opposed the subpoena ended up tacking on other requests for Epstein-related communications from Biden officials and the DOJ. Per ABC News, the “officials” included the Democratic subjects of MAGA’s most enduring conspiracy theories: “Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.”

In other words, no one seems to be able to run with Trump’s assessment that Epstein is “somebody that nobody cares about.” Unable to quell the belief that there’s a conspiracy afoot, the only thing to do is try to implicate Democrats. Even Speaker Mike Johnson, who abruptly called a five-week recess last Thursday to prevent his Democratic counterparts from voting to release the Epstein files, leaned in on a potential conspiracy. “One of our concerns is, of course, that it was held in the hands of the DOJ leaders under the last administration, the Biden-Harris administration,” he told a Newsmax reporter on Wednesday. “And we all know how crooked and corrupt so many of those officials were, how they engaged in lawfare against President Trump. He has a concern, and I do as well, that things could have been doctored in those records.” When it comes to right-wing talking points based on sordid, unproven allegations, it’s best to start winking early — and in sync with the president, too.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

Most Popular

Similar Posts

  • The hidden scaling cliff that’s about to break your agent rollouts

    Join the event trusted by enterprise leaders for nearly two decades. VB Transform brings together the people building real enterprise AI strategy. Learn more Enterprises that want to build and scale agents also need to embrace another reality: agents aren’t built like other software.  Agents are “categorically different” in how they’re built, how they operate, and…

  • Try on styles with AI, jump on great prices and more

    Whether you’re still on the hunt for the perfect summer maxi skirt, dreaming about a new fall jacket or starting your back to school shopping, our shopping tools can help you explore your personal style and get a good price. Here are a few ways you can use Google’s latest shopping features:Try clothes on, virtuallyAt I/O in May, we introduced our try on tool as a limited experiment in Search Labs, allowing shoppers to upload a photo of themselves and use AI to virtually try on clothes. Today, try on is launching in the U.S., letting you easily try on styles from the billions of apparel items in our Shopping Graph across Search, Google Shopping and even product results on Google Images.

  • Trump’s AI Action Plan is a distraction

    On Wednesday, President Trump issued three executive orders, delivered a speech, and released an action plan, all on the topic of continuing American leadership in AI.  The plan contains dozens of proposed actions, grouped into three “pillars”: accelerating innovation, building infrastructure, and leading international diplomacy and security. Some of its recommendations are thoughtful even if incremental, some clearly serve ideological ends, and many enrich big tech companies, but the plan is just a set of recommended actions.  The three executive orders, on the other hand, actually operationalize one subset of actions from each pillar:  One aims to prevent “woke AI” by mandating that the federal government procure only large language models deemed “truth-seeking” and “ideologically neutral” rather than ones allegedly favoring DEI. This action purportedly accelerates AI innovation. A second aims to accelerate construction of AI data centers. A much more industry-friendly version of an order issued under President Biden, it makes available rather extreme policy levers, like effectively waiving a broad swath of environmental protections, providing government grants to the wealthiest companies in the world, and even offering federal land for private data centers. A third promotes and finances the export of US AI technologies and infrastructure, aiming to secure American diplomatic leadership and reduce international dependence on AI systems from adversarial countries. This flurry of actions made for glitzy press moments, including an hour-long speech from the president and onstage signings. But while the tech industry cheered these announcements (which will swell their coffers), they obscured the fact that the administration is currently decimating the very policies that enabled America to become the world leader in AI in the first place.
    To maintain America’s leadership in AI, you have to understand what produced it. Here are four specific long-standing public policies that helped the US achieve this leadership—advantages that the administration is undermining.  Investing federal funding in R&D  Generative AI products released recently by American companies, like ChatGPT, were developed with industry-funded research and development. But the R&D that enables today’s AI was actually funded in large part by federal government agencies—like the Defense Department, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the National Institutes of Health—starting in the 1950s. This includes the first successful AI program in 1956, the first chatbot in 1961, and the first expert systems for doctors in the 1970s, along with breakthroughs in machine learning, neural networks, backpropagation, computer vision, and natural-language processing.
    American tax dollars also funded advances in hardware, communications networks, and other technologies underlying AI systems. Public research funding undergirded the development of lithium-ion batteries, micro hard drives, LCD screens, GPS, radio-frequency signal compression, and more in today’s smartphones, along with the chips used in AI data centers, and even the internet itself. Instead of building on this world-class research history, the Trump administration is slashing R&D funding, firing federal scientists, and squeezing leading research universities. This week’s action plan recommends investing in R&D, but the administration’s actual budget proposes cutting nondefense R&D by 36%. It also proposed actions to better coordinate and guide federal R&D, but coordination won’t yield more funding. Some say that companies’ R&D investments will make up the difference. However, companies conduct research that benefits their bottom line, not necessarily the national interest. Public investment allows broad scientific inquiry, including basic research that lacks immediate commercial applications but sometimes ends up opening massive markets years or decades later. That’s what happened with today’s AI industry. Supporting immigration and immigrants Beyond public R&D investment, America has long attracted the world’s best researchers and innovators. Today’s generative AI is based on the transformer model (the T in ChatGPT), first described by a team at Google in 2017. Six of the eight researchers on that team were born outside the US, and the other two are children of immigrants.  This isn’t an exception. Immigrants have been central to American leadership in AI. Of the 42 American companies included in the 2025 Forbes ranking of the 50 top AI startups, 60% have at least one immigrant cofounder, according to an analysis by the Institute for Progress. Immigrants also cofounded or head the companies at the center of the AI ecosystem: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Intel, and AMD. “Brain drain” is a term that was first coined to describe scientists’ leaving other countries for the US after World War II—to the Americans’ benefit. Sadly, the trend has begun reversing this year. Recent studies suggest that the US is already losing its AI talent edge through the administration’s anti-immigration actions (including actions taken against AI researchers) and cuts to R&D funding. Banning noncompetes Attracting talented minds is only half the equation; giving them freedom to innovate is just as crucial.

