In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Join Robert Scheer in this gripping episode of Scheer Intelligence as he delves into the complex web of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal — a story that transcends mere gossip and exposes the deep-seated corruption within American society. With special guest Nolan Higdon, a critical media scholar, Scheer explores the troubling connections between Epstein and elite figures like Lawrence Summers, Bill Clinton, and others. Together, they dissect the media’s role in shaping narratives around power and privilege, questioning the moral fabric of a system that allows such decadence to flourish. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion that challenges conventional narratives and examines the implications of this scandal for democracy and accountability in America.
Here is a link to Nolan Higdon’s Gaslight Gazette and his Disinfo Detox Podcast which we reprint here with permission from guest:
Unmasking Epstein: Power, Blackmail, and the Press’s Failure
A Call for Journalists to Uphold Their First Amendment Duty
For those new to the Jeffrey Epstein story, I’ve compiled my analysis and a helpful timeline of events here.
“President [Trump] Expected to Sign Bill on Release of Epstein Files” read the November 19, 2025 New York Times headline. The report came a day after the House of Representatives passed a bill to release the government’s case files on the deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with only a single dissenting vote. The Senate followed with unanimous approval. What the files contain, and whom they implicate, remains to be seen. But their impending release marks a pivotal moment in an Epstein saga that has consumed and distorted political discourse throughout the entire first year of Trump’s second presidential term. While much of the coverage frames the release as either a bipartisan effort to seek justice for Epstein’s victims or a political challenge for the president, a far more complex and unsettling question remains largely unaddressed by the mainstream press: Are some of our elected leaders, past or present, compromised by influence operations? Yet there is still time. The press now has a rare opportunity, and a constitutional responsibility, to confront these questions with the rigor and courage the public deserves.
Trump Under Fire
Since Congress returned after the November 2025 shutdown, Trump has responded to the looming release of the Epstein files with efforts to silence dissent. He publicly denounced Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who supported releasing the files, as a “traitor.” After Representative Lauren Boebert advocated for releasing the files, he summoned her to the Situation Room, a space typically reserved for high-level classified briefings, in what many viewed as an act of intimidation. He appeared to attempt to purchase silence from convicted, and imprisoned Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell by refusing to rule out pardoning her for all crimes, and by relocating her to a ‘Club Fed’ facility where she enjoyed extra bathroom breaks, computer access, and even puppies, despite her role in trafficking children.
Pressure on Trump intensified on November 12, 2025, when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released 20,000 pages of documents obtained from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. They include his communications up until his death in prison in 2019. Trump is referenced 1,500 times in the documents, including Epstein’s claim that Trump liked watching “young women” in Epstein’s pool and “spent hours” in Epstein’s house with one of the victims. By November 18, 2025, the day Congress was set to vote on releasing the files, he lashed out at a Bloomberg reporter who asked about the files by calling her “piggy.” That same day, he threatened an ABC reporter with revocation of their broadcast license for asking about Epstein. Presumably to save face after what was seen as an embarrassing political failure to control his party members, who were set to approve the release, Trump reversed course and supported the release of the files.
With the release of the files now certain, Trump shifted gears, attempting to convince the public that the files were only damaging to Democrats. Trump warned that Democrats would “regret” the release of the Epstein files, an assertion that appears to encompass investigations by the Department of Justice into prominent members of the Democratic establishment mentioned in 20,000 documents: Harvard University’s Larry Summers, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and former President Bill Clinton.
Upon the release, Summers, who served under both President Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, quickly stepped back from public appearances and resigned from OpenAI’s board. Yet he remains a professor at Harvard University despite email exchanges with Epstein after the sex offender’s 2008 conviction, in which Summers suggested that women had lower IQs than men, and admitted to using Epstein to help him conduct an affair with a woman he referred to as his “mentee.” Meanwhile, Clinton’s spokesperson insisted the emails reveal no wrongdoing on the former president’s part (more on that below), while Hoffman, who connected with Epstein in 2015, seven years after Epstein’s conviction, maintains the relationship was strictly professional, a claim not disputed by the documents reviewed thus far.
