Below The Beltway

Democrats aren’t waiting until January to kick Congress into overdrive

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 06 Nov 2026 12:54:26 GMT

Cam here 👋 bringing you your daily dose of what people are doing – good, bad, and otherwise – in the world of politics. We’re diving into the stories you won’t see anywhere else. And remember, you can also keep up with me over on TikTok and Bluesky.

Subscribe now

Since day one of Trump’s political career, people have desperately attempted to normalize his absurd abuses of power and blatant corruption – and 10 years later, much of corporate media remains a victim of their own attempts to return to a sense of normalcy.

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

Members of the incoming Congress aren’t waiting until January to act on the mandate voters delivered in November’s midterm election to lower costs, expose corruption, and end the unauthorized war against Iran.

Democrats’ resounding victory will bring new blood and new leadership to the Capitol, along with Republican counterparts who may be more willing to reach across the aisle. They’ll also face a politically weakened, lame-duck president, who replaced his usual post-election bluster with a tepid acceptance of the results and a quick return to his billion-dollar legacy pet project spending spree. The atmosphere presents the incoming Congress with an opportunity to become something the legislative body hasn’t been in nearly 20 years: effective.

“The American people have made it really, really clear — in terms that, in some cases, we weren’t even expecting some of these wins — that they are not tolerating this administration any longer, and they’re also not going to tolerate a Democratic Party that isn’t ready to come to the table with some actual solutions,” said Rep-elect Melat Kiros, a democratic socialist from Denver who ousted a 15-term incumbent. “What we saw in the primary, and what we’re seeing here in this general — and these results right now — there is a huge amount of responsibility on all of us to take this trust that the voters have put into our campaigns and all these candidacies and actually deliver some real, meaningful changes.”

Democrats’ list of legislative priorities is vast and ambitious, as are their plans for investigations targeting an oligarchy that’s benefited from two years of preferential treatment under the Trump administration. With just two years to prove themselves to voters before the next major election, lawmakers have already begun laying the groundwork to deliver results as soon as they assume full power on January 3.

And with the help of Republicans, sobered by voters’ resounding rejection of their party, Congress is on track to impeach one member of Trump’s cabinet and put another in the crosshairs over his refusal to fully release the Epstein Files.

Below is a breakdown of the impeachments, investigations, and legislative priorities lawmakers campaigned on, along with the Democratic leaders who have promised to advance them.

Key Players: committee chairs and ‘The Bloc’

Growing concerns around current Democratic leadership — Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) — have been swirling around progressive circles for months. The party’s decisive victory on Tuesday has amplified fears that neither Schumer nor Jeffries have the backbone to take on the Trump administration head-on; those fears were all but confirmed by the duo almost immediately after the election.

While Schumer retains the support of a majority of his caucus, a group of incoming senators and progressive organizations are coalescing around Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) as a potential challenger. Abdul El-Sayed, Adam Hamilton, Annie Andrews, Peggy Flanagan, and Troy Jackson have all said they wouldn’t back Schumer, with El-Sayed specifically naming Van Hollen as his preferred choice for Senate Majority Leader.

During a livestream with members of the progressive grassroots Indivisible, Van Hollen remained coy when pressed about running against Schumer, instead emphasizing the need for an open and fair selection process that produces a leader who best represents what voters want.

“We have to have a full discussion about what our goals are, and that we don’t pick anybody who’s running for leader — whoever that may be — without a clear understanding of the direction we need to go,” Van Hollen said. “And that does begin with ending the senseless, illegal war in Iran, and using all the power at our disposal to do that.”

No challenger to Jeffries has emerged in the race for Speaker of the House, and progressive leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has said she supports him for the role.

While chamber leaders control floor votes, it’s the committee chairs who wield the power to issue subpoenas, launch investigations, and determine what’s added into — or taken away from — the budget. Neither Jeffries nor Schumer have indicated any intention to rein in committee chairs, leaving those who fill the positions with an immense amount of power.

The following lawmakers are expected to fill committee chair positions, and have gone on the record with plans to investigate the White House, Trump’s cabinet, ICE, and those who may have profited illegally from their dealings with the president:

Senate

Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts: Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Maria Cantwell, Washington: Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Martin Heinrich, New Mexico: Energy and Natural Resources

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut: Subcommittee on Investigations

Ron Wyden, Oregon: Finance

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island: Judiciary

House

Bennie Thompson, Mississippi: Homeland Security

Brendan Boyle, Pennsylvania: Budget

Frank Pallone, New Jersey: Energy and Commerce

Jamie Raskin, Maryland: Judiciary

Maxine Waters, California: Financial Services

Richard Neal, Massachusetts: Ways and Means

Robert Garcia, California: Oversight

A small cohort of newly-elected democratic socialists, known unofficially as “The Bloc,” plans to strategically push the party further left on issues like healthcare, data center and AI regulation, and abolishing ICE. Its members include:

Angela Gonzales-Torres, California

Chris Rabb, Pennsylvania

Claire Valdez, New York

Darializa Avila Chevalier, New York

Donovan McKinney, Michigan

Melat Kiros, Colorado

“We’re going to be really authentic about what it actually means to be in the halls of Congress as a young person,” said Kiros. “What it actually means to be in the halls of Congress as someone who doesn’t take corporate special interest money, and what the forces are that we are up against that are actually stopping these incredibly popular policies — like Medicare for All, or Housing First, universal childcare and eldercare — from passing. Because it’s not the people; the people support them by really large margins. It’s special interests and corporations that want to maintain the status quo as it exists right now.”

Investigations

The committee chairs mentioned above have laid out a laundry list of investigations they plan to pursue next year. Some, including the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network, are already underway. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) and his fellow Democrats have spent more than a year building their case, issuing subpoenas that have gone ignored, demanding documents that have not been delivered, and even referring criminal contempt charges to the Department of Justice that have yet to be prosecuted.

That ends in January, Garcia promised in a two-word press release issued on Tuesday.

“Lawyer up.”

Other soon-to-be chairs have acted similarly, preparing investigations as diligently as possible within the constraints of the current Republican leadership, so they would be ready to unleash the full might of the legislative branch in January. Once the election results came in, Democrats began to put out job postings to build an exhaustive investigative staff to assist as they dig into the following:

The cover-up of Epstein’s criminal network
Harboring international criminals like Bolsonaro
Jared Kushner’s Middle East conflicts of interest
No-bid contracts awarded to ballroom donors
The politically-charged prosecution of James Comey
Politically-motivated fraud charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center
Qatar-gifted Air Force One
Subpoenaing the logs from Trump’s AI chatbot
Tariff exemptions for donors
The Trump family’s crypto deals
Trump Jr’s insider trading through 1789 Capital
Truth Social VIP access

Impeachments

Impeachment and removal from office remain on the table for Trump and members of his cabinet, although securing a conviction in the Senate would require support from 11 to 13 Republicans, making it nearly impossible. One exception to that is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose belligerent use of the military assets and insistence on continuing the Iran War have eroded his support within the party.

So many have soured on Hegseth that the chances of him remaining at the Pentagon through the end of the year grow slimmer by the day. Outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth in September and said he plans to force a vote on them when Congress returns to Washington in mid-November.

“There is one contingency in which I won’t reintroduce the articles of impeachment,” Massie said. “Hegseth resigns.”

A successful impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate could open the door to similar efforts against other vulnerable members of Trump’s cabinet. Articles of impeachment have already been filed against Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Members of the House Judiciary Committee have also warned that any obstruction of their investigations by Attorney General Todd Blanche will trigger impeachment proceedings.

The most difficult impeachment target is the president himself. Jeffries has already said it isn’t a priority, and Trump evaded any meaningful consequences after his impeachments in 2019 and 2021. Still, a large cohort of the Democratic caucus is taking a third-times-the-charm approach, believing that Trump has lost the political capital needed to survive another attempt.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Key Epstein Player Decides to ‘Lawyer Up’ in Wake of Midterm Results

By , investigative reporter

In the wake of the blue tsunami of Democrat gains that was this year’s midterm elections, incoming House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) issued a warning to those involved in corruption or criminal conduct: “Lawyer up.” Epstein-linked billionaire Leon Black seems to have heeded that warning, filing a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday against Garcia, who will lead an ongoing investigation into the deceased sex trafficker when the new Congress is seated in January.

Black alleges that, in his capacity as ranking member of the Oversight Committee, Garcia “went on national television and lied to the American people” about Black’s involvement with Epstein’s vast trafficking network. The lawsuit claims Garcia’s statements “caused real and significant ongoing harm to Mr. Black. His physical safety has been threatened, he has received a barrage of hateful calls, emails, and social media posts, and his business and philanthropic endeavors have suffered.”

Garcia has not yet publicly responded to the suit.

Black has become a central character in multiple congressional investigations into Epstein. The two had a relationship that spanned decades, and according to the New York Times, and Black paid Epstein $170 million over the course of that relationship that investigators believe was used for illicit purposes. Bank records have also revealed that Black paid millions of dollars to eight women, three of which were known associates or victims of Epstein. In 2023, Black paid the U.S. Virgin Islands $62.5 million to settle a case in which two women had accused Black of assaulting them after being introduced to them by Epstein.

But according to evidence found in the Epstein Files, Black and Epstein had more than a monetary connection. The two seem to have been friends, at least enough so that Black wrote Epstein a poem for his 50th birthday, which included the stanzas: ‘Blonde, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically / With this net of fish, Jeff’s now ‘The Old Man and the Sea.’” He signed the card containing that poem, “Love and Kisses, Leon.” Black also appears over 8,000 times in the files.

Researchers for COURIER’s Cover-Up investigation also uncovered photographs of Black at one of Epstein’s residences making milkshakes, and a series of personal texts between the pair.

The timing of this new lawsuit against Garcia has captured the attention of the national public, with many speculating as to why he chose to file the suit immediately following the blue tsunami of November 3. As the incoming chairman of the Oversight Committee and member of a newly-minted Democratic House majority, Garcia will soon have access to more investigative levers than he did as ranking member. He has already announced a series of priorities for the committee once the new congress is sworn in come January, one of which is to turbocharge Oversight’s investigation into Epstein, and what they believe to be an ongoing cover-up by the Trump administration to protect those implicated from consequences.

“We don’t care if you are a Republican, a Democrat, how much money you have, your wealth, your power… if you abused children, you will be held accountable by the Oversight Committee,” Garcia said.

This suit is not the first Black has filed during Oversight’s ongoing investigation into Epstein’s criminal enterprise. In September, Black sued the committee and outgoing chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY), for overstepping their authority. This suit was filed the same day that Black had been scheduled to appear for a deposition after being subpoenaed by the committee. He also failed to produce several NDAs that had been subpoenaed by the committee. Black was held in contempt of court for failing to abide by the subpoenas.

“No one is above the law,” Comer said in a statement. “Leon Black defied two subpoenas, and the U.S. House of Representatives acted swiftly to find him in contempt of Congress. We will continue to seek transparency for the American people and justice for survivors in our investigation of the federal government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases.”

Subscribe now

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge your support

Rep. Kamlager-Dove threatens to impeach Blanche over Epstein cover-up

Camaron Stevenson — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 15:30:44 GMT

US Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove speaks during a news conference marking the one-year anniversary of journalist Carlitos Ricardo Parias’ shooting. (Photo by Caroline Brehman / AFP via Getty Images)

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are calling on the Department of Justice to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network, and say they will impeach Attorney General Todd Blanche if he fails to do so.

Blanche is seen by many in Congress as a “fixer” for President Donald Trump, going to great lengths to shut down any meaningful investigation into Epstein or his co-conspirators. It was Blanche who closed the federal investigation into Epstein in 2025, and has repeatedly claimed that, despite identifying more than 1,000 victims, there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute anyone other than Epstein — who is dead — and his convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Blanche has also refused to appear at congressional hearings to answer questions about Epstein.

That could change in January if Democrats take control of the House. Democratic members have been frustrated by their Republican counterparts’ refusal to subpoena Blanche and others connected to Epstein’s criminal network, and plan to prioritize Epstein-related investigations in both the House and the Senate. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) sits on the Judiciary Committee, and said that further obstruction by Blanche will be met with articles of impeachment.

“Todd Blanche is super sus — cannot be trusted. What we can do is, subpoena him and force him to come to the hearings. He has not come to one Judiciary hearing under this last term,” Kamlager-Dove told COURIER. “We have all the receipts. We present all the receipts. We show that he is unqualified, incompetent, and essentially still working as Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and not the top lawyer for the American people. Then, you can have conversations about impeachment.”

