A House subcommittee on Wednesday voted to subpoena the Department of Justice for files in the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein after Democrats successfully goaded GOP lawmakers to defy President Donald Trump and Republican leadership to support the action.

The vote showed the intensifying push for disclosures in the Epstein investigation even as House Speaker Mike Johnson — caught between demands from Trump and clamoring from his own members for the House to act — was sending lawmakers home a day early for its August recess. The House Committee on Oversight also issued a subpoena Wednesday for Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex offender and girlfriend of the late Epstein, to testify before committee officials in August.

Meanwhile, Democrats on a subcommittee of the powerful House Oversight Committee made a motion for the subpoena Wednesday afternoon. Three Republicans on the panel voted with Democrats for the subpoena, sending it through on an 8-2 vote tally.

The Republican subcommittee chairman, Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana, said that work was beginning to draft the subpoena but did not give a timeline for when it would be issued.

“I’ve never handled a subpoena like this. This is some fascinating stuff,” said Higgins, who voted against the motion.

Democrats cheered the action as proof that their push for disclosures in the Epstein investigation was growing stronger. The committee agreed to redact information on victims, yet Democrats successfully blocked a push by Republicans to only subpoena information that was deemed to be “credible” — language that Trump has also used when discussing what he would support releasing.

“Democrats are focused on transparency and are pushing back against the corruption against Donald Trump. What is Donald Trump hiding that he won’t release the Epstein files?” said Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee.

Democrats push for disclosure of the Epstein files

Earlier Wednesday, Johnson had said there was no need to vote on a separate piece of bipartisan legislation calling for the release of the Epstein files this week because the Trump administration is “already doing everything within their power to release them.”

Yet Democrats have delighted in pressing Republicans to support the release of the files. Their efforts halted the GOP’s legislative agenda for the week and turned attention to an issue that Trump has unsuccessfully implored his supporters to forget about.

“They’re fleeing our work, our job and sending us back home because they don’t want to vote to release these files. This is something that they ran on. This is something that they talked about: the importance of transparency, holding pedophiles accountable,” said Rep. Summer Lee, the Pennsylvania Democrat who pushed for the subpoena.
Democrats have seized on Epstein files to divide GOP

Democratic leaders are hoping to make the issue about much more than just Epstein, who died in his New York jail cell six years ago while he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges.

“Why haven’t Republicans released the Epstein files to the American people? It’s reasonable to conclude that Republicans are continuing to protect the lifestyles of the rich and the shameless, even if that includes pedophiles,” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries at a news conference. “So it’s all connected.”

It comes as both parties are gearing up to take their messaging to voters on Trump’s big multitrillion-dollar tax breaks and spending cuts bill. For Republicans, it’s “beautiful” legislation that will spark economic growth; for Democrats, it’s an “ugly” gift mostly to the richest Americans that undermines health care for low-income people.

Yet as furor has grown on the right over the Trump administration’s reversal on promises related to Epstein, several Democrats have seized on the opportunity to divide Republicans on the issue.

“This goes to a fundamental sense of, ‘Is our government co-opted by rich and powerful people that isn’t looking out for ordinary Americans? Or can we have a government that looks out for ordinary Americans?’” said Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who has put forward a bipartisan bill meant to force the release of the files.

Republican leaders accuse Democrats of caring about the issue purely for political gain. They point out that the Department of Justice held on to the Epstein investigation through the presidency of Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump’s Justice Department has also sought the release of testimony from secret grand jury proceedings in the Epstein case, but a federal judge in Florida rejected that request on Wednesday. A similar records request is still pending in New York.

President Donald Trump announced a trade framework with Japan on Tuesday, placing a 15% tax on goods imported from that nation.

“This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it,” Trump posted on Truth Social, adding that the United States “will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.”

The president said Japan would invest “at my direction” $550 billion into the U.S. and would “open” its economy to American autos and rice. The 15% tax on imported Japanese goods is a meaningful drop from the 25% rate that Trump, in a recent letter to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, said would be levied starting Aug. 1.