Epstein’s Web: Government Ties and Covert Manipulations
While the sordid details of Summers and Trump received a fair amount of media coverage, less was paid to the documents which referenced Epstein’s connections to the Russian, the United States, and Israeli governments. Emails suggest that Epstein may have held compromising information on U.S. politicians that could have been shared with foreign governments, potentially allowing those governments to compromise American leaders. In the emails, Epstein claims to have photographs of Trump with “girls” in “bikinis,” but it is not known if they were under the legal age of consent.
In a series of emails, Epstein claimed that he had been sharing information with Russia about President Trump. A March 2018 email from Epstein’s brother Mark to Steve Bannon asked whether Russian President Vladimir Putin had “the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.” “Bubba” was Bill Clinton’s nickname, though Mark recently insisted that the reference in the email had nothing to do with the former president. The denial only deepened the ambiguity as Mark did not deny that a picture existed. So, did the photo exist? If so, who is Bubba? And if the email was a joke, why did Mark later tell News Nation that “Jeffrey definitely had dirt on Trump?”
More damning emails reveal Epstein’s connections to Israel. Drop Site News cited emails documenting “Epstein’s role in brokering intelligence deals for Israel.” These include facilitating a security agreement between Israel and Mongolia, establishing a backchannel between Israel and Russia during the Syrian civil war, and acting as a facilitator of a security agreement between Israel and the African nation of Côte d’Ivoire. The emails also reveal that Epstein hosted Yoni Koren—a Mossad agent and former aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak—at his home. Again, all the evidence mentioned so far is available to the legacy news media, yet they appear unwilling to confront the questions it raises.
Media Blindspots: Ignoring Power in Favor of Partisanship
The legacy press has shown little interest in investigating Epstein’s ties to governments or the broader implications. This was made crystal clear by CNN’s Dana Bash. On November 16, 2025, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines when she apologized on CNN for engaging in “toxic” rhetoric. This exchange with reporter Dana Bash received widespread coverage from press outlets and content creators, yet most avoided mentioning what Greene insinuated about Epstein and the intelligence community. It is important to note that Greene serves on the Oversight Committee and therefore is privy to sensitive information regarding Epstein. However, as a politician, her claims should be approached with caution and trusted only when supported by substantial evidence.
During the interview, Bash asked Greene, “You questioned who and what country is putting so much pressure on Trump to keep the Epstein files hidden. And you included a picture about donations from the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]. What are you trying to say there?” Greene responded that asking about the intelligence connections between Epstein and Israel is fair, “especially when we saw information recently come out in these emails…We saw Jeffrey Epstein with ties to [Former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Barak. We saw him making business deals with them, including deals involving the Israeli government, which seem to have led into their intelligence agencies. I think the right question to ask is: was Jeffrey Epstein working for Israel?”
Indeed, Drop Site News reported on the emails Greene referenced. Fair and Accuracy in Reporting acknowledged the credibility of Drop Site News’s reporting but noted that it was largely ignored by legacy media because, in the months prior, The New York Times repeatedly dismissed claims linking Epstein to Israeli intelligence as “conspiracy theories.” This had the effect of leading audiences to dismiss these accusations based on the outlet’s influence.
Bash, apparently unaware of the evidence that she should have reviewed before asking that question, said, “I just want to be clear. Are you saying Israel is pushing the president of the United States to cover up the Epstein files? And what evidence do you have that that is the case?” This was a strange question, given that Greene had just cited the evidence. Nonetheless, Greene replied, “No, I simply—no, I simply asked.” Which seems to be more than Bash is willing to do. Whether due to ignorance, negligence, or institutional caution, such exchanges illustrate how the press shapes public perception by filtering which parts of the Epstein story are legitimate enough to acknowledge.
The Ethical Crisis: Epstein’s Influence on Power and the Press
The failures extend far beyond CNN. Complicating matters further, in their communications with Epstein, journalists and politicians acted as if it was a fact that Epstein had damning material on Trump, but the revelations were not reported to the public. Take the New York Times’ Landon Thomas Jr., a financial reporter, trusted Epstein as a source for his reporting on Trump between 2015 and 2018. In the emails, Thomas repeatedly referenced Epstein’s alleged knowledge of Trump’s interest in “young women,” including Epstein’s claim that he had “given” Trump one of his former girlfriends. Yet Thomas never reported this information, nor did his colleagues. As Krystal Ball of Breaking Points pointed out, even if Thomas did not report this information, much of this material existed on NYT servers for other reporters to access. Even Thomas was shocked his colleagues did not report on Epstein’s claims. In a damning email from May 2016, Thomas wrote to Epstein, “I am kind of shocked that our reporters did not contact you[.] re the Trump/women story. Seems to me he got off rather lightly.”
