Twitter may be a shell of its former self these days, but we’ve got to admit it’s still a place for experiences you’d struggle to replicate anywhere else. Like this weekend, when the account of Sesame Street’s Elmo was hacked and the fuzzy red muppet started posting antisemitic garbage and accusing Donald Trump of being in the Epstein files. Happy Monday.
Champagne for my Real Friendsby Andrew Egger To hear Trump supporters tell it, the core of “America First” is the belief that America has tried to police the internal affairs of the rest of the world for too long. Why are we trying to solve everyone else’s problems, they ask, when we have all these problems here at home? It’s a principle of exclusion that rules out everything from weapon shipments to Ukraine to refugee admissions policies to aid programs in Africa that save millions of lives: Doesn’t help Americans, don’t need it.¹ So it was interesting last week to see Donald Trump announce the U.S. would soon reenter trade war with Brazil, a substantial U.S. trading partner with whom the U.S. has a trade surplus. Economists groaned as Trump pledged a new 50 percent tariff (to start) on Brazilian imports, against which President Lula immediately promised to retaliate. Here’s the Wall Street Journal:
Why did Trump do this? In large part, he said in a letter to Brazil’s president, because of “Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections”—by which he meant the criminal prosecution of the right-wing former president, Trump’s buddy, Jair Bolsonaro. The tariff letter’s entire preamble is a pro-Bolsonaro screed:
Whatever one thinks of Bolsonaro’s prosecution, Trump’s letter is both ridiculous and decidedly out of line with the America First ethos. Brazilian secret police could be beating Bolsonaro daily with hammers and administering regular electric shocks to his testicles²—it still wouldn’t make America First sense to declare mutually destructive economic war on the place. But of course, this is nothing new for Trump. He is happy to indulge “America First” thinking when it comes to barring the door to refugees or yanking food from the mouths of starving African children. But he draws the line when it comes to other countries mistreating leaders he considers his pals. In addition to Bolsonaro, Trump has kept up a regular drumbeat of grievance against world leaders he either likes or identifies with. He’s inveighed against the corruption trial of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even lobbing veiled threats that Netanyahu’s charges could imperil U.S. aid to Israel. And he has denounced France’s criminal conviction of another far-right leader, Marine Le Pen: “It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers.” (For more on all that, see Will Saletan’s excellent homepage story this morning.) Trump, in other words, is no less interested in the internal affairs of the rest of the world than the most diabolical globalist. All that differs is the vision he wishes to impose. The multilateral liberal world order based on the cultivation of cooperative institutions is out. A new MAGA world order predicated on perpetual jubilee for Trump’s personal friends and political allies is in. Epstein and Trump: What We Knowby William Kristol There’s a lot that is mysterious about the Jeffrey Epstein case. There’s a lot we don’t know, and a lot of hypotheses and suppositions are understandably swirling around. So perhaps it’s worth simply specifying a few things we do know. 1. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were friends. Epstein told Michael Wolff in 2017, “I was Donald’s closest friend for ten years.” But don’t take Epstein’s word for it. Here’s Donald Trump in 2002, before Epstein first got in trouble with the law: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” In other words, Trump was close to Epstein during many of the years in which he was engaged in a massive criminal enterprise of the sex trafficking of young girls. And Trump knew then of Epstein’s interest in girls “on the younger side.” I think one can safely say that, at the very least, Trump turned a blind eye to the activities Epstein was engaged in, and that Trump had no problem consorting with Epstein during those years. 