Early Wednesday, Ishiba acknowledged the new trade agreement, saying it would benefit both sides and help them work together.

With the announcement, Trump is seeking to tout his ability as a dealmaker — even as his tariffs, when initially announced in early April led to a market panic and fears of slower growth that for the moment appear to have subsided. Key details remained unclear from his post, such as whether Japanese-built autos would face a higher 25% tariff that Trump imposed on the sector.

But the framework fits a growing pattern for Trump, who is eager to portray the tariffs as win for the U.S. His administration says the revenues will help reduce the budget deficit and more factories will relocate to America to avoid the import taxes and cause trade imbalances to disappear.

The wave of tariffs continues to be a source of uncertainty about whether it could lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses if companies simply pass along the costs. The problem was seen sharply Tuesday after General Motors reported a 35% drop in its net income during the second quarter as it warned that tariffs would hit its business in the months ahead, causing its stock to tumble.

As the Aug. 1 deadline for the tariff rates in his letters to world leaders is approaching, Trump also announced a trade framework with the Philippines that would impose a tariff of 19% on its goods, while American-made products would face no import taxes. The president also reaffirmed his 19% tariffs on Indonesia.

The U.S. ran a $69.4 billion trade imbalance on goods with Japan last year, according to the Census Bureau.

America had a trade imbalance of $17.9 billion with Indonesia and an imbalance of $4.9 billion with the Philippines. Both nations are less affluent than the U.S. and an imbalance means America imports more from those countries than it exports to them.

The president is set to impose the broad tariffs listed in his recent letters to other world leaders on Aug. 1, raising questions of whether there will be any breakthrough in talks with the European Union. At a Tuesday dinner, Trump said the EU would be in Washington on Wednesday for trade talks.

“We have Europe coming in tomorrow, the next day,” Trump told guests.

The president earlier this month sent a letter threatening the 27 member states in the EU with 30% taxes on their goods to be imposed starting on Aug. 1.

The Trump administration has a separate negotiating period with China that is currently set to run through Aug. 12 as goods from that nation are taxed at an additional 30% baseline.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he would be in the Swedish capital of Stockholm next Monday and Tuesday to meet with his Chinese counterparts. Bessent said his goal is to shift the American economy away from consumption and to enable more consumer spending in the manufacturing-heavy Chinese economy.

“President Trump is remaking the U.S. into a manufacturing economy,” Bessent said on the Fox Business Network show “Mornings with Maria.” “If we could do that together, we do more manufacturing, they do more consumption. That would be a home run for the global economy.”

San Francisco is set to ban homeless people from living in RVs by adopting strict new parking limits the mayor says are necessary to keep sidewalks clear and prevent trash buildup.

The policy, up for final approval by San Francisco supervisors Tuesday, targets at least 400 recreational vehicles in the city of 800,000 people. The RVs serve as shelter for people who can’t afford housing, including immigrant families with kids.

Those who live in them say they’re a necessary option in an expensive city where affordable apartments are impossible to find. But Mayor Daniel Lurie and other supporters of the policy say motor homes are not suitable for long-term living and the city has a duty to both provide shelter to those in need and clean up the streets.

“We absolutely want to serve those families, those who are in crisis across San Francisco,” said Kunal Modi, who advises the mayor on health, homelessness and family services. “We feel the responsibility to help them get to a stable solution. And at the same time, we want to make sure that that stability is somewhere indoors and not exposed in the public roadway.”

Critics of the plan, however, say that it’s cruel to force people to give up their only home in exchange for a shot at traditional housing when there is not nearly enough units for all the people who need help; the mayor is only offering additional money to help 65 households.

Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, says city officials are woefully behind on establishing details of an accompanying permit program, which will exempt RV residents from parking limits so long as they are working with homeless outreach staff to find housing.

“I think that there’s going to be people who lose their RVs. I think there’s going to be people who are able to get into shelter, but at the expense” of people with higher needs, like those sleeping on a sidewalk, she said.