The demand for an independent counsel came as part of a 50-page report released by the committee detailing President Donald Trump’s history with Epstein. In it, congressional investigators connect eyewitness accounts from 11 women, including three who had not previously come forward, that allege the president had a close relationship with the deceased sex trafficker, and that he sexually abused girls and women that Epstein brought to him.

Among the women named in the report is Swiss model Beatrice Keul, who had not previously come forward. Keul came to the US in 1993 to participate in the Donald Trump American Dream Pageant, a competition for 16- to 22-year-olds. While there, she claims Trump approached her, offering to get her into NYU and arrange for her to obtain a visa. Epstein later appeared and backed up Trump’s promises, assuring Keul they could provide whatever she needed.

Later that day, Keul was invited to meet with Trump to discuss her future. Instead, she alleges he forcibly raped her and made her promise not to tell anyone.

“Trump has been accused by at least eight women of engaging in assault or other improper behavior in connection with Jeffrey Epstein,” the report states. “Epstein and Trump also each had a sexual relationship with at least three other young women, at the time when Epstein’s criminal activity was at its height. Together, these accounts reveal a darkly competitive relationship between the two men centered on taking advantage of women, especially aspiring models eager to break into the realm of New York fashion.”

Prosecutors found the testimonies of many of the women who accused Trump reliable enough to use in the successful prosecution of Maxwell, but that’s where their utility appears to have ended. The report spends 15 pages providing excruciating detail on the administration’s efforts to cover up allegations against the president, including shutting down all investigations into anyone related to Epstein in order to protect Trump.

The report also outlines how, under Trump, Attorney General Todd Blanche is obstructing investigations in the United Kingdom and New Mexico. In both instances, Blanche has refused to share case files with investigators. The DOJ has also admitted to withholding at least 3 million records from the public, a direct violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The solution, according to congressional Democrats, is to appoint an independent special counsel to do two things: investigate what’s in the Epstein Files and pursue prosecutions of co-conspirators, while also investigating what they describe as “the Trump Administration’s shameful, bureaucratic, and political cover-up.”

Subscribe now

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

DOJ election probe disproves its own noncitizen voter theory

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:01:04 GMT

Subscribe now

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

A widespread Department of Justice probe into noncitizen voters has, in effect, undermined the administration’s claims and disproven the notion altogether. Of the 250,000 suspects it identified, the list was culled down to only a handful of arrests, based on debunked evidence.

After failing to seize state voter rolls by way of executive order, the Trump administration this year issued over 100 subpoenas for voter data across 13 states under the guise of tracking down noncitizen voters. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin first made the unsubstantiated claim that 250,000 illegal voters were on the rolls in July, and followed up with letters to election officials in four states, each containing lists of alleged suspects.

“The Department of Homeland Security and our federal partners reviewed publicly available California voter-registration files and compared relevant records with federal immigration data to identify alien registrants,” Mullin said. “Even one noncitizen vote cancels out the ballot of an American citizen and undermines our elections.”

But DHS didn’t have official voter rolls from those states, and instead relied on outdated public data cross-referenced with voter profiles from private companies. When election officials in California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania checked the list of alleged noncitizens against their own voter registration records, they found that the Trump administration’s slapdash voter database was wholly inaccurate. Without definitive identifiers — such as Social Security numbers — DHS linked names and addresses to unrelated voter profiles, effectively conflating nonvoting legal residents with voting citizens simply because they shared the same names.

The administration ignored the states’ assessments, sued California to prevent 20,000 ballots from being counted, and conducted a raid that resulted in roughly two dozen arrests. The DOJ then began the same process in Washington state, demanding that election officials disqualify 400 ballots based on the same faulty data.

Similar raids in Washington and elsewhere before the midterms appear unlikely, however, as federal judges have already ruled against the DOJ’s actions in California, criticizing the agency’s public displays during an ongoing election as a brazen attempt to undermine its results.

“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” US District Judge David Carter said in the ruling. “If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger.”

Election officials have also pointed out that the DOJ’s attempt to disqualify ballots during an election is against federal law. The 90 days leading up to an election constitute what is known as a “quiet period,” during which attempts to remove or disenfranchise voters are in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Rep. Kamlager-Dove threatens to impeach Blanche over Epstein cover-up

Later that day, Keul was invited to meet with Trump to discuss her future. Instead, she alleges he forcibly raped her and made her promise not to tell anyone.

The report also outlines how, under Trump, Attorney General Todd Blanche is obstructing investigations in the United Kingdon and New Mexico. In both instances, Blanche has refused to share case files with investigators. The DOJ has also admitted to withholding at least 3 million records from the public, a direct violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Subscribe now

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

DOJ chains up the elderly in desperate search of voter fraud

Camaron Stevenson — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:45:25 GMT

The Department of Justice on Monday announced the arrests of 28 Californians based on a debunked list of alleged noncitizen voters — the latest move in the Trump administration’s broader effort to meddle in the state’s midterm elections.

The targeted individuals were among 20,000 people the DOJ claims are noncitizens registered to vote in Los Angeles County. But an examination by the county election officials found that 13,000 of those on the list did not live in the county, 43% had already had their registrations canceled, and 71% had never voted.

Undeterred, the Trump administration executed countywide arrests using tactics usually reserved for drug busts or taking down crime rings. Six patrol vehicles and a helicopter were sent to arrest Omar Muñoz, a 72-year-old retiree who moved to the US in 1974. Muñoz was told by agents that if he didn’t open the door, they’d break it down. When he did, they shackled him and forced him to walk past a gaggle of reporters from conservative news outlets who had been invited by the DOJ to ensure the arrest would become a spectacle.

Homeland Security Investigations task force officers escort Omar Muñoz to a processing facility at Federal Building in Los Angeles, Monday, Oct. 19, 2026. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

“Why couldn’t they send me a letter saying that you are required to come to this building because you have a warrant, or we will go and arrest you?” Muñoz said in an interview with KCRW. “They put chains on me around my waist, around my legs, and I said, ‘Look, I can’t even run away from you guys. Why are you doing this? Remember, I’m a fall risk.’ They didn’t care.”

Dubbed “the biggest voter fraud bust in California’s history” by the California Post, the numbers tell a very different story. The 28 arrests represent roughly 0.0001% of the state’s registered voters, and are a far cry from the 190,000 noncitizen voters the Trump administration originally claimed to have identified.

California voters approved new district maps for the midterm elections that are expected to net Democrats five additional seats in the House of Representatives. But state officials are concerned the arrests will be used to justify the White House’s goal of disqualifying any ballots cast by the 20,000 people on its list. If successful, it could affect the results in some of California’s more competitive congressional districts to favor Republicans.

US Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who represents many of the individuals targeted by the Trump administration, believes the arrests amount to voter intimidation. He told COURIER that he’s working with county and state election officials to ensure voters are able to cast their ballots and have them counted.

“This administration is trying to unconstitutionally stop California from counting ballots and bully Americans out of voting in the midterms,” said Garcia. “California has some of the strongest election protections in the country, and non-citizens are already prohibited from voting. We’re in touch with LA County and the California Secretary of State to fight this sad, desperate attempt by Donald Trump to meddle in the midterms.”

Should Democrats take control of the House in January, Garcia is expected to chair the powerful House Oversight Committee, where he has pledged to investigate corruption within the Trump administration, ways the president’s family has leveraged the White House for personal enrichment, and the apparent cover-up of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

*It’s against federal law for military or armed law enforcement to be at voting locations, and state and local election officials across the country have reassured voters that federal agents’ presence will not be tolerated. If you see troops or law enforcement at your polling place — or if someone appears to be impersonating an officer — report it to onsite staff or contact your local election officials.

Subscribe now

(In)sanewashing: Why Arizona’s legislature could flip for the first time in 60 years

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 19:35:26 GMT

Trump’s team bragged about the “largest voter fraud bust in California history” — It was 28 people out of millions.

He also handed Nick Shirley a $10,000 check for a “fraud investigation” that recovered exactly zero dollars. If it feels like the whole fraud panic is a scam, it's because it is.

Before Cam and Nardos break down the proof, Cam is sitting down with Alejandra Gomez of LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona) aka the grassroots organization he calls the gold standard of people-powered politics. Alex explains how 15 years of organizing has Arizona on the verge of flipping its legislature for the first time in 61 years, how LUCHA raised the state’s minimum wage, ousted Joe Arpaio and killed a first-in-the-nation “ICE at the polls” bill on the Senate floor plus why the antidote to Trump’s intimidation is organized people who refuse to be scared off.

This is (In)sanewashing with Camaron Stevenson and Nardos Araya.

To learn more about LUCHA, visit their website — and check out the event page for more info on the Arizona People’s Convention.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

New bill would force Trump admin to hand over Epstein’s financial documents

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:06:33 GMT

Become a Paid Subscriber

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Subscribe now

New bill would force Trump admin to hand over Epstein’s financial documents

US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks with journalists at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. ((Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Congressional Democrats are laying the groundwork to seize a trove of sensitive documents that both the Trump and Biden administrations have kept out of public view: Jeffrey Epstein’s banking records.

For years, House and Senate investigations have tried to obtain Epstein’s finance records from the US Treasury, believing they could be used to prosecute the deceased sex trafficker’s co-conspirators. Investigators with the Senate Finance Committee were given a small glimpse at these records in 2024, and found more than $1.5 billion in suspicious transactions that were reported by banks but never investigated by regulators.

Bills introduced earlier this month by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) would change that. Under the legislation, regulators would be required to hand over the requested documents to Congress, which could then compel the Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to immediately open investigations into any financial institutions connected to Epstein.

Regulators would also be required to report their findings to Congress within the first 180 days of the investigations, implement and enforce penalties, and refer evidence of criminal misconduct to the Department of Justice.

“I have spent the last year calling on Donald Trump’s financial regulators to launch investigations into the big banks and executives who may have enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific crimes,” Warren said in a press release. “Since they have failed to act, Congress must.”

Banks that did business with Epstein have already paid out nearly $1 billion in civil lawsuit settlements in an attempt to prevent these exact details from entering the public domain. Deutsche Bank has paid over $250 million to victims and shareholders, JPMorgan settled two lawsuits for a combined $365 million, and Bank of America agreed to pay victims $72.5 million in August. Bank of New York Mellon, another of Epstein’s trusted depositories, was part of a class-action lawsuit filed by survivors of Epstein’s abuse, but the case was dismissed by a federal judge in January.

Warren and Garcia’s legislation goes beyond monetary penalties. If investigators find that any bank executives knowingly participated in Epstein’s crimes, they would be banned from the industry, with criminal referrals sent to federal prosecutors.

What little is known about Epstein’s finances suggests the impact of such an investigation would be widespread. Suspicious activity reports filed by banks — and initially left unredacted when published under the Epstein Files Transparency Act — show just how far bank employees went to cater to Epstein, despite acknowledging that his financial maneuvers were textbook examples of what money launderers and traffickers do to conceal their crimes. Epstein is also believed to have helped his wealthy clients evade taxes and negotiated hush money agreements between his friends and women he trafficked.

While it is unlikely the bill will be brought to the floor for a vote this year, Garcia and Warren plan to reintroduce it in January, and they expect it to pass quickly should Democrats take control of Congress.

“Donald Trump has launched an all-out cover-up in trying to hide these files,” Garcia said in a video posted online. “Donald Trump needs to understand that we are not going to stop until we get full truth and accountability, and ensure that this never happens again.”

By Jackie Appel, investigative reporter

Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn at the US Capitol (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime attorney, Darren Indyke, and his accountant, Richard Kahn, on Wednesday, accusing the two men of helping finance and conceal Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, including abuse at his Zorro Ranch south of Santa Fe. The civil lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in New Mexico, seeks to block Indyke and Kahn — who serve as co-executors of Epstein’s estate — from collecting payments from it while the case proceeds. It is the first law enforcement action against either man, according to Torrez’s office.

“Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the New Mexico Racketeering Act, we have in short made a complaint that alleges that Mr. Indyke and Mr. Kahn, through patterns of conduct including participating in the organization of various corporate entities and structuring payments and concealing the operations of that enterprise facilitated the criminal conduct and the trafficking behavior of Jeffrey Epstein for a number of years,” Torrez said at a press conference. “And it is unconscionable in my mind that people who actively participated in the efforts of that trafficking enterprise should in any way benefit from what is left of his estate.”

