Tucker Carlson’s Wild Theory for Pam Bondi “Covering Up” Epstein Files

Tucker Carlson has his own rationale for the Trump administration’s mishandling of the Epstein files.

Speaking with journalist Saagar Enjeti on Tuesday, Carlson offered several reasons why he believed Attorney General Pam Bondi was “covering up” the high-profile sex abuse case.

“It is salacious.... People have followed it for years, the president promised to reveal the truth about this. Pam Bondi ... went on television [and] said, ‘We have the truth and we’re gonna give it to you,’” Carlson said. “I think this is kind of, I think, this is a big deal. It’s a really big deal.”

Against the expertise of individuals who had worked on the case for decades, Bondi suggested in January that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a “client list,” supercharging ideas and theories about which high-powered individuals could have been involved in the pedophilic sex trafficker’s crimes.

But the administration’s language changed abruptly on Monday, when the Justice Department posted a memo confirming that no such “incriminating client list” existed, undercutting Bondi’s language. Far-right influencers who had immersed themselves into the details of the case refused to believe that Bondi had misstepped—instead, they interpreted the sudden reversal as an administration cover-up.

“So there are really only two potential explanations that I can think of; maybe you’ve got another,” Carlson told Enjeti. “The first is that [Donald] Trump is involved, that Trump is on the list—they’ve got [a] tape of Trump doing something awful.”

Carlson isn’t the first high-profile conservative to posit that Trump is the real reason behind the delayed release of the documents. Last month, Elon Musk accused Trump of being mentioned by name in the Epstein files, claiming that Trump’s alleged attachment to the glitterati socialite was the real reason why the details of the case had not yet been made public.

For years, the two men circulated in the same circles. But in a 2017 interview with author Michael Wolff, Epstein claimed a specific attachment to Trump, describing himself as Trump’s “closest friend,” and said that the first time the real estate mogul slept with his now-wife Melania was aboard the private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” used by Epstein to ferry people to and from his private island.

But Carlson preferred a theory in which the president evaded blame. Instead, Carlson pointed the finger at the intelligence community, claiming that U.S. and Israeli intel services were “being protected” by the alleged cover-up.

Trump has recently changed his tune about releasing the Epstein files. The MAGA leader used the documents as a routine talking point on the campaign trail, promising to unearth their details if the public sent him back to the White House. But recently Trump has lost his gusto: On Tuesday, the president said it was “unbelievable” that Americans were still talking about Epstein, urging the public to move on.

That alone has turned some of the president’s most ardent and fanatical supporters against him, including Laura Loomer and Alex Jones. Conservative comedian Roseanne Barr—who twice supported Trump’s political ambitions—asked the president via social media if there is “a time to not care about child sex trafficking.”

“Read the damn room,” she posted on X.

Due to conflicting efforts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Richard Grenell, the Trump administration bungled a deal that would have freed 11 U.S. citizens and green card holders detained in Venezuela, along with a number of Venezuelan political prisoners, according to a new report from The New York Times.

The two diplomats brought contradictory deals to the same Venezuelan officials.

Under Rubio’s deal, in exchange for Venezuela freeing the Americans, green card holders, and Venezuelan political prisoners, the U.S. would have facilitated the repatriation of 250 Venezuelan immigrants it deported to El Salvador. (While the Trump administration has previously claimed no control over the Venezuelan detainees, the Times reports that, here, “it was willing to use them as bargaining chips.”)

Rubio’s plan progressed to a point where the U.S. and Venezuela had arranged to send planes to retrieve their respective prisoners. But Grenell, Donald Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela, had a different idea.

Not believing Trump would sanction a swap in which “accused gang members” would be released, the special envoy reportedly pursued a deal extending Chevron’s oil license in Venezuela in exchange for American prisoners. Grenell’s terms were “more attractive” in Venezuela’s eyes, as the government relies on oil revenue.

Grenell reportedly rang Trump, and left the call believing he had the president’s blessing. But a U.S. official told the Times that wasn’t the case. The special envoy’s plan would have offended a group of Florida Republicans who’d threatened not to support Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” if he were to walk back oil sanctions against Venezuela.

Both conflicting deals involved speaking with Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, according to the Times, and “the lack of coordination left Venezuelan officials unclear about who spoke for” the president.

“You would think they would be duly coordinated,” the mother of a Navy SEAL detained in Venezuela told the Times, which reports that the White House is still open to conducting a swap, but not to extending Chevron’s license.

Last year, President Trump told donors that he had a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in which he threatened to “bomb the shit out of Moscow” if Putin invaded Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov (mostly) denied that the phone call ever happened.

“It’s hard to say. There were no phone calls at that time,” Peskov said, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “As far as I understand, we’re talking about a period when Trump was not yet president of the United States.”

According to the recording obtained by CNN’s Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf, Trump told donors: “With Putin I said, ‘If you go into Ukraine, I’m gonna bomb the shit out of Moscow. I’m telling you I have no choice.’

“So he goes like, ‘I don’t believe you.’ He said, ‘No way,’ and I said, ‘Way,’” Trump continued. “And then he goes like, ‘I don’t believe you,’ but the truth is he believed me 10 percent.”

There are a lot of questions here. It would not be shocking if Trump was lying about all of this just to impress some donors. But if he wasn’t, then why was he on the phone with Putin threatening to bomb Russia before he was even president? And why has he strayed so far away from that gusto now, allowing Putin to continue to bulldoze Ukraine? He was just complaining on Tuesday that the Russian president had thrown “a lot of bullshit” at the United States. Where has the energy of that fundraiser evening gone?

Trump was also heard at this fundraiser threatening to throw pro-Palestinian people out of the country and called working-class Democratic voters “welfare people.”

The president is not in control of his own government.

Last week’s sudden pause on a weapons shipment to Ukraine was the handiwork of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—who didn’t bother to inform the president before enacting it, five sources familiar with the situation told CNN. Practically everyone was blindsided by news of the halted shipment, including the White House, the State Department, Congress, Kyiv, and America’s European allies, setting off a mad dash within the administration to explain the unexpected directive.

Donald Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he was “not responsible” for the canceled shipment, telling the war-battered leader that he had directed a review of U.S. stockpiles but did not order the freeze, according to sources that spoke with The Guardian. The president reiterated that point during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, telling reporters that he didn’t know who authorized the move.

It’s not the first time that Hegseth has intervened in U.S. foreign policy without Trump’s express approval: In February, the Pentagon chief executed the same flub, pausing a weapons shipment to Ukraine despite the fact that Trump had announced the flow would continue.

Two of the sources that spoke with CNN claimed that Hegseth’s poor planning was in part due to the boiling drama around him at the Pentagon. With no chief of staff or trusted advisers, Hegseth is making major policy decisions solo.

The decision to cancel the shipment was grounded in the Pentagon’s global munitions tracker, The Guardian reported Tuesday. The tracker had highlighted that a number of critical munitions had fallen below a minimum readiness standard for several years, at least since President Joe Biden began sending weapons to assist Ukraine in its war against Russia. But senior military officials and Democratic lawmakers have insisted that there’s no evidence that America’s munitions supply would warrant peeling back support from Ukraine.

Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told CNN that “Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the president to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles.”

“This effort was coordinated across government,” Wilson told the network.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump still has “full confidence” in his defense secretary.

In the latest installment in “Dude, What Law Did I Just Pass?” some Republicans were shocked to learn of a provision in Donald Trump’s behemoth budget bill that will tax gambling losses, HuffPost reported Tuesday.

Under the new provision, gamblers will no longer be allowed to deduct 100 percent of their losses from their income tax, and instead will only be allowed to deduct 90 percent. “Now, for example, gamblers who win $100,000 but lose $100,000—coming out even—would still be required to pay taxes on $10,000,” according to HuffPost.

The provision was apparently added at the last minute by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Republican senators, who had been in a mad rush to see Trump’s tax and spending legislation passed by the Fourth of July, admitted that they didn’t know what the provision was.

“If you’re asking me how it got in there, no, I don’t know,” said Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley during an interview on Tuesday.

Texas Senator John Cornyn admitted, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not sure what it does.”

“I was so focused on Medicaid, I wasn’t looking for other reasons to be against the bill,” said North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, one of just three Republicans to vote against the bill. “But that would be another one.”

Already, bipartisan efforts have sprung up in the House and Senate on provisions to repeal the rule, concerned that it will attract big bettors to black-market gambling in an attempt to escape the rule.