San Francisco, like other U.S. cities, has seen an explosion in recent years of people living out of vehicles and RVs as the cost of living has risen. Banning oversized vehicles is part of Lurie’s pledge to clean up San Francisco streets, and part of a growing trend to require homeless people to accept offers of shelter or risk arrest or tows.
Strict new rules

The proposal sets a two-hour parking limit citywide for all RVs and oversized vehicles longer than 22 feet (7 meters) or higher than 7 feet (2 meters), regardless of whether they are being used as housing.

Under the accompanying permit program, RV residents registered with the city as of May are exempt from the parking limits. In exchange, they must accept the city’s offer of temporary or longer-term housing, and get rid of their RV when it’s time to move. The city has budgeted more than half a million dollars to buy RVs from residents at $175 per foot.

The permits will last for six months. People in RVs who arrive after May will not be eligible for the permit program and must abide by the two-hour rule, which makes it impossible for a family in an RV to live within city limits.

It first cleared the Board of Supervisors last week with two of 11 supervisors voting “no.”

RV dwellers can’t afford rent

Carlos Perez, 55, was among RV residents who told supervisors at a hearing this month that they could not afford the city’s high rents. Perez works full-time as a produce deliveryman and supports his brother, who lives with him and is unable to work due to a disability.

“We don’t do nothing wrong. We try to keep this street clean,” he said, as he showed his RV recently to an Associated Press journalist. “It’s not easy to be in a place like this.”

Yet, Perez also loves where he lives. The green-colored RV is decorated with a homey houseplant and has a sink and a tiny stove on which Carlos simmered a bean soup on a recent afternoon.

He’s lived in San Francisco for more than 30 years, roughly a decade of which has been in the RV in the working-class Bayview neighborhood. He can walk to work and it is close to the hospital where his brother receives dialysis multiple times a week.

Zach, another RV resident who requested being identified by his first name to not jeopardize his ability to get work, started living in the vehicle a dozen years ago after realizing that no matter how hard he worked, he still struggled to pay rent.

Now he works as a ride-hail driver and pursues his love of photography. He parks near Lake Merced in the city near the Pacific Ocean and pays $35 every two to four weeks to properly dispose of waste and fill the vehicle with fresh water.

He says Lurie’s plan is shortsighted. There is not enough housing available and many prefer to live in an RV over staying at a shelter, which may have restrictive rules. For Zach, who is able-bodied, maintains a clean space and has no dependents, moving to a shelter would be a step down, he says. Still, he expects to receive a permit.

“If housing were affordable, there is a very good chance I wouldn’t be out here,” he said.

RV dwellers say San Francisco should open a safe parking lot where residents could empty trash and access electricity. But city officials shuttered an RV lot in April, saying it cost about $4 million a year to service three dozen large vehicles and it failed to transition people to more stable housing.

The mayor’s new proposal comes with more money for beefed-up RV parking enforcement — but also an additional $11 million, largely for a small number of households to move to subsidized housing for a few years.

Officials acknowledge that may not be sufficient to house all RV dwellers, but notes that the city also has hotel vouchers and other housing subsidies.

Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college — a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government.

If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university’s favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard’s sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.

“This case involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,” the university said in its complaint. “All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.”

A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university’s.

Harvard’s lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump’s administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force.

The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.

Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard.

As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.

Harvard, which has the nation’s largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can’t absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.

In court filings, the school said the government “fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.”

The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.

“It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,” it said in court documents.

The research funding is only one front in Harvard’s fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard’s federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a “death sentence.”

Republicans are encountering early headaches in Senate races viewed as pivotal to maintaining the party’s majority in next year’s midterm elections, with recruitment failures, open primaries, infighting and a president who has been sitting on the sidelines.

Democrats still face an uphill battle. They need to net four seats to retake the majority, and most of the 2026 contests are in states that Republican President Donald Trump easily won last November.

