If there is nothing truly damaging to President Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein files, he and his administration did a great job of making it look like there could be.
If there is nothing truly damaging toPresident Donald Trumpin the Jeffrey Epstein files, he and his administration did a great job ofmaking it look like there could be.
How else to explain their promises of full transparency, their sudden and inexplicable U-turn, and then their (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to fight Congress’ push to get the files?
It seems the administration didn’t learn its lesson from that episode.
Because it looks like history could be repeating with the boat strikes video.
Trump and the administration sound as though they’ve suddenly gotten cold feet about releasing full video of the September strikes on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean that killed survivors. This despite Trump having said plainly less than a week ago that the administration would release it.
While the strikes were already controversial andlegally dubious, experts say that the US military killing survivorscould be a war crime.
Trump said Wednesday that “whatever they have, we’d certainly release, no problem.”
But pretty much everything since then suggests the administration wishes he hadn’t made that pledge:
It bears emphasizing that, despite Hegseth citing the need to protect sensitive information, the administration has released video of these strikes rather quickly in the past. Trump actually posted video from the September 2 attack at issue — the initial part of it, at least —mere hours later.
The question from there becomes: What would be so sensitive about the portion that shows a second set of strikes that wasn’t sensitive about the initial strikes? And why has it taken nearly a week to review that release, when it took just hours to review the release of the initial strikes?
Democratic Rep. Adam Smith offered a theory this weekend: The administration is worried the full video will undercut its defense of the strikes. (Some Republicans have argued the second strike was legitimate because the survivors could have gotten help or continued their mission, somehow.)
“If they release the video, then everything that the Republicans are saying will clearly be portrayed to be completely false,” the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Sunday on ABC News’ “This Week.”
Indeed, even Trump appears to be treading gingerly around defending the second strike too hard.
Before the White House confirmed it last week, the president said he wouldn’t have wanted the military to launch a second strike killing survivors. Similarly, when asked Monday in aPolitico interviewwhether the second strike was necessary, Trump avoided a direct answer and again distanced himself from the situation.
“Uh, well, it looked like they were trying to turn back over the boat, but I don’t get involved in that,” he said. Trump added in apparent reference to the military: “That’s up to them.”
The full video — which Trump told Politico is “not pretty” — would be of interest regardless of whether he initially vowed to release it.
But if the administration tries to withhold the video, it will be violating Trump’s promise in a very conspicuous way. And that could certainly be read as covering its own backside, just like with Epstein.
But the parallels don’t stop there.
Indeed, we learned Monday that, as with the Epstein files, Congress appears to be doing something on this issue.
Tucked into a new massive defense policy bill isa provision that seeks to compelthe Defense Department to turn over the full, unedited videos of the strikes to the House and Senate armed services committees. If it doesn’t, Congress would limit Hegseth’s travel budget.
It feels a lot like the House discharge petition that forced a vote compelling the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. (And the public pressure ultimately forced Trump to relent and agree to sign the bill.) It’s extremely rare for the Republican-controlled Congress to actually assert itself like this, but it is — at least for now.
Even GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, who is regularly a Trump ally, on Tuesday joined the ranks urging the administration to find a way to release the video.
“I would just say to him, like, ‘Listen, if there’s a way to release the video’ — which I have not seen — but if there’s a way to release that, that does not compromise our intelligence-gathering, I would urge them to do it,” the Missouri Republican said.
So why are lawmakers increasingly calling for this transparency? It’s not clear, but there isbipartisan interestin this issue and even some concern among high-ranking Republicans like Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker and former House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner. Turner recently suggested the administration had concealed information about the second strike.
“This is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress,” the Ohio Republican told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on November 30 after the second strike was initially reported.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a longtime critic of the strikes, has even accused Hegseth oflying about them. And earlier this fall, some prominent Republicanscriticized the administration’s lack of information-sharingabout the strikes.
Much has yet to play out, but the administration is again setting up a potential clash with Congress over releasing something it previously promised it would release.
And if the Epstein files are any indication, that will likely only increase interest — and suspicions about what the administration might be hiding.
“We’ve got to get the Epstein files released. We got to get any videos that do not in any way compromise mission integrity down there,” GOP Sen. Thom Tillis said Tuesday. “Just get the stuff out there.”