It's not Jeffrey Epstein who will bring Trump down

Back in late March, I wrote a piece about US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth committing what some at the time said was the biggest breach in national security in US history. Hegseth “accidentally texted” war plans to the editor of The Atlantic. Hegseth also organized those war plans using an unsecured messaging platform, which pretty much guaranteed America’s enemies knew about them in advance.

My argument in that piece: in another time and place, this historic scandal would have led to the downfall of powerful men, but we live in this time and place, of autocratic rule, in which Donald Trump is seen by his followers as literally infallible. In such an age, old-fashioned political scandals aren’t possible. “But her emails” was the last of a dying breed.

I wrote that piece believing there would never be daylight between Trump and MAGA or between Trump and a rightwing media apparatus that has the power to bend the will of the Washington press corps.

But then came the Jeffrey Epstein memo released by the Department of Justice, which communicated to the Trump’s followers that the truth about how the world really works – QAnon – is not only false but they were suckers for believing it. That triggered asubterranean reaction.

All of a sudden, figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson are questioning Trump’s intentions, which means reporting by the mainstream press is having more impact than it normally would.

This is important. The choices made by the Washington press corps are often determined by whether they will affect the president’s base. The Hegseth story was serious on the merits. It was worthy of months of coverage. But it didn’t get far, because MAGA thought either it was a nothingburger or blamed reporters for making Trump look bad. The president was never responsible for his choices. So the scandal died.

But the questions are now coming from inside the house. The media landscape is so profoundly different that if mainstream reporters start talking about Trump’s age and infirmity with the same frequently and intensity with which they talked about Joe Biden’s, it will be entirely due to the MAGA faithful’s fruitless search for a good-faith reason why their champion is standing with “the deep state,” instead of against it.

I don’t want to get ahead of myself, so I called in Jennifer Schulze. She’s a longtime Chicago journalist and publisher of Indistinct Chatter, a newsletter about the news.

Trump himself won’t let the Epstein story die, Jennifer told me, giving reporters more opportunities to dig in: “There is something rather enjoyable about watching this hot mess.”

John Stoehr: The White House press corps is normally deferential to Donald Trump, in the sense that reporters haven't determined how aggressive they should be with a man seen by many as invincible. The Epstein case may be against that grain. What are you seeing?

Jennifer Schulze: It's too early to tell where the press corps comes down, given that so many who routinely ask Trump questions aren't news reporters, but MAGA personalities. But the ones who are actually journalists — and still permitted to be in the pool — are going to keep asking questions. Good for them. It is a very big story with lots of layers. Trump is keeping it in the news, too. So every day, reporters keep having additional opportunities to ask him and his administration about it.

Perhaps the more immediate question is about the MAGA media. There seems to be a split, and that split is driving the story that the real journalists are covering. So ... thank God for MAGA media?

MAGA’s varied responses to the Epstein story is a story, and it will continue to be a story as this mess shakes out. We have come to expect MAGA media to be in lockstep with Trump, all promoting the same narrative, so it is newsworthy that these splits are developing.

I'm especially interested in watching what Fox does. So far, Trump's state media outlet is following his lead. Media Matters has a headline that says it all: "Trump told MAGA to be quiet about Jeffrey Epstein. Fox News obeyed." Media Matters has some interesting data to support that. It reports that last Monday, Fox mentioned Epstein only eight times but mentioned former President Joe Biden 158 times. Fox has really not broken from Trump in his second term, but like with other stories, the Fox audience may rebel at least a little bit.

Other MAGA media is reporting the story but you can feel their pain. Some are literally begging Trump to release the Epstein files. Others are flailing, trying to point the blame at Pam Bondi or Democrats. There is something rather enjoyable about watching this hot mess.

The Epstein issue seems to expose the problem of staffing your administration with MAGA media personalities. Dan Bongino, for instance, appears to have decided that he has more incentive to break with Trump than stick with him. And those incentives will snowball quickly inside and outside MAGA media. Thoughts?

Poor Dan Bongino.

For years, he railed to his very large audience about the Epstein files, promising to get to the bottom of it when Trump is elected. Now Trump's president (again) and Bongino lands the No. 2 job at the FBI, but what happens? He fails to deliver. What does he do? He calls in sick. Reality has kicked him (and many MAGA faithful) in the butt.

Who knows what Bongino will end up doing. I'm not sure it matters. People go in and out of Trumpworld all the time. True believers and grifters like Bongino can't quit Trump for good. I do hope more news coverage turns to how much money Bongino and others have made by polluting the information ecosystem with the Epstein file lies, etc. It has been their lifeblood. But so, too, has their connection to Trump

The Democrats have done a pretty good job so far of turning the Epstein case into a real wedge issue. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is notoriously bad at media, said that either Trump lied about the conspiracy or is covering it up, a brilliant framing of the story that complements the press corps' need to conflict. How does it look from your end?

This is the fighting stance many Democratic voters have been looking for from Democrats. The Epstein case is nauseating (and yes, there are actual victims that deserve attention in the ongoing coverage), but it's a perfect opportunity for Democrats to hammer Trump on how one of his biggest conspiracy theories is falling apart, how his typically stuck-like-glue base is fracturing; how his appointees are flailing.

I do think Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time so I'm glad to see them giving it such a good effort. Trump has made it easy for Democrats in some respects. He's making mistake after mistake, and keeping the story front and center, because he is so remarkably undisciplined. The attack lines write themselves.

I also think a cowed news media is finding some spine with the Epstein coverage because, again, the stories almost write themselves. Every hour, there's a new outburst from Trump or MAGA media type, etc.

There has been nothing but scandals since day one, but the press corps has not been able to make any of them stick. I'm thinking here of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump could blame the media, the Democrats, the deep state, anyone, and the MAGA faithful would go along. Not this time, which means the Washington press corps can really dig in — until Trump fires Fed Chair Jerome Powell or starts a war. But even then, the MAGA faithful might not follow along.

Here's what's different: Trump is keeping the story in the headlines. He is like an open fire hose. As long as the press keeps asking about the Epstein files, he'll keep saying crazy stuff that becomes the basis for the next wave of stories. Meanwhile, reporters are digging up all kinds of sidebar stories, including the MAGA media response, Bongino watch, maneuvers by Congress, etc. We have the Wall Street Journal story about Trump's birthday letter to Epstein and how Trump himself called the editor to pressure her to kill the piece. Trump trying to kill a news story should be headline news for days.