Vice President JD Vance convened an urgent Situation Room meeting to address a spiraling crisis after the Justice Department's memo denying the existence of an Epstein client list "backfired spectacularly," triggering a firestorm within the MAGA base and prompting the Wall Street Journal to prepare a damaging article about Trump's relationship with the disgraced financier.

That is according to a bombshell New York Times report based on an upcoming book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, who described Vance as appearing "panicked" as he told assembled senior officials: "This is a huge problem."

Ten days earlier, the Justice Department and FBI had jointly released a memo stating bluntly that their review found no "client list" of powerful men for whom Epstein allegedly procured underage girls and young women. Intended to quash years of speculation and end pressure campaigns for document release, the memo produced the opposite effect—igniting loud backlash among Trump's base.

According to the new report, Vance gathered the White House's top tier: Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, Communications Director Steven Cheung, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel joined via speakerphone.

According to those present, Vance appeared to have embraced conspiracy theories about Epstein and a hidden cabal of predators within America's ruling class. Wiles later told others that the vice president had revealed himself to be "a major conspiracy theorist." Another top official reported that Vance had been obsessively focused on the Epstein issue since the memo's release, privately pressing for full document disclosure and even encouraging a congressional investigation.

Vance proposed an extraordinary PR maneuver: enlisting Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein's longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. If Maxwell agreed to state Trump had no involvement in Epstein's wrongdoing, the optics could prove valuable to the president, Haberman and Swan are reporting.

But Vance's core argument centered on releasing all Epstein files immediately. He contended that Congress would eventually force disclosure anyway, with bipartisan momentum clearly building on Capitol Hill. Getting ahead of the story by voluntarily releasing everything—including material about Trump—would at least demonstrate transparency and break the news cycle.

"The alternative was to let the story drag on for months as information dripped out, each new revelation renewing the cycle of suspicion and fury. Better to rip the bandage off and move on," according to the account.

Vance pushed even further, arguing the administration should release unsubstantiated allegations and anecdotes about Trump. "They were going to surface regardless, and if the administration published them first, it would demonstrate good faith and take the oxygen out of the conspiracy theories," he reportedly said.

His arguments encountered skepticism from most in the room. However, some advisers believed the administration should have Justice Department officials hold a news conference to explain their Epstein position—going beyond the memo that triggered the crisis.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faces a treacherous path to confirmation, with a skeptical Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) now forced to rally his fractious caucus behind a nominee increasingly viewed with suspicion by his own party.

According to Washington Post reporting by Theodoric Meyer and Perry Stein, Blanche's nomination is on shaky ground. A handful of increasingly restive Republican senators are signaling willingness to defy Trump on this high-profile pick—and a single GOP senator could block him entirely in committee.

Blanche's central problem: his role in designing the controversial $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate people allegedly wrongly prosecuted or investigated by the government. The proposal triggered rare Republican revolt over fears the money would reward Capitol rioters from January 6, 2021.

According to the Post, the math is shaky for Blanche's prospects. With Republicans' narrow Senate majority, Blanche can afford to lose only three GOP votes if all Democrats oppose him—which Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Dick Durbin (D-IL) expects they will.

But Blanche may never get a floor vote. The Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a confirmation hearing next month after the July 4 recess. Any single Republican senator could block him in committee, killing his nomination before it reaches the full chamber.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), one of the fund's strongest Republican critics, is signaling he remains unconvinced.

"I have to be convinced that Todd is not the president's personal attorney who happens to be attorney general, but that Todd is the attorney general who used to be the president's personal attorney," Cassidy told reporters—a pointed reminder that Blanche previously served as Trump's personal defense lawyer.

Two other committee Republicans are raising serious red flags. Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) have both publicly opposed the weaponization fund. Tillis has additionally raised alarms about Blanche's January 6 rhetoric, including a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in which he praised Trump's pardons of Capitol rioters.

The Post reported that Tillis previously blocked Ed Martin, Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, over Martin's defense of January 6 rioters.

"I have no red lines right now, but we're going to have an interesting conversation," Cornyn told reporters—language that signals potential trouble ahead.

Even Thune, tasked with shepherding Blanche through confirmation, acknowledged the minefield. "He'll have to make his arguments," Thune said on CNBC. "And I think the one thing that obviously people are paying a lot of attention to is this question around the weaponization fund and the questions that he's answered around that already. I would expect that will continue to be a factor through the course of the confirmation process."