But Democrats see reasons for hope in Republicans’ challenges. They include a nasty primary in Texas that could jeopardize a seat Republicans have held for decades. In North Carolina and Georgia, the GOP still lacks a clear field of candidates. Trump’s influence dials up the uncertainty as he decides whether to flex his influential endorsement to stave off intraparty fights.

Republicans stress that it remains early in the election cycle and say there is still plenty of time for candidates to establish themselves and Trump to wade in. The president, said White House political director James Blair, has been working closely with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

“I won’t get ahead of the president but look, him and leader Thune have been very aligned. I expect them to be aligned and work closely,” he said.

Trump’s timing, allies say, also reflects the far more disciplined approach by him and his political operation, which are determined for Republicans to gain seats in both the Senate and the House.

Democrats have long dreamed of winning statewide office in this ruby red state. Could a nasty GOP primary be their ticket?

National Republicans and GOP Senate strategists are ringing alarm bells amid concerns that state Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is facing a bevy of personal and ethical questions, could prevail over Sen. John Cornyn for the nomination.

They fear Paxton would be a disastrous general election candidate, forcing Republicans to invest tens of millions of dollars they believe would be better spent in other states.

Texans for a Conservative Majority, a super political action committee supporting Cornyn, a onetime Trump critic, began airing television ads this past week promoting his support for Trump’s package of tax breaks and spending cuts.

Don’t expect the upbeat tone from the pro-Cornyn super PAC to hold long. Paxton was acquitted after a Republican-led impeachment trial in 2023 over allegations of bribery and abuse of office, which also exposed an extramarital affair. His wife, Angela, filed for divorce on July 10, referring to “recent discoveries” in announcing her decision to end her marriage of 38 years “on biblical grounds.”

“Ken Paxton has embarrassed himself, his family, and we look forward to exposing just how bad he’s embarrassed our state in the coming months,” said Aaron Whitehead, the super PAC’s executive director. Trump adviser Chris LaCivita, who comanaged Trump’s 2024 campaign, is advising the group.

But Cornyn has had a cool relationship with Trump over the years, while Paxton is a longtime Trump ally. And Paxton raised more than three times as much as Cornyn in the second quarter, $2.9 million compared with $804,000, according to Federal Elections Commission reports.

As President Donald Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime.

On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump’s long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

It’s one way he’s trying to get the historic verdict overturned.

The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides’ arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president’s request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date.

But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president “a class of one” and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was “anomalous” for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court.

Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively.

The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court.

Trump’s Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Everything about this cries out for federal court,” Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump’s historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall argued. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown. Trump hasn’t done that, Wu argued.

While “this defendant is an unusual defendant,” Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial.

House Republicans were grasping late Thursday to formulate a response to the Trump administration’s handling of records in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, ultimately putting forward a resolution that carries no legal weight but nodded to the growing demand for greater transparency.

The House resolution, which could potentially be voted on next week, will do practically nothing to force the Justice Department to release more records in the case. Still, it showed how backlash from the Republican base is putting pressure on the Trump administration and roiling GOP lawmakers.

The House was held up for hours Thursday from final consideration of President Donald Trump’s request for about $9 billion in government funding cuts because GOP leaders were trying to respond to demands from their own ranks that they weigh in on the Epstein files. In the late evening they settled on the resolution as an attempt to simultaneously placate calls from the far-right for greater transparency and satisfy Trump, who has called the issue a “hoax” that his supporters should forget about.

Yet the House resolution was the latest demonstration of how practically no one is moving on from Attorney General Pam Bondi’s promises to publicly release documents related to Epstein. Since he was found dead in his New York jail cell in August 2019 following his arrest on sex trafficking charges, the well-connected financier has loomed large among conservatives and conspiracy theorists who have now lashed out at Trump and Bondi for declining to release more files in the case.

“The House Republicans are for transparency, and they’re looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House. We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday afternoon.

Democrats vehemently decried the resolution’s lack of force. They have advanced their own legislation, with support from nine Republicans, that would require the Justice Department to release more information on the case.