Both men stand to gain from the estate, whose assets are held in an entity called the 1953 Trust. The estate is valued at more than $107 million, according to Torrez’s office. Under the trust’s terms, Indyke is eligible for a $50 million bequest and Kahn for $25 million, subject to the availability of funds. The complaint also alleges that between 2011 and 2019, Indyke received more than $16 million from Epstein and related entities, and Kahn received more than $10 million. Both men have testified before Congress that they did not know about Epstein’s abuse, The Associated Press reported.

Dan Weiner, an attorney for Indyke and Kahn, told the AP that the pair “emphatically reject” the allegations, and said New Mexico officials never sought to interview them before going to court. “Not a single woman has ever accused Mr. Indyke or Mr. Kahn of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse,” Weiner said in an email.

Earlier this year, Indyke and Kahn, acting as executors, agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein accusers for up to $35 million. They did not admit wrongdoing as part of the deal.

Two Epstein survivors, Julia Molchanova and Anouska De Georgiou, joined Torrez at the announcement. In a letter released alongside the lawsuit, a group of survivors also backed the state’s action. “Epstein’s trust names both men as primary beneficiaries, each standing to receive tens of millions of dollars. Now, as co-executors of his estate, they occupy a position of profound and deeply troubling conflict: helping determine what victims receive while standing to gain what is left over after the victims are paid for their damages.”

“That disparity is not a footnote,” the letter continues. “It captures the central moral failure of the estate: Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, the two people who helped the most to sustain Epstein’s world of abuses and to gain far more from it than any one of the people he harmed. And, to be sure, it is Darren and Rich that made sure of it.”

The lawsuit follows another Torrez filed Aug. 5 against the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking unredacted Epstein investigative files that the state says could help identify victims, witnesses and additional criminal conduct in New Mexico. Specifically, Torrez sought files that name visitors, employees, and residents of Epstein’s Zorro Ranch, near the small community of Stanley, about 30 miles south of Santa Fe.

Epstein bought the ranch in 1993 and built a 26,700-square-foot mansion there, along with a private airstrip and helipad, the AP reported. The complaint describes the remote property as a place where Epstein and his associates recruited, transported, isolated and sexually abused girls and young women for more than two decades. The earliest documented abuse there dates to 1996. To investigate what happened at the ranch and who enabled it, the New Mexico House unanimously created the New Mexico Survivors’ Truth Commission, a bipartisan special committee, in February.

The commission’s interim report, the first of two it is required to issue this year, paints a disturbing picture of what went on at the ranch. It includes the confirmed accounts of five victims and acknowledges as many as 30 more whose accounts have not been confirmed. One survivor describes being flown to the ranch at the age of 15 and being molested by Epstein “for many hours.”

“What I remember most vividly was him explaining to me how beneficial the experience was for me and how much he was helping me to grow,” the account continues.

The report also lays out the commission’s lines of inquiry into Epstein’s conduct at the ranch, including his interest in eugenics and transhumanism, and into the people, organizations, power structures and loopholes that allowed his abuse to continue for decades. More is expected when the commission releases its final report, due Dec. 31.

Torrez cast the lawsuit as a way to steer what remains of Epstein’s fortune to the people he harmed. “Frankly,” he said, “if anyone is entitled to a recovery of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, it’s the Epstein survivors who were targeted and trafficked here in New Mexico and beyond.”

The criminal investigation Torrez announced earlier this year remains ongoing, his office said.

Subscribe now

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

(In)sanewashing: Tracking Trump's assaults on midterm voting

Camaron Stevenson — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:52:41 GMT

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join us Fridays at 2 p.m. every week.

What Happened

President Donald Trump first claimed US elections were rigged during his successful presidential run in 2016, and has spent the following decade failing to prove himself right.

Years of unfounded conspiracy theories, false accusations, and fabricated problems have culminated in a multipronged effort by the Trump administration to restrict voting access and depress turnout in the 2026 midterm elections. The administration has been aided by a conservative-majority Supreme Court that kneecapped the Voting Rights Act in April and greenlit racial gerrymandering, as well as a complicit, Republican-controlled Congress that has attempted to push through Trump’s voter restrictions package nearly a dozen times. Trump has threatened to use every tool at his disposal to intimidate voters at polling places, prevent ballots from being mailed, and purge voter rolls.

But most of those attempts have failed. Despite the White House’s best efforts, federal law enforcement is not expected to show up at voting sites, early ballots will be mailed — and in many states, already have been — and state voter rolls remain largely untouched. Other concerns remain, however, including ICE receiving access to millions of voters’ data in search of noncitizens and the United States Postal Service’s decision to hire over 1,000 private security guards to monitor more than 50 postal facilities across the country.

“Deploying armed guards at postal facilities just as voting begins demands an explanation and urgent action,” said Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO). “We need clear answers about why these guards are here, what authority they have, and how voters and election mail will be protected. Coloradans deserve confidence that their ballots will be delivered and their voices heard. Voter intimidation is an attack on our democracy, and here in Colorado, we will fight to ensure every vote is counted.”

Here’s how Trump is following through on his campaign promise that, if people reelected him, they “won’t have to vote anymore.”

Subscribe now

Federal agents at polling places

Status: Unlikely

The Trump administration has waffled on whether it would attempt to send federal agents to polling places. Trump has threatened to send ICE agents out on Election Day, and US Attorney General Todd Blanche argued that immigration officers should be allowed to monitor polls. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who oversees ICE, said agents would not be sent out to voting sites.

It’s against federal law for military or armed law enforcement to be at voting locations, and state and local election officials across the country have reassured voters that federal agents’ presence will not be tolerated. If you see troops or law enforcement at your polling place — or if someone appears to be impersonating an officer — report it to onsite staff or contact your local election officials.

Private security at postal facilities

Status: Ongoing

An investigation by Raw Story revealed this week that USPS has hired more than 1,000 private security guards, some armed, in the lead-up to the midterm elections. The decision could be innocent enough — election workers and postal facilities have faced threats since Trump began undermining trust in mail-in voting — but postal worker union leaders have raised concerns about having their workplaces littered with untrained, armed private security.

As it stands, it’s unclear what effect the guards could have on the election process as their presence is currently limited. They have been hired to work at just over 50 of the USPS’ 30,000 facilities.

United States Postal Service to withhold ballot delivery

Status: Failed

Trump signed an executive order in March that prohibited USPS from delivering ballots unless certain conditions were met. That order was illegal, and the US Supreme Court ruled in September that the Postal Service must deliver all mail-in ballots.

The SAVE Act

Status: Failed

Trump has failed to push through the SAVE Act, a voter disenfranchisement bill that would end online voter registration and require all voters — even those currently registered — to bring proof of citizenship to their local election office. Under this legislation, only certain types of documentation would qualify as proof of citizenship, potentially disqualifying tens of millions married women, service members, rural residents, and people of color.

Republicans in Congress have failed to pass the SAVE Act so many times that it is now being used as a poison pill to sink other legislation. Most recently, the measure was added as an amendment to a bill that would ban members of Congress from trading stocks, effectively ensuring its demise.

Election monitors

Status: Ongoing

The DOJ has been sending election monitors to polling places with the stated goal of protecting election integrity since the 1960s. Over 700 monitors were deployed during the 2024 presidential election, and nearly 300 were sent to polling sites during the 2022 midterms.

This year, however, Blanche has said there would be 1,000 monitors at polling places, a significant increase from previous elections, prompting a lawsuit from the human rights group NAACP. This, coupled with the Trump administration’s decision to turn away international election monitors, has raised concerns that the DOJ’s monitors could engage in voter intimidation tactics.

Federal citizenship voter list

Status: Failed

In the lead-up to the midterms, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to create a federal voter database it could use to usurp control from local election officials. In addition to publicly available information such as names, addresses, and party affiliation, the administration wanted states to hand over voters’ Social Security and driver license numbers.

In short, the White House failed in its endeavor. 15 states complied with the executive order demanding voter data, while 30 sued to have it overturned. The lawsuits are ongoing, but have delayed the process long enough to render the incomplete federal voter database unusable for the November election.

Voter roll purges

Status: Delayed, ineffective

In September, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could grant states access to a federal database used to determine eligibility for social services, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), and to purge voter rolls.

The process has proven to be inaccurate, and largely ineffective: According to a joint investigation by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune, seven states have used the tool so far, putting roughly 35 million voters’ through the system. Only about 4,000 were identified as potential noncitizens — and many of those flagged have since been verified as legitimately registered voters.

Subscribe now

Withheld Trump mentions in the Epstein Files could soon be made public

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:54:57 GMT

Below the Belt(way)

Subscribe now

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

President Donald Trump first claimed US elections were rigged during his successful presidential run in 2016, and has spent the following decade failing to prove himself right.

Here’s how Trump is following through on his campaign promise that, if people reelected him, they “won’t have to vote anymore.”

Federal agents at polling places

Status: Unlikely

Private security at postal facilities

Status: Ongoing

United States Postal Service to withhold ballot delivery

Status: Failed

The SAVE Act

Status: Failed

Election monitors

Status: Ongoing

Federal citizenship voter list

Status: Failed

Voter roll purges

Status: Delayed, ineffective

Subscribe now

Withheld Trump mentions in the Epstein Files could soon be made public

Visitors view a wall-sized timeline titled "Trump & Epstein Through the Years: A Documented Timeline" inside the The Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room. Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images

A 15-month effort to publicize every mention of Donald Trump and Mar-a-Lago in the Epstein Files could soon come to an end after a judge ruled in late September that the records in question must be released on an expedited timeline.

The ruling moves forward a July 2025 Freedom of Information Act request made by government watchdog nonprofit Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) to the Department of Justice, seeking all records from the department’s investigative files on Epstein and his convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, that mention Trump or his Florida resort.

Over 3 million investigative files have been released since the request was first filed, as a result of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). Interestingly, the DOJ has not argued that those releases satisfy the demands of the request, which, according to DDF Senior Counsel Taryn Null, is a clear sign that the DOJ is violating EFTA and purposefully withholding information about Trump.

“Although the Epstein Files Transparency Act required that the DOJ publicly release all unclassified documents from the Epstein Files by December 12, 2025, there were whole categories of documents we requested in our FOIA requests that were not released,” Null said. “Moreover, DOJ did not comply with EFTA’s requirement to provide information on documents withheld and a summary of all the redactions made.”

In addition to records mentioning Trump and Mar-a-Lago, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with DDF in its request for the release of internal communications between certain members of the administration. The judge narrowly tailored the list of names, however, to those who appear to be most involved in what members of Congress have called “the most egregious cover-up in American history”: Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Despite the judge’s order that the DOJ expedite the request, however, the actual timeline remains unclear. While the order puts DDF’s request on the top of the list, there is no definition of how long an expedited request should take, and Kollar-Kotelly has not, at this time, set any deadlines.

As a comparison, Null explained that on another request she had worked on, the DOJ said it could only process 250 documents per month — a pace that would take 16 months for Null to receive the full 4,000 files. Ultimately, the parties compromised and agreed on a timeline of 750 pages per month. At that rate, however, it would take more than 600 years to process the 6 million records that comprise the Epstein Files.

Null and her colleagues are hoping for a much more expedited timeline this time around.

“Stalling has been the administration’s tactic to keep these files from the public. That stops now,” Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of DDF, said in a statement. “We will hold the DOJ to this court ruling, and we will keep pushing until Americans can see the records with their own eyes and judge the contents of the files for themselves.”

The process of compiling mentions of Trump should be relatively straightforward, as the DOJ last year assigned 1,000 agents to work around-the-clock cataloging every mention of the president before redacting them from public view. And it’s a process that should begin soon: Null said the three legal stall tactics at the administration’s disposal — Rule 54(b), interlocutory certification, and the collateral order doctrine — are unlikely to succeed.

Subscribe now

What’s really happening at the Supreme Court?

Join COURIER and Americans United on October 20 for Weaponizing Faith: Christian Nationalism at the Supreme Court. Featuring Rachel Laser, Stasha M. Rhodes, Michael Podhorzer, and moderator Lisa Graves, this panel uncovers how political allies are reshaping our legal system and what we must do to reclaim it.

Attend in person at The Milton Theatre in D.C. or watch the live stream online. RSVP today!

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

58 of Trump’s Executive Orders a Democratic Congress could reverse next year

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:07:07 GMT

Subscribe now

58 of Trump’s Executive Orders a Democratic Congress could reverse next year

President Donald Trump has used executive orders like a sledgehammer since returning to the White House, but his favored tool for wielding power could soon lose its weight if Democrats take control of Congress.

Trump has issued nearly 300 executive orders since January 2025, more than any president has in a two-year span since Harry Truman. Of those, 35 have been reversed following successful lawsuits — like his attempt to end birthright citizenship — while a handful of others are purely performative, such as an order to end nonexistent vaccine requirements. At least 58 currently in effect fall under Congress’ oversight power.

“It depends on what was in any given executive order,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. “If there was a plan to spend money that was part of it, Congress can try to use the appropriations process to stymie particular orders. There’s the possibility, if there is complete control of Congress, to pass things. But unfortunately, the truth of the next Congress is that Trump will still be here for at least two years. In those two years, it will be quite hard to pass things that he would sign that undoes his own executive orders.”

Not content to wait on Congress, Gilbert’s organization has focused on prodding the judicial branch to provide a check on the presidency. Public Citizen has filed over 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration, alleging illegal executive action involving the firing of federal workers, stripping away protections for immigrants, and unlawful construction of Trump’s vanity projects, among other things.

Lawsuits have had mixed success, however, leaving opportunities for the legislative branch to reclaim some of its power. Even with the threat of a veto, a Democratic-majority Congress could force Trump to defend his orders and use that leverage as a bargaining chip to pass other legislation.

The 58 at-risk executive orders fall into four categories: the Congressional Review Act, emergency declarations, the defense budget, and funding and oversight.

The Congressional Review Act: 7

While the president can order executive agencies to follow rules at his discretion, Congress can pass legislation to overturn those rules under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The process cannot be filibustered, but it can only be used to target rules that have been added to the Federal Register within 60 days of the previous session, excluding weekends, holidays, and days when either chamber isn’t in session.

The narrow scope of the CRA does limit which executive orders it can neuter, but if utilized quickly, it could reverse Trump’s restrictions on student loan forgiveness for public service employees, prevent citizenship verification at polling places, and restore energy and environmental regulations.

Emergency Declarations: 11

The United States is currently operating under 51 different states of emergency, 11 of which Trump has declared during his second term. These designations have allowed his administration to get around congressional authorization for its economic and military actions around the world. But any emergency declaration can be terminated by a simple majority in Congress, potentially providing a pathway to end international aggressions, like the Iran War and Trump’s deadly embargoes against Cuba.

Defense Budget: 14

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), once a piece of legislation that passed quickly with near-unanimous support, has now become a partisan albatross with a hefty price tag hanging around Congress’ neck. The Senate is currently stuck in a beleaguered six-month process of approving the Trump administration’s request for a $1.5 trillion defense budget — roughly a half-a-trillion increase from the current budget, $860 billion more than during Trump’s first term, and $1 trillion more than when the US launched its war on terror.

More than a dozen of Trump’s executive orders require congressional funding or approval that would be part of the NDAA, including a current provision in the stalled bill to officially rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Unlike CRA bills, the defense budget can be stopped by way of filibuster, but only temporarily, as it’s one of the few things Congress is required to pass.

Funding and Oversight: 26

Congress controls the nation’s budget — it decides where taxpayer dollars are spent, and who benefits. Nearly 30 of Trump’s executive orders direct agencies in his administration to spend money in specific ways, with little or no mechanism for oversight or accountability. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who would chair the House Oversight Committee should Democrats take control of the House, has promised to hold public hearings to investigate suspicious spending, and any evidence discovered could lead to restrictions on agency budgets.

“Oversight Democrats will be able to set the committee’s agenda, launch investigations, call witnesses to demand answers and compel information through subpoenas if needed,” Garcia wrote in an op-ed for MS NOW. “As the primary oversight committee of the House, we will fight to shine a light on the blatant corruption we’re seeing in this country, from the White House’s cover-up of the Epstein files to immigration enforcement misconduct. And we will hold those responsible to account.”

Subscribe now

What’s really happening at the Supreme Court?

Attend in person at The Milton Theatre in D.C. or watch the live stream online. RSVP today!

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

Federal agents detain a protestor outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey. (Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images)

A pair of Supreme Court decisions this week granted the Trump administration implicit permission to detain people indefinitely without bail and deport them to countries they may have never even been to.

Both practices have been standing policy for the Department of Homeland Security since early 2025, resulting in mass incarceration and at least 25,000 immigrants being sent to what’s known as a “third country” — meaning not the US, not their country of origin, but some other country that has agreed to take in migrant deportees. Lawsuits were filed to stop both practices, and lower-court judges had issued temporary injunctions to put a pause in place until the matters were resolved.

But those orders were tossed by the Supreme Court this week, giving the Trump administration permission to continue holding people indefinitely and resume third-country deportations until the justices issue a ruling, which might not come until next year.

“Today’s order does not decide that the government’s policy is lawful,” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a statement. “The Court will hear that question on an expedited schedule.”

Oral arguments in both cases are scheduled to take place in December, and a slow decision could give the administration another nine months to detain and deport with impunity. As part of its argument for lifting the third-country restriction, Department of Justice lawyers said that the lower court order forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people bound for three countries.

Deportations

The conservative majority has sided with the Trump administration before on its core immigration policies, allowing deportation flights to temporarily continue last year. This time around, the court said it would consider several questions, including whether the policy is lawful, whether lower courts had the authority to consider the case and issue a sweeping block, and other issues the government deems appropriate.

Under a series of often-secret agreements, the administration has deported some 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries, from Liberia to Guyana. The vast majority have been sent to Mexico.

Trump’s Republican administration has said that it sends people with final deportation orders to third countries when they can’t be returned to their home countries or those governments won’t accept them. including people who have criminal convictions. According to federal attorneys, the third country governments provide assurances that deportees won’t be persecuted or tortured.

Attorney General Todd Blanche called the policy “an entirely lawful and critical tool for immigration enforcement” in a social media post.

Some migrants, though, have found themselves imprisoned in countries they’d never heard of before arriving. Others face serious safety risks and are left with little choice but to return to the home countries they were fleeing. Many have no criminal convictions and have been found to be at risk of torture or persecution, attorneys for the immigrants said.

Indefinite Detainment

The justices will also decide whether immigrants who have been living in the US have a right to a hearing to determine whether they should remain detained while challenging their possible deportation.

The case will test a key pillar of the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration agenda.

Most appeals courts to consider the issue have found that federal law prohibits detaining immigrants, including those living in the US illegally, without a bond hearing. Those decisions conflict with rulings from the 5th and 8th circuits, which held that immigrants accused of illegally entering and remaining in the US must be detained while their deportation cases are pending.

The Trump administration says its new mandatory detention policy is legal under a 1996 immigration law. The change departs from the practices of prior administrations, which typically allowed most noncitizens without criminal records to request a bond hearing if they were arrested away from the border.

*The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Subscribe now

(In)sanewashing: Criminal investigation into Epstein's crime ring underway

Camaron Stevenson — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 13:06:30 GMT

In light of a recently-discovered investigation into the co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal, author Nina Burleigh joins (In)sanewashing to talk about her recent stories involving Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn. For the full details, make sure to read the full story: The Accountants Suitcases.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with and ! Join us Fridays at 2 p.m. every week.

Available for iOS and Android

Legislation introduced to stop ICE detention warehouses once and for all

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:53:38 GMT

Subscribe now

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

The Trump administration on Thursday ignored a federal court order to restore White House access to three banned news outlets, instead relying on what it sees as precedent from two other press freedom lawsuits currently stalled in the courts.

The most recent ban came directly from President Donald Trump, who revoked access from Politico, CNN, and MS NOW after criticizing their coverage of him. The outlets sued, arguing that the ban was a violation of the First Amendment.

“MS NOW journalists were denied access to the White House grounds,” MS NOW said in a statement. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

In defense of the ban, Department of Justice lawyers pointed to two other media restrictions imposed by the administration that have received partial backing from the courts.

One involves the Associated Press, who was banned from the White House press pool over its refusal to go along with Trump’s attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The AP sued the administration in February 2025, access was reinstated in April, but the ruling was paused last fall by the US District Court of Appeals, where the case has sat ever since. AP reporters are still barred from the Oval Office and Air Force One, and have described its access to the White House overall as sporadic. it’s unclear when the lawsuit will continue.

The other ongoing case the DOJ cited involves restrictions put on journalists covering the Pentagon. In October 2025, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters that they would need to sign a pledge allowing the government to dictate their coverage, or their press passes would be taken away. News outlets sued and the matter has been slowly working its way through the courts.

The White House has used the sluggish nature of the court process to its advantage, and appears to be testing what it can get away with in the absence of a vigilant judiciary. Despite preliminary injunctions in both prior cases siding with the news outlets, the Trump administration has continued to further restrict press access while the litigation proceeds.

“Trump’s ban harms both the press and the public, which relies on journalists to report independently on the president and his administration,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “We hope that Judge Kelly will soon make his temporary order permanent, and that his permanent order addresses the news organizations’ First Amendment claims, not just their Fifth Amendment ones. The First Amendment bars the president from transforming the press corps into a propaganda machine.”

Viewed in the broader context of Trump’s aggression towards the press during his second term, the decision to ignore US District Judge Timothy Kelly’s order restoring access to Politico, CNN, and MS NOW is part of a methodical effort to control information about the administration. In addition to outright bans, the White House has taken control of the press pool away from an independent agency, defunded public media like PBS and NPR, replaced reporting at the state-run Voice of America with far-right misinformation, initiated a retaliatory review of ABC’s broadcast license, ended protections for journalists’ confidential sources, and seized computers from the home of a reporter whose coverage had been critical of the administration.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Subscribe now

Legislation introduced to stop ICE detention warehouses once and for all

The Trump administration’s failed plan to create mass detention camps shocked and horrified the public, and it could be revived because the loopholes that let the government buy warehouses without local input are still on the books.

Last December, communities across the country were stunned to discover that the Department of Homeland Security had begun purchasing industrial warehouses to convert into detention camps for people arrested by ICE. The news blindsided state lawmakers and city councils, who immediately raised concerns regarding sewage, water, public safety, and potential human rights violations.

The plan was eventually abandoned due to intense opposition from the public, but the legal loopholes that allowed the federal government to spend $1 billion on 11 warehouses — without approval from local authorities and without even complying with standard land survey or permitting processes — still exist. They could be utilized in the future, in a more subtle manner that would not provoke the same public rage.

US Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) worked for months to stop a detention center from opening in her district. DHS bought an industrial complex in Socorro, Texas, for $122 million but refused to engage with the town council or solicit public input — an offense Escobar plans to make illegal. In September, she introduced the DHS Community Consultation Act, which would require DHS to adhere to a 60-day public comment period, actively engage with community members and leaders, and honor any local ordinances that prohibit detention facilities in the region.

“The administration cannot do whatever it wants, but there are gaping loopholes that we need to make sure that we close,” Rep. Escobar told COURIER. “We need to put up guardrails around this and future administrations so that we protect the rights of communities.”

Escobar’s legislation would also require DHS to assess the impact any facility would have on public utilities — like water infrastructure, electric power grids, and roads — healthcare and emergency services, and overall community health. It would establish contagious disease protocols that align with local mandates, reducing the risk of an outbreak at the facilities.

Ultimately, the legislation would codify local control that many elected officials thought was already the law of the land. It turned out those protections were merely societal norms that were quickly bulldozed by the Trump administration. Communities have seen the same playbook with data centers, where permitting requirements and tax burdens have often been waived without regard for public concerns.

“The American people are really angry about a number of issues, and a number of ways that the administration has exploited these loopholes,” said Escobar. “When you look at data centers that are proliferating across the country, including in my community, frequently without community consultation, frequently with a complete disregard for natural resources and air quality — the same thing goes for immigration detention, or for border wall construction. Congress really needs to take back much of the authority that has been given to the executive over decades. We have to shut down all of those loopholes and opportunities that are used by rogue administrations to exert their will over the will of communities.”

As it stands, the DHS Community Consultation Act faces an uphill battle until next year: the House is in recess until November, and Speaker Mike Johnson is unlikely to allow a vote on any legislation that doesn’t have Trump’s express support. Escobar is hopeful that if Democrats take control of Congress, her legislation will quickly be brought to the floor for a vote.

Zorro Ranch investigation sparks action to close ‘Epstein Loophole’

By Jackie Appel, investigative reporter

A technicality in New Mexico’s legal code allowed one of the most notorious sex traffickers in modern history to operate inconspicuously in the state for decades. This year, lawmakers are taking steps to close that loophole.

On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty to soliciting prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution in the state of Florida. Considering what is now known about Epstein’s vast trafficking empire, the charges seem ludicrously small, especially considering the fact that the jail time to which he was sentenced was served in large part from the comfort of his own home and an office he controlled.

However, the sentencing did accomplish one very important thing: it forced Epstein to register as a sex offender.

Typically, this would be a significant step towards keeping people safe from a man like Epstein. Sex offenders are often barred from living in or working near certain places, and they need to let state governments know they are in the vicinity any time they set up residence across state lines.

Except, as it turns out, that wasn’t true in New Mexico, where Epstein owned and maintained his massive Zorro Ranch property from 1993 until 2019. Following his 2008 conviction, Peter Schoenburg—one of Epstein’s lawyers—noticed a loophole in New Mexico’s laws that meant he would not need to register as a sex offender in the state, even though his conviction required him to register in Florida and New York, where he also owned property.

That loophole remains open to this day. Now, legislators are trying to close it.

Slipping through the cracks

As the Santa Fe New Mexican reported earlier this month, State Rep. Meredith Dixon (D-Albuquerque) said she intends to introduce “a comprehensive package for victims and survivors” during the next legislative session in 2027. She is working closely with Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who she credits with “spearheading this effort.”

Most central to the Epstein case, the package would increase the protected age listed for victims of sexual crimes from 16 to 18. In doing so, legislators would finally close the loophole Epstein used to avoid registering as a sex offender in the state.

While the actual age of Epstein’s victim in his 2008 conviction is disputed, court documents list her as 17 at the time when she was sexually abused by Epstein — and that distinction played a major role in how Epstein got around the court order to register as a sex offender in every state he maintained residence.

In Florida, where Epstein was convicted, the law required him to register as a sex offender for “procuring [a] person under [the] age of 18 for prostitution.” In New Mexico, the closest similar statute is called “sexual exploitation of children by prostitution.” While this sounds like it might be even more all-encompassing than the Florida law, the text specifies that in order for the statute to apply, the victim must be “a child under the age of sixteen.” In Epstein’s case, that meant that the charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor could not legally have been levied against Epstein in the state of New Mexico because his victim was 17, and thus, the state’s registration requirements did not apply.

It was this technicality Epstein’s attorneys leaned on, and ultimately, they convinced state officials that Epstein did not have to register as a sex offender. The decision kept him off local law enforcement’s radar as he built his trafficking empire, where he used his wealth and influence to oversee the abuse of over 1,000 victims — at least 30 of which were assaulted at Zorro Ranch.

Building a safer future

While closing the loophole does little to those who have already been harmed, lawmakers believe correcting the law would do a world of good to protect potential future victims from suffering the same fate as those who were abused by Epstein.

The package compiled by Dixon and Torrez has several objectives beyond simply closing the ‘Epstein loophole,’ many of which fall under the umbrella of aligning New Mexico more closely with federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) standards by adding and updating crucial definitions to relevant statutes.

“The [original] reason that I was interested in making the updates to SORNA was actually from a budgetary perspective, because the fact that New Mexico is out of compliance with the federal standards means we are not able to access certain grant monies that we could use to support victims” Dixon told COURIER. “We have not kept up with the changing times. So a lot of our definitions and registry requirements are either outdated or they’re too lax compared to other states. Our effort is to bring our standards up to get us closer to compliance with what the federal standards want.”

Unlike most reporting around Epstein — which is often scandalous and attention-grabbing — the legislative package will be decidedly dull, as it will deal mainly with tweaks to the language and definitions in existing statues. But these small changes (which should be released to the public sometime in October) could mean a world of difference for victims trying to get justice.For example, Dixon said the package will attempt to change the language of the statute outlining who must register as a sex offender.

“I think [one of] the most important [changes] that we are trying to [make] is add sex trafficking. So, if you are convicted of sex trafficking, that would be an offense for which you would need to register as a sex offender,” Dixon explained.

“Right now, it is not a definition that is encompassed in our statute, so that is something that we need to add,” she continued. “There’s exploitation, solicitation, incest, enticement. And there’s sexual exploitation of children by prostitution, but not [sex trafficking].”

The package Dixon and Torrez have compiled heavily focuses on adjusting statutes that could allow perpetrators to operate in the state of New Mexico in much the same way that Epstein did. But Dixon and Torrez intend for it to have broader implications that protect even more potential victims.

“One of the bills that is going to be included is allowing victims — especially child victims — to refuse a pre-trial interview,” Dixon told COURIER. As of right now, victims of trafficking cannot bow out of pre-trial interviews, potentially subjecting them to extended and numerous sessions of answering questions that have the potential to bring their traumas back to the forefront of their minds. “If the defense counsel wants to interview a child victim five times, they’re allowed to do that, and all of that’s before trial.”

Another piece of legislation is focused on removing barriers for victims coming forward to report instances of human trafficking, namely, removing the 10-year statute of limitations. “I think we know now that victims frequently are not ready to speak immediately,” Dixon said, “and so we need to allow them additional time.”

As for why officials seem to have chosen now as the time to finally address many of these concerns, Dixon (perhaps macabrely) credits the recent increased visibility of the Epstein case.

“I have run legislation and worked with colleagues to amend SORNA in the past, and it hasn’t made it to the House floor,” she said. “Now, with everything that’s going on with the Epstein Commission looking at Zorro Ranch and this loophole, I think there’s a better understanding — by legislators and members of the public — of exactly why we need to make some of the changes that we’ve been asking for.”

“I’m very optimistic,” she said, regarding the chances of the package passing during the next legislative session, which will take place at the beginning of 2027.

Hopefully, for the sake of potential future victims, she’s right.

Subscribe now

COMING UP: Next week, we’ll have stories on a new criminal investigation into the executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, Richard Kahn and Darren Indyke. Got questions? Drop ‘em in the comments!

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Support our journalism

(In)sanewashing: Judge threatens Blanche with contempt over Epstein case

Camaron Stevenson — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 12:45:27 GMT

In April, independent journalist Katie Phang sued Todd Blanche over the government’s alleged failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Today, Phang joined (In)sanewashing to provide details on the twists and turns of her case, and what to expect in the coming weeks.

Among other excuses, Blanche has spent the last several months telling a federal judge he just can't seem to turn over a few handwritten FBI notes that happen to mention Donald Trump. Now his defense is starting to buckle, as at least one of his attorneys has withdrawn from the case.

As a result of Phang’s lawsuit, the DOJ has also published the redaction justifications it delivered to Congress in the Federal Register — you can read them here.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with and ! Join us next Friday at 2 p.m.

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

For too long, the Epstein Class has dealt in wealth, power, and politics to avoid accountability and deny victims & survivors their due justice. The public deserves the truth, but the Trump Administration is failing its legal obligation to deliver it.

That’s why we’re expanding our coverage to follow the money and investigate the power players in and outside the government. With a new database by Thorian AI, we have unprecedented access and ability to navigate more than 1.2M files and we’re sharing access—and what we’re finding—with you.

Subscribe to The Cover-Up and get one concise, easy-to-read email a week that cuts through the noise with the headlines you need and the breakdowns you want.

By staying plugged in and leveraging our reporting to make your own calls-to-action louder, together, we can turn information into justice.

Subscribe to The Cover-Up

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

Steve Bannon sides with Wall Street oligarchs over tech billionaires at in AI race

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 20:36:18 GMT

Pledge Your Support

What Happened

The US House recessed early this week, but not before voting unanimously to refer criminal contempt charges against Jeffrey Epstein bankroller Leon Black to the Justice Department over his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.

The referral forces the DOJ to pry open a door into a criminal enterprise US Attorney General Todd Blanche has desperately tried to keep shut. Shortly after joining the agency, Blanche was tasked with leading the department’s investigation into Epstein, which he quickly closed. The decision was widely criticized, as the closure came under the pretense that, despite identifying more than 1,000 victims, the DOJ had not uncovered enough evidence to prosecute any alleged co-conspirators. Blanche spent the following 14 months insisting that the DOJ had moved on, and that the public should do the same.

The criminal referral for Black now forces the DOJ to either revisit Epstein’s criminal network or risk provoking a Congress that has unified behind little else. Public pressure to hold those connected to Epstein accountable and deliver justice for survivors of their abuse pushed congressional Republicans to defy President Donald Trump and join Democrats in passing the Epstein Files Transparency Act last year. That same pressure has fueled an ongoing investigation into the government’s handling of the Epstein case by the House Oversight Committee.

“No one is above the law,” said committee chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY). “We will continue to seek transparency for the American people and justice for survivors in our investigation of the federal government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases.”

The committee’s investigation has been met with outright opposition from the Trump administration and reluctant compliance from private citizens. In July 2025, the committee approved Rep. Summer Lee’s (D-PA) motion to subpoena the DOJ for the full, unredacted Epstein Files. To date, the department has not complied. Nearly a year later, when billionaire and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared before the committee to answer questions about his relationship with Epstein, he let it slip that the White House had coached him before his interview — a revelation many on the committee point to as the reason behind his contradictory answers.

Others who appeared before the committee also did so willingly, but offered similarly deceptive answers. Epstein attorney Darren Indyke gave investigators misleading answers about his compensation and involvement in money laundering; Epstein scheduler Lesley Groff claimed to know nothing about trafficking despite having coordinated travel for victims; and former Goldman Sachs executive Kathy Ruemmler told investigators she hadn’t helped with Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal troubles, despite emails that confirm otherwise.

Like the others, Black initially appeared before the committee voluntarily. But he cut his interview short after refusing to answer questions about non-disclosure agreements he had women sign, prompting Comer to issue a surprise subpoena for Black’s NDAs. Black left, and when the time came for him to deliver the documents and appear for a deposition, he instead sued the committee. The committee then unanimously voted to hold Black in contempt, a decision that was approved by the full House on Wednesday.

“We just voted on the House floor to hold Leon Black in contempt of Congress,” said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), who sits on the committee. “He’s the guy who funded Jeffrey Epstein to the tune of $180 million. He’s all over the Epstein Files, and even the survivors said that he’d show up, and he was particularly brutal with a few women. Whatever happened, he has a lot of information, a lot of documents that are central to our investigation.”

Black’s long, sordid relationship with Epstein is of particular interest to congressional investigators, who view his role as friend and financier as crucial to understanding how a failed high school teacher came to own two islands, develop close relationships with the world’s richest and most powerful people, amass a personal fortune of over $500 million, and operate an international trafficking and money laundering network seemingly undisturbed for nearly 30 years.

Epstein is believed to have negotiated NDAs between Black and the women he had sexual relationships with, and investigators believe those contracts could provide insight into how Epstein tried to keep his criminal network under wraps. Should Blanche decide to prosecute, Black would either have to comply with the subpoena and deliver the requested NDAs to Congress or face fines and prison time.

“They didn’t have non-disclosure agreements, and this guy does, which means he’s paid women for — whatever reason,” Comer told COURIER. “According to some of the survivors, Epstein negotiated some of these NDAs. He negotiated the terms. Now, Mr. Black said in the transcribed interview — which if he’s lying to Congress, that’s a felony — he said that Epstein didn’t have anything to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if that’s factual or not, and a lot of people in the committee want to know for sure whether that’s true.”

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

Steve Bannon sides with Wall Street oligarchs over tech billionaires at in AI race

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon speaks during the Pro-Human Assembly. Industry leaders, politicians including Sen. Bernie Sanders, and community members gathered for a day of discussion around the topic of AI legislation. (Photo by Finn Gomez/Getty Images)

The focus of an artificial intelligence summit this week was overshadowed by its main speakers, whose opposing proposals on how to best reign in the emerging tech were instead heralded as a singular message of unity and compromise.

In reality, remarks made by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and far-right strategist Steve Bannon were, predictably, polar opposites. Though both railed against the unchecked power and control tech billionaires wield over AI, Sanders’ solution involved public ownership of AI corporations, while Bannon’s would shift that power from one set of oligarchs to another.

“The American citizens are not going to be supplicants to the oligarchs anymore. We can’t do it,” said Bannon, speaking of tech CEOs. “Here’s what we have to do first: to slow down the pace so that we can understand exactly what’s going on, and also let [China] understand that we’re not going to let them put a moat around this, we’re not going to let [them] be a cartel, we’re not going to underwrite the liabilities while they take the upside. We need time. And this is not legislation — this is going to have to be executive action.”

Bannon’s proposition focused on three components, based on his belief that the US is in the midst of an AI race with China: national security, regulation, and the economy. Under his plan, President Donald Trump would take control of the AI sector as a matter of national security. After consolidating power through executive orders, Bannon said, the US would need to use regulation to end all relations with China: divest any investments, turn away China-based businesses, and deport all Chinese nationals.

On his third component, the economy, Bannon offered no solutions. He also shied away from discussing job losses and the security threats AI itself could pose, two of the main topics at the summit. Sanders, by contrast, focused on ways to provide economic security to people whose jobs might be lost to AI, while shifting control of the industry away from tech billionaires and into the public domain.

“Virtually all of the decisions regarding the development of AI have been made by a handful of the richest people in the world — Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel, Ellison, Brin, and a few others — whose chief goal is to achieve even more wealth and more power than they already have, no matter what the impact their work has on ordinary people,” said Sanders. “If the lives of every man, woman, and child are going to be fundamentally changed by this technology, then the people of this country must make the decisions about AI — and not just a handful of oligarchs. That is why I have introduced legislation, the AI American Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, that would require that half of the board members of the larger AI companies be appointed by the public. The big tech oligarchs must no longer be allowed to determine the future of humanity.”

Sanders also urged the US to engage in open dialogue with China to ensure AI doesn’t develop beyond humanity’s ability to control it. Like Bannon, Sanders compared the situation to the Cold War — but instead of an arms race, Sanders proposed an armistice, in which both countries could reach an agreement that looks to the benefit of humanity as a whole. Ultimately, Sanders said, both countries would need to agree to pause AI development and implement a ban on superintelligence, a treaty Bannon said would be impossible.

While Sanders and Bannon disagreed on nearly every aspect of AI — who should control it, what the dangers are, and how to work with other countries — they did share one singular warning about its advancement: slow it down before it’s too late.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Subscribe now

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

(In)sanewashing: Trump tries to rewrite 9/11

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 19:11:18 GMT

The latest episode of (In)sanewashing is now available! To support ad-free episodes like this, please consider joining as a paid subscriber today.

Join COURIER’s Camaron Stevenson and Nardos Araya as they discuss the president’s $5,000 bribe to voters, and his most recent attempt to make the Sept. 11 attacks all about him. And don’t miss V Spehar from Under the Desk News, who talks about what it was like living in New York on 9/11, and how it shaped how our generation sees the world.

You can find COURIER’s other shows, like How Is This Better? and Gloves Off on our YouTube channel, and don’t miss our in-depth reporting, right here on Substack.

Thank you , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with and ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Trump desperately offers $1 trillion in bribes to buy votes in midterm elections

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:34:15 GMT

Become a Paid Supporter

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

In a desperate attempt to retain his control of Congress, the President of the United States on Wednesday offered to pay voters in exchange for supporting his party in the midterm elections.

The apparent bribe is the latest in a series of empty financial promises made by President Donald Trump. But while other reneged windfalls, like the $5,000 DOGE dividend or the $2,000 tariff rebate, were presented as the fruits of his administration’s labor, the newly-imagined $5,000 Trump Dividend is explicitly contingent upon voters casting their ballots for Republicans.

“Here is my promise,” Trump said. “If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them, because of our economic, tremendous economic success — in history we’ve never had anything like what’s happening, but because of our tremendous strength and success, economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

Despite the impossibility of Trump’s latest quid pro quo, a number of trusted media outlets have given it legitimacy with misleading headlines that imply the pretend dividend is all but guaranteed. The indulgence builds on the goodwill Trump garnered during his first term, when he issued pandemic stimulus checks with his name on them. While those payments had little to do with Trump personally, they were one of the few things voters remembered about him during the 2024 election, and are believed to have helped shift the results in his favor.

Several factors could make the gambit less effective in November. In 2024, Trump was both out of office and on the ballot, a position that gave him a nostalgic glow with a direct line for voters to show their support for him. This time around, voters are facing the economic consequences of Trump’s leadership on a daily basis. Those who support the president but are dissatisfied with the government are unlikely to transition their enthusiasm for him into support for Republican candidates.

Trump appears fully aware of that dynamic, as evidenced by his $10 million ad buy featuring commercials about him rather than the candidates running for office, his decision to host an event dubbed Trump-a-palooza that many of his endorsed candidates bailed on, and his insistent pleas to undecided voters.

“The midterms are not supposed to be won by the sitting president,” Trump said. “Pretend that I am on the ballot.”

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Disqualified Trump appointee’s assault charges against Rep. McIver allowed to proceed

Rep. LaMonica McIver, center, demands the release of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after his arrest while protesting outside Delaney Hall ICE detention facility, Friday, May 9, 2025, in Newark, N.J. (AP Photo/Angelina Katsanis)

A federal appeals court has ruled that two of the three charges brought by a disqualified Trump appointee against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) may go to trial, rejecting the congresswoman’s defense of legislative immunity.

The split 2-1 decision by a panel of judges with the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals comes more than a year after the incident in question, when McIver and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka attempted to conduct an oversight visit of the privately-run ICE detention center, Delaney Hall. They were turned away by guards, who were then ordered to arrest Baraka by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Baraka and McIver were in a crowd answering questions when law enforcement pushed their way through to make the arrest. After Baraka was taken away, McIver was allowed to proceed with her oversight visit.

One month later, US Attorney Alina Habba dropped the trespassing charges against Baraka and announced she would instead prosecute McIver for “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers.” Habba was later disqualified from her position after the Third Circuit ruled she had been unlawfully appointed. That same court, however, did not dismiss the prosecutions Habba initiated during her brief tenure, including the charges against McIver.

“What you see here is an attempt to intimidate a member of Congress from conducting her legitimate congressional legislative role — her oversight function — and representing her constituents. Being faced with criminal prosecution is an intense and deeply damaging risk,” said Joshua Kolb, senior counsel for Democracy Defenders who helped write an amicus brief in McIver’s defense. “The implication of something like this is an attempt to stop members of Congress from, for example, seeing what’s happening at ICE detention facilities. The stories about what’s happening at ICE detention facilities have not abated in the past year.”

The court also rejected McIver’s claim that she was at Delaney Hall in her official capacity as a member of Congress, and therefore immune from personal liability for any alleged criminal conduct. In addition to facing 17 years in prison, that determination means McIver can’t rely on congressional legal counsel and must use personal funds to cover court costs — while, as a member of Congress, remaining prohibited from accepting pro bono legal aid.

While the Trump administration has regularly used the DOJ to intimidate and threaten members of Congress, McIver is the first to be charged. If convicted, McIver’s legal counsel Paul Fishman believes it would trigger a seismic shift in the delicate balance of power between the three branches of government.

“This is a fight for Congresswoman McIver and every other member of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate who could be targeted by this administration for speaking out, for conducting oversight of the executive branch,” said Fishman. “It’s designed both to chill her and to chill the other members who want to engage in the same kind of conduct, and hold the executive branch responsible for what they’re doing.”

Congressional oversight visits to ICE facilities have provided transparency into DHS’ detention network and revealed inhumane conditions those taken by the Trump administration have been forced to endure. In response, DHS has attempted to change the rules around oversight visits several times. While those rule changes have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge, a successful conviction against McIver would aid the department in its effort to restrict members of Congress from inspecting detention facilities.

It’s easy for individual members of Congress to get overlooked by national outlets as they quietly skate to reelection again, and again, and again. The following is an overview of different congressional representatives you may not have heard of, with fun facts about their origin stories they’ve tried to keep out of the public narrative.

US Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina’s 5th Congressional District

Since taking office in 2005, Rep. Foxx has:

Seen her net worth decrease from around $5.8 million to $4.7 million
Sponsored 266 bills, 10 of which have been signed into law
Initially voted against the Epstein Files Transparency Act
Expressed belief that sexual assault victims should be forced to give birth to their abuser’s child
Voted against sending federal aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina
Spent more than a decade trying to end birthright citizenship
Described universal healthcare as a bigger threat than terrorism
Rejected the idea that violence based on sexual orientation is a hate crime

Fun Facts

When she’s not telling reporters to shut up, Rep. Foxx is bullying ten-year-olds and taking potshots at teachers, apparently. Earlier this year, an elementary school student from her district sent the octogenarian congresswoman a letter about electric vehicles as part of an assignment. In response, Foxx told the student that he should “turn away from this dangerous path,” and accused his teacher of indoctrinating him with propaganda.

Subscribe now

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Pledge Your Support

Congress plans contempt charges for Epstein bankroller Leon Black

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:59:18 GMT

Subscribe now

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

A Wall Street billionaire known for bankrolling Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation in the US Virgin Islands is expected to be held in contempt of Congress over his refusal to appear Thursday for a congressional deposition and his failure to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Leaders from both parties on the House Oversight Committee said they plan to hold Leon Black in contempt after he ignored a subpoena to appear before the committee and refused to provide copies of nondisclosure agreements between himself and women he had sexual encounters with. Epstein is believed to have negotiated a number of these contracts, which could provide crucial insight into how the sex trafficker silenced victims and offered protection to his co-conspirators.

“When we brought him in to testify [in June] and when he walked out — we made it clear that he needed to come back,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), ranking member of the committee. “The process of contempt has to begin. He, along with Les Wexner, are the two key financial figures in this whole investigation. It’s not acceptable that he’s not coming in. His lawsuit against the committee is laughable.”

The only sticking point, according to committee chairman James Comer (R-KY), is a lawsuit Black filed against the committee, naming Comer personally. In the lawsuit, Black claims the subpoenas are invalid and would violate the privacy of the NDAs’ signatories.

“I would hold him in contempt right now,” said Comer. “This is the first time, of all the people we’ve brought in, of all the powerful billionaires and political people we’ve brought in for interviews and depositions, this is the first time anyone’s filed suit. I don’t want to do anything to harm our chances in court. The most important priority for the committee — I think, but I’m going to talk with the committee as a whole — the most important priority is to get Mr. Black in to answer questions.”

Black is one of more than a dozen individuals interviewed by the committee as part of an investigation into Epstein’s crimes and the government’s handling of its case against him. While others delayed their appearances or made demonstrably false statements, Black is the first to challenge the committee in court. He first appeared before the committee voluntarily in June, but refused to answer questions almost immediately, and stormed out after Comer subpoenaed him in order to compel his cooperation.

Garcia, who would become chair should Democrats regain control of the House next year, said Black’s attempt to sue the committee amounts to little more than a futile attempt to stall the inevitable.

“Chairman Comer did the right thing when he forced him to come in under subpoena and asked for the NDAs,” Garcia said. “What Black is trying to do is slow the process down. He’s very aware that Congress is in session for a certain amount of time before the recess. He’s very aware that Comer is no longer going to be the chairperson. But what Mr. Black should understand is that we will be even more aggressive than Chairman Comer as it relates to his testimony. If Chairman Comer does not begin the contempt proceedings with Mr. Black before the end of this Congress, I certainly will.”

At the heart of the committee’s pursuit of Black is his collection of NDAs. It has been public knowledge for years that Black used NDAs to guarantee silence from women he cheated on his wife with. But documents made public as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act allege that Epstein personally negotiated an $18 million NDA between the Wall Street billionaire and Russian model Guzel Ganieva, and may have been the one to introduce the concept of using contracts to intimidate women into silence. If the NDAs in Black’s possession were Epstein’s handiwork, it could raise questions about similar agreements used by others who swam in their circles, including convicted sex abusers Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, and President Donald Trump.

American Freakshow

The Billionaire and the Recruiters Part Three

The Indy 500 is zipping around our capital, but the wheels of American justice are slow. Attorney General Todd “Boy Cohn” Blanche – with the help of FBI agents flagging documents with the acronym POTUS for special review – has thrown enough roadblocks into the Epstein Files Transparency Act to defend his boss for now…

3 months ago · 101 likes · 16 comments · Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth

Congressional investigators also want more details regarding the millions of dollars Epstein received from Black and fellow billionaire Les Wexner. The committee believes Wexner gave Epstein a billion dollars over 20 years. Wexner cut Epstein off when the latter was arrested for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2007, but the tab was picked up almost immediately by Black, who doled out over $180 million over the next decade.

During that 30-year period, Epstein used his newfound wealth to set up headquarters in New Mexico, New York, and the US Virgin Islands and created a billion-dollar international sex trafficking empire, with alleged clients ranging from European royalty to two United States presidents.

“Leon Black gave Epstein over $180 million dollars. He was Epstein’s primary client,” said Oversight member Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA). “All we’re asking from him is to sit down with our committee and offer us basic information and basic documents — that we’ve asked of most other people as well — and he’s not providing that. We are Congress. We are not one of his clients. We are not one of his friends.”

Comer said he plans to consult with the full committee and its legal team before contempt charges are filed. The timeline could be severely delayed, however, as Republican leadership has ordered the house to recess until mid-November, leaving only a four-day window in September to accomplish any legislative work.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Poll: Epstein Cover-up front of mind for voters going into Midterms

With just two months until the midterm elections, voters across party lines are looking for candidates who are willing to take on corruption, hold powerful abusers accountable, and demand the full release of the Epstein Files.

A new nationwide poll conducted by public opinion research firm GBAO and released Wednesday by COURIER and Reckoning Action found that 88% of Americans who plan to vote in the midterms, including 83% of Republican voters, will prioritize candidates who promise to hold powerful people accountable, including through the release of the full Epstein files. Justice for Epstein’s victims ranked higher for voters than almost every other issue, including healthcare, affordability, immigration, public safety, and the Iran War.

The issue could complicate President Donald Trump’s efforts to boost his endorsed midterm candidates. Three out of four respondents who voted for Trump in 2024 said justice for Epstein’s victims and accountability for his co-conspirators would be a top factor when filling out their ballots.

“For months, Americans across the political spectrum have seen the release of the Epstein files completely mishandled, the privacy and the safety of survivors disregarded, and justice routinely denied. Now, voters across party lines are drawing a line and making it clear: this issue will be a critical determining factor in their midterm vote,” said Cheyenne Hunt, executive director for Reckoning Action. “To every candidate hoping to earn the trust of voters ahead of November, know this: if you have been in any way complicit with this cover-up, or if you are unwilling to take a stand for justice, voters will not forget.”

When asked about a candidate’s message to voters, addressing justice for Epstein’s victims had a 17-point advantage over the Iran War and ranked 15 points higher than messaging around transgender issues, two of President Trump’s primary talking points. The only issue ranked higher was corruption, a term voters are beginning to see as synonymous with Trump and his enablers in Congress.

Releasing the Epstein Files became a national priority in 2025, as the Trump administration became engrossed in an apparent cover-up of the records, what they contained, and who they might implicate. The most grievous transgressions include secret meetings in the Situation Room; moving Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell to a low-security prison; holding a fake Epstein Files release party with far-right media personalities; and closing its investigation into Epstein without additional prosecutions after a hasty review of less than 7% of the DOJ’s investigative files.

In lieu of executive accountability, the public turned to Congress. Pressure from voters grew so intense that the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) passed with virtually unanimous support. But the new polling suggests that voters may now turn to the ballot box to punish those they believe have failed to ensure the law is upheld. To date, only half of the 6 million records from the government’s case files on Epstein have been released, and the US Department of Justice has failed to provide Congress with explanations for redactions and omissions as required by law.

The full release of the Epstein Files will take a Congress willing to use its power to force the DOJ to comply with the law, as Attorney General Todd Blanche has stonewalled any attempts to do so. Senate Republicans approved Blanche’s nomination to his role in August, despite pleas from survivors of Epstein’s abuse to reject him. Blanche took lead on the Epstein investigation in 2025, members of Congress currently investigating his handling of the case say his priority has been to protect the president every step of the way.

“He is the chief architect of the cover-up that the White House is engaging in to prevent the disclosure of files,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL). “To prevent the disclosure of any information that might implicate Donald Trump.”

Some candidates have taken note of the salience of this issue and are already running campaign ads attacking opponents who have failed to deliver accountability on Epstein. Democratic candidates Mary Peltola in Alaska and Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia have criticized their opponents for initially voting against releasing the Epstein Files, while Sherrod Brown in Ohio went a step further, highlighting donations Sen. Jon Husted received from billionaire Les Wexner, whose wealth financed Epstein’s criminal network for over a decade.

Others, like James Talarico in Texas, have used past records of leniency for perpetrators of sexual assault as an example of enabling abusers like Epstein. In Arizona, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs released a scathing television ad putting Republican candidate Rep. Andy Biggs’ record on Epstein front and center. While Biggs voted to pass the EFTA, he voted against the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena to obtain the full, unredacted files, and has been absent from the committee’s investigation into Epstein’s criminal network.

Hobbs also tied Biggs’ inaction on Epstein to his record on other related issues as a state legislator, including voting against funding to investigate sexual abuse crimes and supporting protections for a fundamentalist cult known to be a hotbed of domestic violence and child abuse.

Republicans, in contrast, have largely kept Epstein out of their campaigns. The few attempts to counter accusations of taking cash from the “Epstein Class” have either been disproved or backfired, and Democrats’ votes to release the Epstein Files were consistent throughout the process.

The strategy reflects another finding from the COURIER/Reckoning Action poll: the more closely an issue aligned with Epstein’s crimes and the questions surrounding the case, the more likely voters were to rank it as a concern.

Of the 15 issues tested, five were considered top concerns by over 80% of respondents: child abuse, government corruption, abuse of power, those in power avoiding accountability, and human trafficking as the top five concerns. Among the issues of least concern were several Trump sees as his strengths: immigration, transgender athletes, and public safety.

With control of Congress in the balance this fall, the president, administration, and candidates across the political spectrum will all have to contend with the simple fact that the Epstein cover-up isn’t going away.

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

Subscribe to The Cover-Up and get one concise, easy-to-read email a week that cuts through the noise with the headlines you need and the breakdowns you want.

By staying plugged in and leveraging our reporting to make your own calls-to-action louder, together, we can turn information into justice.

Subscribe to The Cover-Up

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Subscribe now

DOJ leaked withheld portion of Epstein Files to conservative media, doxxing victims

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 13:03:45 GMT

For months, the Department of Justice has refused to publicly release a section of the Epstein Files containing handwritten notes from an FBI interview with one of Epstein’s victims — but last week, some of those notes were found posted online, uploaded by a conservative journalist who received them from a DOJ employee.

The 37 pages of handwritten notes have been the subject of speculation, criticism, and lawsuits over the DOJ’s stewardship of the Epstein Files. Attorney General Todd Blanche has blocked the publication of millions of investigative files the DOJ has on Epstein, including the handwritten interview notes, claiming they are merely duplicative of records that have already been released. But an unredacted copy of the notes, uploaded to the document hosting site Scribd by Washington Examiner reporter Kaelan Deese, reveals enough discrepancies between what they contain and what was already public to cast Blanche’s entire defense into question.

“There are a few details that wouldn’t have needed to be redacted,” said Dr. Rye Howard-Stone, a computer scientist who tracked the origin of the leaked notes and verified their authenticity. “There’s a road trip to New Jersey, a school trip to Washington DC, and then the names of corroborating witnesses she gave the FBI — who, according to the Post and Courier, were never contacted. Obviously, the names of the witnesses should be redacted. But the fact that there are, or potentially are, uncontacted witnesses is important.”

Blanche has repeatedly invoked the duplicative defense since Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, claiming that — contrary to the law as it’s written — he can withhold any duplicate records since the information they contain has already been published. However, even by Blanche’s own standard, there appears to be no legal reason to withhold the notes from Doe 4’s interview, as the leaked documents disprove the notion that the information would be redundant.

In fact, releasing duplicative records does not appear to have been a consistent concern to the DOJ at all when deciding what to release. An independent analysis by COURIER and ThorianAI found that at least 40% of the DOJ’s Epstein Library consists of duplications. The outlet has added a “deduplication” feature to its Epstein Files database that shows users how many duplicates or variants exist of each file. Instead, Blanche’s top priority seems to be preventing the release of any information that could implicate Trump.

“There have been no saving graces in the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files,” said Howard-Stone. “This is just yet another example in a long chain of miscarriages of justice in this case by the government.

The discovery of the fully unredacted notes is the latest revelation in a bizarre saga involving allegations against Epstein and Trump. The omission of Doe 4’s FBI interviews were first discovered in February, when independent journalist Roger Sollenberger found references to them in the Epstein Files, but the interviews themselves were nowhere to be found. American Freakshow Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth dug deeper and found that Doe had been labeled a protected source, a designation typically reserved for informants who provide credible information involving high-profile individuals.

The DOJ initially — and falsely — claimed the information was duplicative, but ultimately conceded and released the typed interview reports, known as FD-302s, in early March. The typed reports revealed new and graphic allegations against Trump, including that he raped and beat Doe 4 when she was a young teen. Early drafts of the report — handwritten notes investigators took while interviewing Doe 4 — remained withheld, with the DOJ once again arguing that the information they contained was redundant.

“The Department has not produced underlying handwritten notes for FD-302 interview reports because, by their nature, the underlying notes are substantially similar to the ultimate reports, and have accordingly been deemed duplicative of the typewritten reports memorializing the interviews,” Blanche wrote in a court filing on the matter. “Their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victim [personal identifying information].”

On March 6, the same day the DOJ released the typed interview notes, Deese uploaded the handwritten versions to Scribd. It remains unclear whether he received an embargoed copy of the released documents that erroneously included the notes or whether a DOJ employee leaked them in secret. Deese didn’t mention the notes in an article published the following day and has not responded to requests for comment on this story.

In April, independent journalist Katie Phang sued Blanche over the release of the handwritten notes, as well as a number of other omissions she argued represented the government’s failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. While the case remains ongoing, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan found in June that the DOJ was in violation of the law, and chastised Blanche and government attorneys for ignoring court orders intended to bring him back into compliance.

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Become a Paid Supporter Today

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

Subscribe to The Cover-Up

People are desperately selling body fluid to pay bills

Camaron Stevenson — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:32:24 GMT

Subscribe now

And thank you , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with and ! If there are any other midterm candidates you’d like me to interview, please let me know.

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

People are seeing recession indicators everywhere — at the store, in restaurants, on credit cards — but one of the biggest, most depressing, and uniquely American recession indicators has been quietly popping up in strip malls everywhere they’re legal to operate: plasma centers.

The allure of quick cash at a time when prices continue to rise and wages remain stagnant has brought a surge of new clientele to the for-profit plasma industry since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. Payouts to donors hit a record-breaking $4.7 billion in 2025 and are expected to surpass $5 billion in 2026. Unsurprisingly, the states with the largest increases in donations overlap almost identically with those where residents report the highest levels of economic distress — and nowhere is that disparity more stark than in Texas.

Texas is home to more than 180 plasma centers, which doled out over $650 million to residents last year. State Rep. Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for governor, said that where these facilities are setting up shop and who their target customers are has shifted in recent years, from college students and low-income residents to working professionals.

“There are now these plasma centers that are popping up in suburban, middle-class areas where teachers are giving plasma two to three times a week just to pay their bills,” Hinojosa told COURIER. “It’s a second job — donating plasma two to three times a week. That’s the level of desperation people are feeling.”

Hinojosa believes the financial necessity of selling plasma is symbolic of the state of Texas under Gov. Greg Abbott’s leadership. While Abbott has enticed large corporations like Tesla to migrate from California to Texas with low taxes, the wealth their leaders have amassed has not trickled down in the slightest. The year Texas became home to the world’s first trillionaire, local businesses closed or went bankrupt at a faster rate than any other state in the country.

In an effort to transfer some of that wealth back to Texas households, Hinojosa has proposed a one-time, $1,500 tax refund. The money would come from the state’s rainy day fund, which has ballooned to a record $25 billion under Abbott. The refund, dubbed the “Greg Abbott Corruption Tax Refund” by Hinojosa, would use approximately $17 billion from the fund and provide each household with a tax-free lump sum roughly equivalent to the payout from 30 plasma donations.

Also closing at an alarming rate are the state’s public schools, a result of the state’s new voucher system that subsidizes private schools with money from Texas’ public school budget. As has happened in other states, Texas’ voucher program has incentivized the for-profit education industry to open hundreds of new private and charter schools, siphoning funds away from local public schools, forcing some to either condense their schedules to four days a week or close completely.

“It is one big grift, that is what we’re experiencing in Texas,” said Hinojosa. “We pay more — property taxes have skyrocketed under Greg Abbott — yet we have over 170 schools shutting down in the state. We have over 150 whole school districts operating at four days a week because they can’t afford to operate at five days a week. That’s the crisis we have in public schools right now; that’s why we see this as the last best chance to save our public schools.”

Despite promises that school vouchers — known deceptively as “school choice” by advocates — offer households at every income level the opportunity to improve their children’s education, it’s been confirmed time and time again that they disproportionately benefit the wealthy. The vast majority of voucher money is used to subsidize the education costs of students who already attended private schools, while lower-income households who rely on public schools are left with fewer options as schools are forced to close.