2. Trump is in the Epstein files. We know this because Trump is named in the Epstein flight logs, which are part of those files. How many more times and in how much detail does Trump feature elsewhere in those voluminous files? That we don’t know. Given that Trump was close to Epstein during the years Epstein was engaged in the activities for which he was charged, it would seem plausible that Trump appeared more times, perhaps many. Indeed, it would be entirely conceivable that Trump was questioned by investigators about Epstein. Which raises the question: Was he? And, if so, what did he say? 3. The decision to shut down any further disclosure of the Epstein files can fairly be ascribed to President Trump. A week ago, the Justice Department and the FBI released their brief statement about their investigation of Epstein. It’s inconceivable that this statement was released without President Trump’s knowledge and approval. Indeed, I think it is inconceivable that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel didn’t often discuss with President Trump the massive review of the files they were conducting. In any case, it is right, in a unitary executive branch (which the Trump White House routinely touts), to ascribe the decision on the Epstein matter to the president. The DOJ-FBI memo says that “it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” But it is totally appropriate to ascribe that determination to the president, Donald Trump. The DOJ-FBI memo also claims, “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.” It has always seemed odd that no one other than Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were charged in this conspiracy. None of their colleagues or subordinates in the procurement of the victims have ever been charged. None of Epstein’s friends who took advantage of and even raped the young victims have ever been charged. This situation could have been remedied by the Trump administration. And after all, it’s not as if President Trump is generally averse to ordering further investigations of individuals whom he suspects guilty of past misdeeds. But in this case, he chose not to. So the facts are these: Trump and Epstein were friends. Trump’s name is the Epstein files. Trump is responsible for the decision that no more information be released on Epstein. These are facts, not conspiracy theories. And facts are stubborn things. AROUND THE BULWARK
Quick HitsSTARTING TO GET SUSPICIOUS OF THIS PUTIN CHARACTER: We’ll believe it when we see it, but it’s looking like we might see a substantial shift from Trump with regards to U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine. Here’s NBC News:
Some of us noticed a while back that Russia’s president was perfectly comfortable buttering Trump up one day and poisoning/bombing/pushing people out of windows the next. But it’s nice to see that realization dawning on the president at last—at least until the next beautiful phone call. BIDEN SPEAKS OUT: It was back in March when Trump first started insisting that Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons of Trump’s enemies were null and void because they had been signed via autopen and therefore—Trump was pretty sure—had taken place without his knowledge. At the time, Andrew wrote: “You know who it sure would be nice to hear from about this? Joe Biden. Trump’s ridiculous claim is grounded in the notion that Biden’s pardons were carried out behind his back and without his knowledge. Would it be so much to ask Biden to publicly refute this?” Well, hey, better late than never? Biden finally gave an interview on the subject this weekend, telling the New York Times that he had shielded Trump targets like Gen. Mark Milley in order to protect them from spurious—but financially ruinous—criminal investigations. “Everybody knows how vindictive he is, so we knew that they’d do what they’re doing now,” Biden said. “I consciously made all those decisions.” Although his White House has failed so far to uncover evidence that pardons went out under Biden’s name without his knowledge, Trump continues to insist Biden’s performance in last year’s presidential debate is proof enough that he wasn’t mentally fit to sign off on them. “I’ve uncovered, you know, the human mind,” he said last month. “I was in a debate with the human mind, and I don’t think he knew what the hell he was doing.” BIG BEAUTIFUL FALLOUT: The Big Beautiful Bill may be law now, but the political fights around it are just getting started. As Politico notes this morning, many of the bill’s most aggressive spending cuts won’t be implemented for years—and the groups who came out worse in the bill’s negotiations, like hospitals, “are already gearing up to use the next two and a half years to persuade lawmakers to rescind them.” Meanwhile, governors are being forced to navigate a hostile new budgetary landscape created by the law, which achieved many of its spending cuts by asking states to pick up the tab. Here’s Politico again:
Cheap Shots
1 In the real world, of course, these programs did have significant benefits for Americans. But thus runs the thinking. 2 Which—to be clear—they are not! You’re a free subscriber to The Bulwark—the largest pro-democracy news and analysis bundle on Substack. For unfettered access to all our newsletters and to access ad-free and member-only shows, become a paying subscriber.We’re going to send you a lot of content—newsletters and alerts for shows so you can read and watch on your schedule. Don’t care for so much email? You can update your personal email preferences as often as you like. To update the list of newsletter or alerts you received from The Bulwark, click here.
|
America Thirst
July 14, 2025
0