Rep. Jim McGovern, who led the Democrats’ debate against the Republican resolution Thursday night, called it a “glorified press release” and “a fig leaf so they can move on from this issue.”

Under pressure from his own GOP members, Johnson had to demonstrate action on the Epstein files or risk having Republicans support the Democratic measures that would force the release of nearly all documents.

“The American people simply need to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at a news conference. “Democrats didn’t put this into the public domain. The conspiracy theory provocateur-in-chief Donald Trump is the one, along with his extreme MAGA Republican associates, who put this whole thing into the public domain for years. And now they are reaping what they have sown.”

Still, Democrats, who hold minorities in both chambers, have relished the opportunity to make Republicans repeatedly block their attempts to force the Justice Department to release the documents.

Trump in recent years has suggested he would release more information about the investigation into Epstein, especially amid speculation over a supposed list of Epstein’s clients.

In February, the Justice Department released some government documents regarding the case, but there were no new revelations. After a months-long review of additional evidence, the department earlier this month released a video meant to prove that Epstein killed himself, but said no other files related to the case would be made public.

A White House spokeswoman said Thursday that Trump would not recommend a special counsel in the case. But later Thursday, the president said he had asked Bondi to seek the release of testimony from grand jury proceedings in the case.

President Donald Trump is countering criticism of the Justice Department’s failure to release much-hyped records around the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, trying to place blame on former government officials.

On Tuesday, he accused former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well as former FBI Director James Comey, of making up such documents.

“I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden ... ,” Trump told members of the press at the White House before departing for an event in Pennsylvania.

The president on Wednesday posted on Truth Social blaming Democrats in general for a “new SCAM” that “we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.”

Epstein was arrested in 2019 and found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month later. Investigators concluded that he killed himself.

Trump presented no evidence in claiming that Democrats and Comey tampered with documents related to Epstein’s case. Comey was fired in 2017, two years before Epstein’s arrest, and has not returned to the government since. Obama was long gone from the White House by the time of Epstein’s death. During Biden’s presidency, the Justice Department put on trial Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and secured a conviction against her, but there is zero indication that he or anyone from the White House had anything at any point to do with that case.

Comey was a Republican for most of his adult life, but said in 2016 that he was that he was no longer registered with the party.

Trump suggested last year that he was considering releasing information about the Epstein case if he won a second term. In February, the Justice Department released some government documents regarding the case, but there were no new revelations. Then, earlier this month, it acknowledged that a months-long review of additional evidence in the government’s possession had not revealed a list of clients and said no more files related to the case — other than a video meant to prove that Epstein killed himself — would be made public. The announcement led to outcry from Trump supporters.

Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared to intimate in a Fox News interview in February that a client list was “sitting on my desk” to be reviewed for release. She said last week that she was referring to the Epstein case file generally, as opposed to an actual client list. Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino then had a contentious conversation at the White House as backlash grew to the Justice Department’s decision to withhold records.

Trump, members of his administration and conservative influencers have spread unsubstantiated claims surrounding Epstein for years. Conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death are a popular trope in right-wing spheres, playing on Trump’s repeated promises to reveal and dismantle the “deep state” — a supposed secret network of powerful people manipulating government decisions behind the scenes.

It’s the summer to sue in NASCAR, the sport where the on-track bumping and banging is in danger of being overshadowed by the action in the courtroom.

Two teams — one owned by retired NBA great Michael Jordan — are suing NASCAR over antitrust allegations. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are awaiting a federal court ruling before Sunday’s race in Delaware that could impact their ability to compete.

Meanwhile, seven-time champion Jimmie Johnson is battling tiny Rick Ware Racing and his lawyers at Legacy Motor Club went hard at Ware’s attorneys in a Monday hearing.

What is all the fighting about? Charters, which are at the heart of NASCAR’s business model. Having one is vital to a team’s survival.

The legal wrangling is only making the the charters skyrocket in value. When Spire Motorsports debuted in 2019, it had bought a charter for $6 million. Now, one of Spire’s founders brokered the now-disputed deal for Ware to sell one of his two charters to Legacy for $45 million.