    Silicon Valley got its name because of mid-20th-century companies that made semiconductors from silicon, starting with the founding of Shockley Semiconductor in 1955. Two years later, a group of employees, the “Traitorous Eight,” quit to launch a competitor, Fairchild Semiconductor. By the end of the 1960s, successive groups of former Fairchild employees had left to start Intel, AMD, and others collectively dubbed the “Fairchildren.”  Software and internet companies eventually followed, again founded by people who had worked for their predecessors. In the 1990s, former Yahoo employees founded WhatsApp, Slack, and Cloudera; the “PayPal Mafia” created LinkedIn, YouTube, and fintech firms like Affirm. Former Google employees have launched more than 1,200 companies, including Instagram and Foursquare. AI is no different. OpenAI has founders that worked at other tech companies and alumni who have gone on to launch over a dozen AI startups, including notable ones like Anthropic and Perplexity. This labor fluidity and the innovation it has created were possible in large part, according to many historians, because California’s 1872 constitution has been interpreted to prohibit noncompete agreements in employment contracts—a statewide protection the state originally shared only with North Dakota and Oklahoma. These agreements bind one in five American workers. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission under President Biden moved to ban noncompetes nationwide, but a Trump-appointed federal judge has halted the action. The current FTC has signaled limited support for the ban and may be comfortable dropping it. If noncompetes persist, American AI innovation, especially outside California, will be limited. Pursuing antitrust actions One of this week’s announcements requires the review of FTC investigations and settlements that “burden AI innovation.” During the last administration the agency was reportedly investigating Microsoft’s AI actions, and several big tech companies have settlements that their lawyers surely see as burdensome, meaning this one action could thwart recent progress in antitrust policy. That’s an issue because, in addition to the labor fluidity achieved by banning noncompetes, antitrust policy has also acted as a key lubricant to the gears of Silicon Valley innovation.  Major antitrust cases in the second half of the 1900s, against AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft, allowed innovation and a flourishing market for semiconductors, software, and internet companies, as the antitrust scholar Giovanna Massarotto has described. William Shockley was able to start the first semiconductor company in Silicon Valley only because AT&T had been forced to license its patent on the transistor as part of a consent decree resolving a DOJ antitrust lawsuit against the company in the 1950s. 
    The early software market then took off because in the late 1960s, IBM unbundled its software and hardware offerings as a response to antitrust pressure from the federal government. As Massarotto explains, the 1950s AT&T consent decree also aided the flourishing of open-source software, which plays a major role in today’s technology ecosystem, including the operating systems for mobile phones and cloud computing servers. Meanwhile, many attribute the success of early 2000s internet companies like Google to the competitive breathing room created by the federal government’s antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in the 1990s. 
    Over and over, antitrust actions targeting the dominant actors of one era enabled the formation of the next. And today, big tech is stifling the AI market. While antitrust advocates were rightly optimistic about this administration’s posture given key appointments early on, this week’s announcements should dampen that excitement.  I don’t want to lose focus on where things are: We should want a future in which lives are improved by the positive uses of AI.  But if America wants to continue leading the world in this technology, we must invest in what made us leaders in the first place: bold public research, open doors for global talent, and fair competition.  Prioritizing short-term industry profits over these bedrock principles won’t just put our technological future at risk—it will jeopardize America’s role as the world’s innovation superpower.  Asad Ramzanali is the director of artificial intelligence and technology policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He previously served as the chief of staff and deputy director of strategy of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Biden.

