Donald Trump’s poll ratings have taken a dramatic hit. From this side of the Atlantic, you might assume that this drop in popularity had any number of plausible causes. Perhaps it was the global economic chaos unleashed by his on-again, off-again tariff proposals, or his mercurial attachment and then non-attachment to Vladimir Putin; or his ambivalence about Nato and vacillating US support for European countries which see Russian expansionism as a threat.
But no, the devastating collapse of confidence that now appears to be threatening the credibility of the Trump administration is not any of these things, most of which were regarded with casual indifference by the American electorate. The eruption which looks close to undermining the President’s support among his own Maga base – and even among Republicans in Congress – is his association with Jeffrey Epstein.
The life and times of this sex trafficker who procured underage girls for some very prominent figures in public life is so sordid that it affects the reputations of everyone with whom he was known to be in contact. His suicide in prison (which should have been prevented by proper surveillance) means that the final definitive details of the story will always be a mystery, and what evidence remains can never be uncontentious.
But even given that caveat, the Trump association appears so well documented – and the White House response to what has turned into a popular frenzy, is so hysterically vengeful – that it has become the biggest story in US political life.
The strangely contradictory assertions by Team Trump have not helped: Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, went from announcing that the Epstein file which contained a client list was “sitting on my desk right now” ready for release, to dismissing the idea that such a file with an incriminating list of customers ever existed.
Which prompted the former Team member Elon Musk to make the excitable declaration that there was such a list and that Trump’s name was on it. Now pretty much everybody who has said anything at all about the existence of a file and a list has withdrawn or contradicted all previous assertions. This does not make for an impression of innocence and unjust accusation.
The president himself has, of course, responded in his characteristic way with volcanic rage, legal threats to the very existence of the media outlets which are reporting the unfolding story, and a diffuse hysterical vindictiveness toward any named individuals who attempt to investigate its history.
Again, this does not give an impression of outraged innocence. Attempting to bully people into silence who challenge your version of events is not generally seen as a sign of confident integrity – not even by Maga loyalists.
At the time of writing, there is an ongoing thunderous clash between the Wall Street Journal and the White House over the newspaper’s publication of a letter allegedly written by Trump to commemorate Epstein’s 50th birthday.
The letter is, to put it bluntly, not just incriminating but disgusting in its explicitness. And once again, sides are being taken over what is probably an unresolvable question. JD Vance, who has clearly decided to remain a Trump loyalist, claims that this WSJ story is “complete and utter bull**t”.
But how could he know that? The letter was written – assuming that it was written at the time and not confected more recently – in 2003 presumably long before Vance knew Trump. So has he just taken the president’s word, and his side, on principle?
Vance is nothing if not a calculating political operator. Has he decided that it is better to remain true, for the time being, to his boss? If Trump does end up being disgraced by this farrago, Vance could always claim to have been well-intentioned but misled. But this is a big risk. Some very senior Republicans like Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, are insisting that the White House provide a full and open account of the Epstein records. They may have a different view of what the future holds for their party – and their involvement in this saga – than Vance is gambling on.
There is another strand in the Trump defence operation. Not only does the White House insist that the relationship between Epstein and the president was nothing like the arrangement for services (providing under age sex partners) which the current story implies, but that the story itself is absurdly trivial.
At a press briefing last week, Karoline Leavitt stated in an even more aggressively insistent tone than usual, that “he [the president] has followed through on his promises to the American people, but he doesn’t like to see Democrats and the mainstream media covering this like it’s the biggest story that the American people care about.”
The problem with this pronouncement is that it is truly the biggest story that the American people care about. Hence the poll figures.
And that is an alarming prospect for those of us watching this bizarre spectacle from abroad. American voters appear to be much more alarmed and dismayed by allegations of the president’s sexual misconduct than the huge economic disruption and threat to Western political solidarity he has caused.
Not that this particular sexual scandal is trivial. The Oval Office adventures of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky were squalid but survivable because – although he was shown to have lied – they were really a personal issue between him and his wife. His other distractions, with Paula Jones for example, could be disregarded because the US economy was unaffected. (It was said of the electorate at the time: “They don’t care about Paula Jones. They care about the Dow Jones.”)
But the procuring of underage girls is a crime that most people regard as unforgivable. So yes, what is under consideration here is not just a peccadillo or a personal indulgence like the serial adultery of John Kennedy or the quiet affairs of so many other presidents.
And yet – isn’t it alarming that the effects of so many of Trump’s policies, followed as often as not by the quixotic reversal of those policies, should have nothing like the impact on US public discourse as the exposure of an allegedly degrading secret life?