Others in the press, such as reporter Michael Wolff, also viewed Epstein as a valuable source for damaging President Trump’s public image. Wolff appears in emails strategizing with Epstein about whether they should provide answers to Trump regarding his relationship with Epstein or let him “hang himself.” It is not clear if Wolff or Epstein or both or neither were communicating directly with Trump at the time.
The documents raise serious questions about journalistic ethics, revealing that both Thomas and Wolff advised Epstein on how to weaponize damaging information about Trump to protect Epstein’s reputation ahead of an upcoming book by thriller author James Patterson and journalists John Connolly and Tim Malloy. Thomas’ relationship with Epstein would eventually bring down his career. He was forced to resign from The New York Times in 2019 after admitting to editors that he solicited a $30,000 donation from Epstein.
It was not only journalists but also at least one politician who recognized Epstein as a valuable source brimming with compromising information. Stacey Plaskett, the delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, also seemed to be convinced that Epstein had dirt on Trump. So much so that she live-tweeted with Epstein during a 2019 House Oversight Committee hearing on Michael Cohen, over a decade since Epstein’s conviction, raising serious questions about the proximity between political power and Epstein’s influence.
Conclusion: What the Epstein Files Teach Us About Power and the Press
The legacy news media have long possessed the sources and evidence needed to expose critical aspects of the Epstein saga. Yet much of the story is only now slowly emerging through these recent document releases. Given Epstein’s proximity to power, these revelations will inevitably raise uncomfortable questions for many citizens who have tried to avoid sounding like the internet “cranks” they disdain (believe me, I feel it every time I write about this). The press is constitutionally entrusted to raise these questions responsibly and base their reporting on solid evidence. Transparency about those in power is essential, because sunlight remains the best disinfectant.
Historically, the media has faced justified criticism for mishandling the Epstein story, most famously Amy Robach’s complaint that ABC News “quashed” her Epstein report in 2015. Some journalists, like Dana Bash, choose to ignore glaring facts, while others, such as Megyn Kelly, attempt to minimize the gravity of the issue, equating “barely legal” with Epstein victims as young as 15 years old. Even though 15 is not legal, let alone barley legal. It is also disturbing that entire outlets persist in referring to victims as “young girls” rather than “children,” a dangerous softening of language that should alarm everyone.
Yet for every soft-peddling media outlet, and for every Kelly and Bash, there are courageous reporters producing serious journalism—like the Wall Street Journal’s investigation into Epstein’s birthday book or CBS’s exposé on the suspicious prison video from Epstein’s final days. This kind of fearless reporting is exactly what the public needs. If the president or anyone else, regardless of their political affiliation, is compromised, the public deserves to know. That is journalism’s essential role. So go down that rabbit hole because if the revelations of 2025 teach us anything, it is this: the real danger was never simply what Epstein knew, but what the American media chose to ignore.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.
Nolan Higdon
Nolan Higdon is a founding member of the Critical Media Literacy Conference of the Americas, Project Censored National Judge, author, and university lecturer at Merrill College and the Education Department at University of California, Santa Cruz.
His most recent books include The Anatomy of Fake News: A Critical News Literacy Education (UC Press, 2020) and The Podcaster’s Dilemma: Decolonizing Podcasters in the Era of Surveillance Capitalism (Wiley, 2021). In addition, he has been a contributor to Truthout and Counter-Punch; a source of expertise for numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, CNBC, and San Francisco Chronicle.
Please share this story and help us grow our network!
Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer, publisher of ScheerPost and award-winning journalist and author of a dozen books, has a reputation for strong social and political writing over his nearly 60 years as a journalist. His award-winning journalism has appeared in publications nationwide—he was Vietnam correspondent and editor of Ramparts magazine, national correspondent and columnist for the Los Angeles Times—and his in-depth interviews with Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev and others made headlines. He co-hosted KCRW’s political program Left, Right and Center and now hosts Scheer Intelligence, an independent ScheerPost podcast with people who discuss the day’s most important issues.