  • Our first long-duration energy storage partnership

    Electricity powers modern life. And we’re accelerating a wide range of technologies, from enhanced geothermal to advanced nuclear to even fusion technologies, that can enable a future where on-demand electricity needs are met with clean energy, every hour of every day.Today, we’re adding another technology to our portfolio: long duration energy storage (LDES). Through a new long-term partnership with Energy Dome, we plan to support multiple commercial projects globally to deploy their LDES technology.Energy Dome’s novel CO₂ Battery can store excess clean energy and then dispatch it back to the grid for 8-24 hours, bridging the gap between when renewable energy is generated and when it is needed. With this commercial partnership, as well as an investment in the company, we believe these projects can unlock new clean energy for grids where we operate before 2030, helping meet near-term electricity system needs and moving us closer to our 24/7 carbon-free energy goal.By bringing this first-of-a-kind LDES technology to market faster, we aim to rapidly bring its potential to communities everywhere — making reliable, affordable electricity available around the clock and supporting the resilience of grids as they integrate growing amounts of renewable energy sources.Why it’s importantLithium-ion batteries, which typically store and dispatch power for 4 hours or less, have been critical for adding electricity capacity to grids and managing short-term fluctuations in renewable generation — when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Google’s support for these shorter-duration batteries has helped the grids we rely on, from Belgium to Nevada, meet peak electricity demand and reduce the need to ramp up fossil fuel power plants.But what if we could store and dispatch clean energy for more than a few hours, or even a full day? Studies by the Electric Power Research Institute show that LDES technologies can cost-effectively integrate a growing volume of renewables onto power systems and contribute to more flexible, reliable grids. The LDES Council estimates that deploying up to 8 terawatts (TW) of LDES by 2040 could result in $540 billion in annual savings globally, thanks in part to their ability to optimize grids.How the technology worksEnergy Dome’s novel approach to energy storage uses carbon dioxide (CO₂) held in a unique dome-shaped battery. When there’s an abundance of renewable energy on the grid, the system uses that power to compress CO₂ gas into a liquid. When the grid needs more clean power, the liquid CO₂ expands back into a hot gas under pressure, creating a powerful force — much like steam escaping a pressure cooker — which spins a turbine. This spinning turbine generates carbon-free energy that can flow directly back into the grid for durations ranging from 8 to 24 hours.Energy Dome has already signed contracts to build commercial scale projects in Italy, the U.S., and India. And their technology has already proven successful, having injected electrons into the Italian grid for more than three years, thanks to their commercial demonstration facility and now with their full-scale 20 megawatt (MW) commercial plant in Sardinia, Italy.Why scale is crucialLDES has the potential to commercialize much faster than some of the other advanced clean energy technologies in our portfolio. This means we can use it in the near term to help the electricity system grow more flexibly and reliably, alongside other tools we’re developing such as data center demand response.By supporting multiple commercial deployments of Energy Dome’s technology globally, we aim to bring this technology to scale faster and at lower costs. Beyond our long-term collaboration with Energy Dome, we plan to support a growing range of LDES technologies under development through both commercial agreements that can catalyze wider market adoption of more mature technologies, like Energy Dome’s, as well as earlier-stage investments.To remove barriers to the deployment and commercialization of LDES and other advanced carbon-free energy technologies, we’re also advocating for clean energy policies, ensuring that energy markets fully value firm, flexible carbon-free technologies, and advancing policy measures that enable infrastructure essential for grid decarbonization and energy security.We’re excited to take this first step with Energy Dome to unlock the full potential of LDES. Our partnership will strengthen grid resilience while enabling us to power our technologies, grow our economies and keep the lights on in our homes with 24/7 clean energy.