Donald Trump’s poll ratings have taken a dramatic hit. From this side of the Atlantic, you might assume that this drop in popularity had any number of plausible causes. Perhaps it was the global economic chaos unleashed by his on-again, off-again tariff proposals, or his mercurial attachment and then non-attachment to Vladimir Putin; or his ambivalence about Nato and vacillating US support for European countries which see Russian expansionism as a threat.
But no, the devastating collapse of confidence that now appears to be threatening the credibility of the Trump administration is not any of these things, most of which were regarded with casual indifference by the American electorate. The eruption which looks close to undermining the President’s support among his own Maga base – and even among Republicans in Congress – is his association with Jeffrey Epstein.
The life and times of this sex trafficker who procured underage girls for some very prominent figures in public life is so sordid that it affects the reputations of everyone with whom he was known to be in contact. His suicide in prison (which should have been prevented by proper surveillance) means that the final definitive details of the story will always be a mystery, and what evidence remains can never be uncontentious.
But even given that caveat, the Trump association appears so well documented – and the White House response to what has turned into a popular frenzy, is so hysterically vengeful – that it has become the biggest story in US political life.
The strangely contradictory assertions by Team Trump have not helped: Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, went from announcing that the Epstein file which contained a client list was “sitting on my desk right now” ready for release, to dismissing the idea that such a file with an incriminating list of customers ever existed.
Which prompted the former Team member Elon Musk to make the excitable declaration that there was such a list and that Trump’s name was on it. Now pretty much everybody who has said anything at all about the existence of a file and a list has withdrawn or contradicted all previous assertions. This does not make for an impression of innocence and unjust accusation.
The president himself has, of course, responded in his characteristic way with volcanic rage, legal threats to the very existence of the media outlets which are reporting the unfolding story, and a diffuse hysterical vindictiveness toward any named individuals who attempt to investigate its history.
Again, this does not give an impression of outraged innocence. Attempting to bully people into silence who challenge your version of events is not generally seen as a sign of confident integrity – not even by Maga loyalists.
At the time of writing, there is an ongoing thunderous clash between the Wall Street Journal and the White House over the newspaper’s publication of a letter allegedly written by Trump to commemorate Epstein’s 50th birthday.
The letter is, to put it bluntly, not just incriminating but disgusting in its explicitness. And once again, sides are being taken over what is probably an unresolvable question. JD Vance, who has clearly decided to remain a Trump loyalist, claims that this WSJ story is “complete and utter bull**t”.
But how could he know that? The letter was written – assuming that it was written at the time and not confected more recently – in 2003 presumably long before Vance knew Trump. So has he just taken the president’s word, and his side, on principle?
Vance is nothing if not a calculating political operator. Has he decided that it is better to remain true, for the time being, to his boss? If Trump does end up being disgraced by this farrago, Vance could always claim to have been well-intentioned but misled. But this is a big risk. Some very senior Republicans like Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, are insisting that the White House provide a full and open account of the Epstein records. They may have a different view of what the future holds for their party – and their involvement in this saga – than Vance is gambling on.
There is another strand in the Trump defence operation. Not only does the White House insist that the relationship between Epstein and the president was nothing like the arrangement for services (providing under age sex partners) which the current story implies, but that the story itself is absurdly trivial.
At a press briefing last week, Karoline Leavitt stated in an even more aggressively insistent tone than usual, that “he [the president] has followed through on his promises to the American people, but he doesn’t like to see Democrats and the mainstream media covering this like it’s the biggest story that the American people care about.”
The problem with this pronouncement is that it is truly the biggest story that the American people care about. Hence the poll figures.
And that is an alarming prospect for those of us watching this bizarre spectacle from abroad. American voters appear to be much more alarmed and dismayed by allegations of the president’s sexual misconduct than the huge economic disruption and threat to Western political solidarity he has caused.
Not that this particular sexual scandal is trivial. The Oval Office adventures of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky were squalid but survivable because – although he was shown to have lied – they were really a personal issue between him and his wife. His other distractions, with Paula Jones for example, could be disregarded because the US economy was unaffected. (It was said of the electorate at the time: “They don’t care about Paula Jones. They care about the Dow Jones.”)
But the procuring of underage girls is a crime that most people regard as unforgivable. So yes, what is under consideration here is not just a peccadillo or a personal indulgence like the serial adultery of John Kennedy or the quiet affairs of so many other presidents.
And yet – isn’t it alarming that the effects of so many of Trump’s policies, followed as often as not by the quixotic reversal of those policies, should have nothing like the impact on US public discourse as the exposure of an allegedly degrading secret life?