Johnson is not enjoying the legal brawling, including the higher-profile antitrust fight. He called on those parties to settle.

“I’m just sitting back watching it all play out, learning a lot about the legal process and the amount of injunctions and appeals that can take place,” Johnson said. “It’s a big game of chess and I’m watching all the strategy that goes into it all.

The NASCAR lawsuit

23XI and FRM filed a federal antitrust suit against NASCAR last year after they were the only two organizations out of 15 to reject NASCAR’s extension offer on charters.

The case has a Dec. 1 trial date, but in the meantime, the two teams are fighting to be recognized as chartered for the current season, which has 16 races left. A charter guarantees one of the 40 spots in the field each week, but also a base amount of money paid out each week.

Jordan and FRM owner Bob Jenkins won an injunction to recognize 23XI and FRM as chartered for the season, but the ruling was overturned on appeal earlier this month. Both teams were set to be stripped of a combined six charters on Wednesday, which would force them to compete as “open cars.”

Three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin co-owns 23XI with Jordan and said they are prepared to send Tyler Reddick, Bubba Wallace and Riley Herbst to the track each week as open teams. But they still filed for a restraining order Monday and claimed that through discovery they learned NASCAR upon revocation planned to immediately begin the process of selling the six charters which would put “plaintiffs in irreparable jeopardy of never getting their charters back and going out of business.”

NASCAR said it has asked multiple times for settlement proposals but heard nothing. NASCAR also has no intention of re-negotiating the charter agreements held by 30 other teams.

Jordan has the money to keep 23XI running without charters, but FRM doesn’t have the same level of funding. Additionally, if the teams aren’t chartered, they will have to qualify on speed each week to make the field.

It won’t be an issue this weekend at Dover as fewer than the maximum 40 cars are entered. But should 41 cars show up anywhere this season, someone slow will be sent home.

“We’re not worried because our cars have the speed. We’ve always said we’re racing no matter what. If we have to race open, we have to race open,” Hamlin said at Sonoma Raceway last weekend. “We worked to get an injunction and obviously feel like Dec. 1 is all that matters.”

This case is actually a dispute over agreed-upon terms for Ware to sell one of his two charters to Johnson and his partners at Knighthead Capital Management.

Ware this season is leasing a charter to RFK Racing and was already under agreement with that team to get the charter back in 2026, then lease RFK its second charter next season. He never had a charter to sell for 2026 unless he ceased operations.

Yet when he signed the contract with Legacy, Ware has said, he didn’t read it through and catch that the sale terms were for next season and not 2027, when he’d have both charters in his possession.

RWR is alleging Legacy pulled a bait-and-switch, and if true, it is on Ware for not seeing it in the contract he signed.

The curveball came when T.J. Puchyr, the Spire co-founder who now acts as a consultant and brokered the deal between Legacy and Ware, said last month he plans to buy Ware’s team. Legacy argued in court Monday it was blindsided by the news, that if Ware is selling then the charter rightfully belongs to them, and they urgently needed depositions before Ware sold his race team out from under them.

It didn’t help when Ware’s lawyers couldn’t answer questions about a potential sale: “I think you need to talk to your client,” the judge told them before warning Ware may be in contempt of court and ordering depositions for later this week.

than $50 million from another party. With NASCAR indicating through discovery in the 23XI/FRM suit that it has interested buyers for the six charters, it is a seller’s market.

Johnson, with financial backing from Knighthead, is certain he will be getting the Ware charter one way or another to expand Legacy to three full-time Cup Series drivers.

“I’m not sure there is a plan B,” Johnson said of his confidence level at winning the case.

The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to put his plan to dismantle the Education Department back on track — and to go through with laying off nearly 1,400 employees.

With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court on Monday paused an order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs and calling into question the broader plan. The layoffs “will likely cripple the department,” Joun wrote. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.

The high court action enables the administration to resume work on winding down the department, one of Trump’s biggest campaign promises.

In a post Monday night on his social media platform, Trump said the high court “has handed a Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country.” He said the decision will allow his administration to begin the “very important process” of returning many of the department’s functions “BACK TO THE STATES.”

The court did not explain its decision in favor of Trump, as is customary in emergency appeals. But in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained that her colleagues were enabling legally questionable action on the part of the administration.

“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote for herself and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

The secretary of education lauds the decision

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said it’s a “shame” it took the Supreme Court’s intervention to let Trump’s plan move ahead.

“Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,” McMahon said in a statement.

A lawyer for the Massachusetts cities and education groups that sued over the plan said the lawsuit will continue, adding no court has yet ruled that what the administration wants to do is legal.

“Without explaining to the American people its reasoning, a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children. On its shadow docket, the Court has yet again ruled to overturn the decision of two lower courts without argument,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

The Supreme Court has handed Trump one victory after another in his effort to remake the federal government, after lower courts have found the administration’s actions probably violate federal law. Last week, the justices cleared the way for Trump’s plan to significantly reduce the size of the federal workforce. On the education front, the high court has previously allowed cuts in teacher-training grants to go forward.

Separately on Monday, more than 20 states sued the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding for after-school care, summer programs and more.

Education Department employees are on leave

Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency’s staff.

Joun’s order had prevented the department from fully terminating them, though none had been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun’s order, the workers would have been terminated in early June.

The Education Department had said earlier in June that it was “actively assessing how to reintegrate” the employees. A department email asked them to share whether they had gained other employment, saying the request was meant to “support a smooth and informed return to duty.”

The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump’s plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department.

One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other legal action was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.

The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws.

Cameroon’s 92-year-old president announced Sunday he will seek his eighth term in the October elections. The announcement comes after speculation the aging leader would not run, setting the stage for an electoral showdown.

Paul Biya, Africa’s second-longest-serving president after Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, is frequently sick and abroad. Last year, talk spread that he had died, prompting the government to publicly deny the rumors. Cameroon’s second president since independence from France in 1960, Biya has been in power since 1982.

Promising that the best is yet to come in his post on social media, Biya reiterated his determination to rule, saying, “Rest assured that my determination to serve you is commensurate with the serious challenges facing us.”

The more than 40 years of Biya’s rule have left a lasting impact. His government has faced various challenges, including allegations of corruption and a secessionist movement in Cameroon’s English-speaking provinces that has forced thousands out of school and triggered deadly clashes with security forces.

Cameroon has also had to deal with spillover violence by the Islamic extremist Boko Haram group, based in neighboring Nigeria.

Recently, several of Biya’s longtime allies defected to announce their own candidacies for president.

He cruised to victory in 2018 with over 70% of the vote in an election marred by irregularities and low turnout due to ongoing separatist and jihadi violence.

In a region threatened with shrinking democratic space, several other African countries also have presidents accused of using state mechanisms to prolong their stay in power. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni recently sought nomination for a seventh term, a move that would bring him closer to five decades in power in the East African country.

President Donald Trump says he is considering “taking away” the U.S. citizenship of a longtime rival, actress and comedian Rosie O’Donnell, despite a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits such an action by the government.

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday. He added that O’Donnell, who moved to Ireland in January, should stay in Ireland “if they want her.”

The two have criticized each other publicly for years, an often bitter back-and-forth that predates Trump’s involvement in politics. In recent days, O’Donnell on social media denounced Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive GOP-backed tax breaks and spending cuts plan.

It’s just the latest threat by Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and one-time ally, Elon Musk.

But O’Donnell’s situation is notably different from Musk, who was born in South Africa. O’Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State Department notes on its website that U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization may relinquish U.S. nationality by taking certain steps – but only if the act is performed voluntary and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, noted the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from taking away citizenship.

“The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen,” Frost said in an email Saturday. “In short, we are nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.”

O’Donnell moved to Ireland after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win his second term. She has said she’s in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship based on family lineage.

Responding to Trump Saturday, O’Donnell wrote on social media that she had upset the president and “add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn.”