  • America’s AI watchdog is losing its bite

    Most Americans encounter the Federal Trade Commission only if they’ve been scammed: It handles identity theft, fraud, and stolen data. During the Biden administration, the agency went after AI companies for scamming customers with deceptive advertising or harming people by selling irresponsible technologies. With yesterday’s announcement of President Trump’s AI Action Plan, that era may now be over.  In the final months of the Biden administration under chair Lina Khan, the FTC levied a series of high-profile fines and actions against AI companies for overhyping their technology and bending the truth—or in some cases making claims that were entirely false. It found that the security giant Evolv lied about the accuracy of its AI-powered security checkpoints, which are used in stadiums and schools but failed to catch a seven-inch knife that was ultimately used to stab a student. It went after the facial recognition company Intellivision, saying the company made unfounded claims that its tools operated without gender or racial bias. It fined startups promising bogus “AI lawyer” services and one that sold fake product reviews generated with AI. These actions did not result in fines that crippled the companies, but they did stop them from making false statements and offered customers ways to recover their money or get out of contracts. In each case, the FTC found, everyday people had been harmed by AI companies that let their technologies run amok.
    The plan released by the Trump administration yesterday suggests it believes these actions went too far. In a section about removing “red tape and onerous regulation,” the White House says it will review all FTC actions taken under the Biden administration “to ensure that they do not advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation.” In the same section, the White House says it will withhold AI-related federal funding from states with “burdensome” regulations. This move by the Trump administration is the latest in its evolving attack on the agency, which provides a significant route of redress for people harmed by AI in the US. It’s likely to result in faster deployment of AI with fewer checks on accuracy, fairness, or consumer harm.
    Under Khan, a Biden appointee, the FTC found fans in unexpected places. Progressives called for it to break up monopolistic behavior in Big Tech, but some in Trump’s orbit, including Vice President JD Vance, also supported Khan in her fights against tech elites, albeit for the different goal of ending their supposed censorship of conservative speech.  But in January, with Khan out and Trump back in the White House, this dynamic all but collapsed. Trump released an executive order in February promising to “rein in” independent agencies like the FTC that wage influence without consulting the president. The next month, he started taking that vow to—and past—its legal limits. In March, he fired the only two Democratic commissioners at the FTC. On July 17 a federal court ruled that one of those firings, of commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, was illegal given the independence of the agency, which restored Slaughter to her position (the other fired commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, opted to resign rather than battle the dismissal in court, so his case was dismissed). Slaughter now serves as the sole Democrat. In naming the FTC in its action plan, the White House now goes a step further, painting the agency’s actions as a major obstacle to US victory in the “arms race” to develop better AI more quickly than China. It promises not just to change the agency’s tack moving forward, but to review and perhaps even repeal AI-related sanctions it has imposed in the past four years. How might this play out? Leah Frazier, who worked at the FTC for 17 years before leaving in May and served as an advisor to Khan, says it’s helpful to think about the agency’s actions against AI companies as falling into two areas, each with very different levels of support across political lines.  The first is about cases of deception, where AI companies mislead consumers. Consider the case of Evolv, or a recent case announced in April where the FTC alleges that a company called Workado, which offers a tool to detect whether something was written with AI, doesn’t have the evidence to back up its claims. Deception cases enjoyed fairly bipartisan support during her tenure, Frazier says. “Then there are cases about responsible use of AI, and those did not seem to enjoy too much popular support,” adds Frazier, who now directs the Digital Justice Initiative at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. These cases don’t allege deception; rather, they charge that companies have deployed AI in a way that harms people. The most serious of these, which resulted in perhaps the most significant AI-related action ever taken by the FTC and was investigated by Frazier, was announced in 2023. The FTC banned Rite Aid from using AI facial recognition in its stores after it found the technology falsely flagged people, particularly women and people of color, as shoplifters. “Acting on false positive alerts,” the FTC wrote, Rite Aid’s employees “followed consumers around its stores, searched them, ordered them to leave, [and] called the police to confront or remove consumers.”

    The FTC found that Rite Aid failed to protect people from these mistakes, did not monitor or test the technology, and did not properly train employees on how to use it. The company was banned from using facial recognition for five years.  This was a big deal. This action went beyond fact-checking the deceptive promises made by AI companies to make Rite Aid liable for how its AI technology harmed consumers. These types of responsible-AI cases are the ones Frazier imagines might disappear in the new FTC, particularly if they involve testing AI models for bias. “There will be fewer, if any, enforcement actions about how companies are deploying AI,” she says. The White House’s broader philosophy toward AI, referred to in the plan, is a “try first” approach that attempts to propel faster AI adoption everywhere from the Pentagon to doctor’s offices. The lack of FTC enforcement that is likely to ensue, Frazier says, “is dangerous for the public.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *