Trump, DOJ on defensive over Epstein memo claiming no "client list" exists - National & International News - TUE 8Jul2025 -

Trump, DOJ on defensive over Epstein memo claiming no “client list” exists, no evidence of blackmail.

Supreme Court lifts ban on Trump’s order to reduce federal workforce.

Trump, DOJ on defensive over Epstein memo claiming no “client list” exists

Following a directive from President Trump at the beginning of his second term, the DOJ committed to a public disclosure of material in the FBI files pertaining to the crimes of the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting charges related to the trafficking of minors for sex.

The first part of the “disclosure” was fulfilled in February when several right-wing online influencers were given binders labeled “The Epstein Files”. However, this “disclosure” was widely criticized as insignificant. The information contained in the binders had already long been in the public domain. Some echoed reporting by Gawker from 2015 when the outlet published a redacted version of Epstein’s “little black book”, revealing Epstein’s extensive contacts in the worlds of entertainment, finance and politics.

Yesterday, the Department of Justice issued a 2-page memo regarding its investigation into material collected by the FBI on Epstein’s crimes. The memo states in part: “This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”.

The memo also concludes that, contrary to widespread speculation (some of it raised by Trump himself), Epstein was solely responsible for his 2019 hanging death in the secure housing unit of the Manhattan Correctional Facility. The memo says that no more disclosures from the files will be forthcoming due to the sensitive nature of some the material and concerns over victims’ privacy.

Public outcry over memo

Members of the media and the public, including many in the MAGA movement, reacted to yesterday’s DOJ memo with a mix of anger and incredulity. Much of the anger is focused on Attorney General Pam Bondi, who, during a FoxNews interview in February, seemed to imply that Epstein’s client list was “sitting on her desk”. During a Cabinet meeting today, New York Post journalist Steve Nelson asked Bondi to clarify what she had meant by that remark. Bondi answered that she had meant was that Epstein’s file was sitting on her desk as she began her work on the disclosures. She said she did not mean to imply the existence of a client list.

Nelson also asked Bondi about reports that Epstein was connected to some intelligence agency. Specifically, referred to a notable statement from 2019 by Trump’s then-Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. In 2019, Acosta told Congress that in 2007, when he was US Attorney in Miami, he was told by his superiors to cut a non-prosecution deal for Epstein. Acosta said, “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone”.

In their 2019 book Epstein: Dead Men Tell no Tales, journalists Dylan Howard, Melissa Cronin and James Robertson claimed that Epstein worked for Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. The authors’ source for this was a former Israeli intelligence agent named Ari Ben-Menashe.

Bondi said she did not have any knowledge of Epstein being connected to either US intelligence or any foreign intelligence agency and said she would “get back to” the reporter on this question.

Media outlets noted that when Nelson addressed his question to Attorney General Bondi, Trump himself lashed out at Nelson for even asking the question. Last month, billionaire Elon Musk, a friend-turned-foe of Donald Trump, claimed that the reason the Epstein files had not been released was because Trump himself was in them. Reacting to the outrage over the DOJ memo, Musk said today that releasing the Epstein files would be a priority for his fledgling “America Party”, which he founded after butting heads with Republicans in Congress.

Supreme Court lifts ban on Trump’s order to reduce federal workforce

With only one dissenting vote from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court has lifted a lower court’s injunction on Trump’s executive order to reduce the federal workforce. While the decision was hailed as a win for Trump, the Court expressed no opinion on the legality of any individual plans to reduce the workforce. The Court merely ruled that the order itself was “likely” lawful. This means that any challenges to individual workforce-reduction plans would have to be fought on a case-by-case basis.

In May, California-based US District Court Judge Susan Ilston barring the administration from carrying out restructuring plans without Congressional approval. Judge Ilston’s injunction applied to 22 federal agencies based on her finding that Trump’s executive order and a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) were unlawful. The Supreme Court rejected Ilston’s reasoning, with their unsigned opinion reading, in part:

Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and [OMB] memorandum are lawful — and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied — we grant the application. We express no view on the legality of any agency [reduction-in-force] and reorganization plan produced or approved pursuant to the executive order and memorandum. The district court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the executive order and memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this court.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the majority opinion, emphasizing that Trump’s executive order “directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’”. The implication is that if the Trump administration pursues a workforce-reduction plan that is not “consistent with applicable law,” that specific plan may be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.

The case will now return to Judge Ilston’s court.