Hinojosa, who began her political career as a school board member, plans to reign in voucher spending and return funding to public schools. In the state legislature, she worked with Republicans to vote down Abbott’s voucher proposal in 2023 over fears of rural school closures. The closures that have occurred since vouchers were approved in 2025 have confirmed those fears. Hinojosa believes she can work with Republicans again as governor to shut down the state’s $1 billion voucher program and redirect the money toward reopening underfunded schools.

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

DOJ leaked withheld portion of Epstein Files to conservative media, doxxing victims

Someone holding a copy of a portion of the Epstein Files. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.

The discovery of the fully unredacted notes is the latest revelation in a bizarre saga involving allegations against Epstein and Trump. The omission of Doe 4’s FBI interviews were first discovered in February, when independent journalist Roger Sollenberger found references to them in the Epstein Files, but the interviews themselves were nowhere to be found. Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth dug deeper and found that Doe had been labeled a protected source, a designation typically reserved for informants who provide credible information involving high-profile individuals.

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Become a Paid Supporter Today

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

Subscribe to The Cover-Up

Only one warehouse remains from Trump admin’s mass detention camp plan

Camaron Stevenson — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 14:13:24 GMT

An eight-month effort to stop the Trump administration’s plan to turn industrial warehouses into mass detention camps has proven massively successful, with all but one of the 23 selected locations abandoned or paused indefinitely.

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) announced the most recent closure on August 11: a planned detention center just outside Socorro, Texas, that would have been the largest in the country. The 1 million-square-foot industrial park, made up of three warehouses, was purchased by the Department of Homeland Security for $123 million in February. The plan sounded straight out of a dystopian science fiction novel: remodel the buildings into an Amazon-style distribution center — “Prime, but with human beings,” according to former ICE Director Todd Lyons.

“I am really proud of the way the community came together. Early on, the city of Socorro voted to create a moratorium on this and other projects,” said Escobar. “This was a priority for me and my team. We did a lot of work, elevating the voices of the community, ensuring that the decision makers at the highest levels of the federal government understood the significant challenges that having a detention facility at Socorro would create, and we spent a lot of time working various processes to get to this end result.”

The Socorro complex was one of 11 warehouse sites the Trump administration purchased for a combined $1 billion, with the express purpose of holding people detained by ICE indefinitely. Eleven other locations were in the early stages of development, but swift, visceral opposition from local residents killed those projects before sites could be purchased. Only one facility is still in the works: a 64,000-square-foot industrial warehouse in San Antonio, Texas, that officials expect to open in Spring 2027. Two other purchased sites, one in Arizona and another in Maryland, are paused indefinitely due to lawsuits brought by the states’ attorneys general.

A searchable map of all 23 locations, including their current status, can be found here.

The fire sale of seven warehouses, along with the uncertain future of the few sites still in DHS’ possession, marks the end of an era of aggressively rapid anti-immigration expansion spearheaded by Trump advisor Stephen Miller. In Trump’s first year back in office, Miller sought to deport one million people, strip citizenship from millions more, and develop a national mass incarceration network to hold whoever stood in his way. Public opinion on the administration’s handling of immigration quickly soured as Miller’s efforts resulted in the illegal detention and deportation of citizens and noncitizens alike, inhumane conditions at detention centers, and warzone-style military operations in US cities politically opposed to the president.

The breaking point came in January 2026, when ICE agents participating in Operation Metro Surge killed two US citizens, Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. Protests erupted nationwide, fueled further by news that the Trump administration planned to accelerate its efforts with its warehouse detention plans. Once the locations of the warehouses became public, they became rallying points for activists, who effectively pressured local leaders and warehouse owners to block DHS from turning the sites into detention camps.

Within a month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was fired, and her replacement, Markwayne Mullin, announced that the warehouse plan was on hold. The project has since been slowly dismantled, and activists are now working to ensure the remaining DHS-owned sites in Arizona, Maryland, and Texas meet the same fate as the complex in Socorro.

“DHS didn’t do this because they wanted to,” said Brent Peak, Co-Chair of Arizona’s Northwest Valley Indivisible. “This is a real win. It is not the end of the fight though, and we’re not walking away until this prison camp is shut down for good.”

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Subscribe now

Timeline: Natalie Harp’s trajectory from inside the trunk to off the decoy plane

Camaron Stevenson — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 21:59:10 GMT

This newsletter is brought to you by Action Network Boost, a new set of features built for the most advanced digital programs.

Subscribe now

It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.

What Happened

Stories have circulated for years about Donald Trump’s overly attentive aide, Natalie Harp, but a speech by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) earlier this month thrust her into the national spotlight, eliciting both curiosity and concern for a woman whose entire world seems centrally focused on serving at the pleasure of the president.

“[Trump] doesn’t want to do the job,” said Ossoff. “He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar.”

While Harp’s intense dedication has been chronicled piecemeal by the Washington Post and New York Times, the full scale of her loyalty is difficult to grasp without a comprehensive accounting of her ascent. The role of an executive assistant would not normally be a matter of national interest, but Harp’s role as a conduit of information feeding Trump’s ego and obsession with conspiracy theories — coupled with her active presence in private meetings with cabinet members and access to communications involving national security — has garnered intense public scrutiny in the days following Ossoff’s remarks.

To that end, COURIER has compiled a comprehensive timeline of Harp’s rise, from teenage George W. Bush fangirl to one of the most influential people in the Oval Office.

President Donald Trump looks out the window with Natalie Harp, executive assistant, aboard Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House. (Photo by Al Drago for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

1991: Harp is born and raised in a Christian fundamentalist household, where she is taught to adhere to a belief in American Exceptionalism.

2007: At 16 years old, Harp begins writing President George W. Bush letters of support and admiration.

2012: She graduates from Point Loma Nazarene University, a Bible College in San Diego.

2015: Harp receives her Masters degree from Liberty University, a far-right, Christian fundamentalist school.

2016: Harp is diagnosed with bone cancer and becomes disillusioned with the US healthcare system. She responds positively to treatment and the cancer eventually goes into remission.

2019 – June 12: In a LinkedIn post critical of Joe Biden’s healthcare record, Harp misattributes a law signed by Trump as the reason she was able to access lifesaving cancer medication.

2019 – June 23: Harp is invited to talk about her LinkedIn post on Fox News, where she credits her survival to Trump. Trump sees the segment, and later invites her to join his re-election campaign’s advisory board.

2020: Harp is hired by the far-right media company OANN, where she hosts a show focused on Trump’s presidency and disproven conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election.

2020 – July 17: Harp’s father dies by suicide. Her brother, Preston, later said he believes his sister’s infatuation with Trump was born out of the desire for a father figure after their dad’s death.

2020 – August 24: At Trump’s request, Harp speaks at the RNC.

2021: Harp maintains her support for Trump after the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol, even as a number of staff, aides, and cabinet members resigned for his role in the insurrection.

2022: Harp quits OANN and moves to Florida, where Trump hires her as an assistant. She accompanies him while golfing and travels with him to his various court proceedings in Georgia and New York.

“She is indicative of the people around him who just love him,” a Trump adviser told the Washington Post at the time. “Love him too much.”

2023: Harp is entrusted with helping manage Trump’s social media accounts. Unlike others who manage his accounts, she appears to post whatever he tells her to without question, including images and text posts that cause political controversy and potentially complicate his court cases. Throughout the year, Harp sends Trump a series of letters that other staff members consider highly concerning.

Excerpts obtained by the New York Times include, “You are all that matters to me,” “I don’t ever want to let you down…Guardian and Protector in this Life,” and “I want to bring you joy… to feel like we can get through a day without ever having to talk ‘work.’”

2023 – March: Harp provides Trump with an edited photo depicting him holding a baseball bat to the head of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump posts it the week before Bragg indicts him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

2023 – October: Harp screams at the person managing Trump’s motorcade because there is no seat for her on the morning of his trial. Unwilling to separate herself from the president and arrange alternate transportation, she rides in the trunk of an SUV.

2024: Harp joins Trump’s reelection campaign. She continues traveling with the president and joining him on the golf course, eventually carrying a portable printer with a backup battery pack so she can print out social media posts and news reports favorable to him. Her coworkers on the campaign nickname her “the human printer.”

2024 – January: Harp publishes 40 social media posts about Jean E. Carroll in less than an hour on Trump’s accounts. It’s unclear whether she acts independently or Trump dictates the messages to her. She is subsequently given more control over his social media and communications, including the ability to send text messages on Trump’s behalf.

2024 – August: Harp, posing as Trump and using his phone number, sends a series of aggressive text messages to Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson.

2024 – September: Harp takes a screenshot of a private message Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sent to Trump and posts it on his Truth Social account.

2024 – November: Trump wins reelection and creates the role of special assistant and executive assistant to the president for Harp.

2025: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, who for years managed Trump’s social media presence, passes the majority of that responsibility to Harp, who relies on a large repertoire of AI-generated images and videos throughout the year.

2026 – February: Harp posts a racist AI-generated video of former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama. The post is later deleted.

2026 – April: Harp posts an AI-generated image depicting Trump as Jesus Christ. The post is later deleted, and Trump takes credit for posting it.

2026 – July: The Trump administration discovers a credible plan to attack Air Force One while the president is in Turkey. Trump and Harp are hidden in a catering container and secretly boarded onto a separate plane for safety. Journalists, cabinet members, and other White House staff traveling with Trump are not told of the potential attack and are made to board Air Force One.

Subscribe now

Supercharge your program with Action Network Boost

Powerful features for the most advanced digital programs, including deliverability reporting, priority support, a new way to dig deeper into your data, simplified email customization, and much, much more. Sign up and get 10% off Boost here >

Only one warehouse remains from Trump admin’s mass detention camp plan

A searchable map of all 23 locations, including their current status, can be found here.

Support our journalism at COURIER

Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.

But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.

Subscribe now

Supercharge your program with Action Network Boost

Below The Beltway

Democrats aren’t waiting until January to kick Congress into overdrive

What Happened

Key Players: committee chairs and ‘The Bloc’

Investigations

Impeachments

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Key Epstein Player Decides to ‘Lawyer Up’ in Wake of Midterm Results

Support our journalism at COURIER

Rep. Kamlager-Dove threatens to impeach Blanche over Epstein cover-up

Support our journalism at COURIER

DOJ election probe disproves its own noncitizen voter theory

What Happened

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Rep. Kamlager-Dove threatens to impeach Blanche over Epstein cover-up

Support our journalism at COURIER

DOJ chains up the elderly in desperate search of voter fraud

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

(In)sanewashing: Why Arizona’s legislature could flip for the first time in 60 years

New bill would force Trump admin to hand over Epstein’s financial documents

What Happened

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

New bill would force Trump admin to hand over Epstein’s financial documents

New Mexico Sues Epstein’s Lawyer and Accountant to Stop Them From Cashing In on His Estate

By Jackie Appel, investigative reporter

Support our journalism at COURIER

(In)sanewashing: Tracking Trump's assaults on midterm voting

What Happened

Federal agents at polling places

Private security at postal facilities

United States Postal Service to withhold ballot delivery

The SAVE Act

Election monitors

Federal citizenship voter list

Voter roll purges

Withheld Trump mentions in the Epstein Files could soon be made public

Below the Belt(way)

What Happened

Federal agents at polling places

Private security at postal facilities

United States Postal Service to withhold ballot delivery

The SAVE Act

Election monitors

Federal citizenship voter list

Voter roll purges

Withheld Trump mentions in the Epstein Files could soon be made public

Support our journalism at COURIER

58 of Trump’s Executive Orders a Democratic Congress could reverse next year

58 of Trump’s Executive Orders a Democratic Congress could reverse next year

The Congressional Review Act: 7

Emergency Declarations: 11

Defense Budget: 14

Funding and Oversight: 26

What’s really happening at the Supreme Court?

What Happened

Deportations

Indefinite Detainment

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Support our journalism at COURIER

(In)sanewashing: Criminal investigation into Epstein's crime ring underway

Legislation introduced to stop ICE detention warehouses once and for all

What Happened

Attempts to Sanewash

Far-Right Spin

Legislation introduced to stop ICE detention warehouses once and for all

Zorro Ranch investigation sparks action to close ‘Epstein Loophole’

Slipping through the cracks

Building a safer future

Support our journalism at COURIER

(In)sanewashing: Judge threatens Blanche with contempt over Epstein case

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

Support our journalism at COURIER

Steve Bannon sides with Wall Street oligarchs over tech billionaires at in AI race

What Happened

Steve Bannon sides with Wall Street oligarchs over tech billionaires at in AI race