Trump's Iran War is Worse Than You Think
PDS Published 03/12/2026
-
The war in Iran cost American taxpayers more than 11 billion dollars in the first week alone; it has displaced more than 3 million people; and we’re now facing the “largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
And while the pace of Iran’s retaliatory attacks may be slowing they’re definitely not stopping—and the havoc they continue to wreak across the Middle East is proof that Donald Trump is lying to you.
Right, because he claimed at a campaign-style rally in Kentucky yesterday that the war has already been won—saying the US and Israel have "virtually destroyed Iran."
But we’re now almost two weeks into this conflict and it remains entirely unclear when it will end.
And the reason I say Trump is lying rather than just pushing a falsehood he believes in? It’s because he seems to know what he’s saying isn’t true.
With him acknowledging in the same speech that the mission, whatever it is, remains incomplete, and the war must go on:
"We don't want to leave early do we?"”
“We got to finish the job." (23:58-24:03)
And with all that, just today, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Bahrain and Oman have all reported drones or missiles flying over their territory—with at least some making it through and hitting their targets.
Kuwait, for example, said that its international airport had been damaged.
And in Iraq an Italian military base was hit—with Italy’s foreign minister saying military personnel at the base had sheltered in a bunker and avoided any injuries.
The same could not be said everywhere though.
Roughly thirty miles off the coast of Iraq two oil tankers were set on fire—possibly by boats carrying explosives—and one person was killed.
With another thirty-eight people having to be rescued at sea(BROLL).
Iran claimed responsibility for attacking one of the tankers—with the Revolutionary Guards claiming in a statement that the ship had “disobeyed and ignored” warnings.
The statement didn’t mention the other ship but Iraqi officials apparently suspect Iran was behind the attack on that one too.
Iran is also believed to have been behind yet another attack today targeting a container ship about thirty-five nautical miles off the coast of the UAE.
As well as three attacks on cargo ships yesterday in or near the Strait of Hormuz—although again Iran only claimed responsibility for one of those strikes.
But, in any case, the number of commercial ships damaged over the course of the war has now risen to nineteen.
Thanks to the latest attacks, Iraqi authorities suspended all oil terminal operations.
And Oman closed a key oil export terminal for what it said were “security reasons.”
With this coming a day after the country’s biggest port was struck by drones for second time (BROLL)
And that last one stands out because Oman has some of the few ports that it has been possible to keep shipping oil from—since they’re located beyond the Strait of Hormuz.
Bahrain’s energy facilities though may be some of the hardest hit, with an alleged Iranian strike today hitting fuel tanks in the north of the country.
And that’s as the country’s interior ministry said it arrested four people for allegedly spying for Iran—while a fifth person remained at large.
With the ministry accusing all five of having “used high-resolution photography equipment to photograph and record coordinates of vital and important locations” on behalf of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. []
You also had a British legal aid group reporting today that at least 21 people have been charged in the UAE for taking videos and photos of missile strikes.
With this coming after the country’s public prosecutor said last week that taking or sharing videos that document strikes and damage “is illegal if it incites panic among the public, spreads false news, or harms public security and order.” []
And on that note, not to cause any panic for those in the US who think they’re not in danger from Iran’s war, but if you live in California, you may be Iran’s next target.
Right, at least that’s according to a newly surfaced warning issued by the FBI to law enforcement agencies in the state last month.
Which said that Iran "aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles" launched from a sea vessel against the state "in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran”—with the notice adding:
"We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators." []
Now, with that, this was reportedly “unverified intelligence” and there’s no evidence as of now that this is actually a realistic threat.
With Trump telling reporters yesterday he wasn’t worried about Iran ramping up its retaliation to include strikes on U.S. soil.
And California Governor Gavin Newsom saying he was "in constant coordination with security and intelligence officials" to monitor "potential threats to California — including those tied to the conflict in the Middle East”—and adding:
"While we are not aware of any imminent threats at this time, we remain prepared for any emergency in our state.”
But while Iran would have a hard time attacking the US directly with weapons, it may have already done it over the internet.
Right, because there has apparently been a major cyberattack targeting a major US-based manufacturer of medical equipment—which told its roughly 56,000 employees Wednesday to disconnect from all networks and avoid turning on company-issued devices.
Although it also said it had “no indication of ransomware or malware and believe the incident is contained.
But you have experts saying this could be part of a “troubling trend” in cyber warfare—with the head of a cyber threat intelligence firm telling the Wall Street Journal:
“Rather than targeting hospitals or frontline healthcare providers directly, adversaries may focus on critical suppliers and logistics providers where disruption can cascade across the entire healthcare ecosystem.” []
The company didn’t say who it believed was behind the attack but a hacker group appeared to take responsibility for it—calling it retaliation for what is now widely believed to have been a US missile strike on an Iranian elementary school that killed 175 people.
Right, that is now reportedly the conclusion of even the Pentagon’s own preliminary inquiry, and you had the Washington Post reporting today that it wasn’t a case of the missile missing its target.
Instead, the school was on the target list, but may have been mistaken for a military site, which has raised even more questions about whether AI may have been involved in the decision-making here.
And that’s AI continues to be used to wage this war—including for target selection.
And on that note, you had US Central Command reporting today it had struck approximately 6,000 targets in Iran since the war began.
Including 60 Iranian ships and 30 minelayers, which has been a major focus since we started seeing reports that Iran may have started mining the Strait of Hormuz.
CENTCOM has also been posting clips today suggesting it’s targeting Iranian aircraft (BROLL) as well as mobile missile launchers (BROLL) on land.
And whatever they’re hitting, we’re seeing more reports that some of Iran’s most significant cultural sites have sustained significant damage.
On the Israeli side, the military claimed today it struck a site where Iran advanced ‘critical capabilities’ in nuclear weapons
And it also claimed to have to taken out members of Iran’s internal security forces in the capital with drones.
But, inside Iran, notably, residents have reportedly said security forces have been increasing their presence on the streets—trying to show that they’re still in control.
The reported death toll in the country has remained relatively steady–with Iran’s representative to the UN claiming today at least 1,348 civilians have been killed since the war began. []
But the most shocking number coming out today may have been reports from the UN Refugee agency saying up to 3.2 million people may be internally displaced inside Iran as a result of the ongoing conflict.
With most of them fleeing from Tehran and other major urban areas towards the north of the country and rural areas to seek safety.
But notably, with all that, if you factor in what’s happening in Lebanon, the total number of displaced people may easily be as many as four million.
Right, the latest count put the number of displaced from Israel’s attacks on the country at around 800,000.
But that number may continue to rise as Israel yet again ramps up its assault on the country—which has so far reportedly killed at least 680 people, including around 100 children. []
In recent days, for example, Israeli forces have struck two hotels in or near Beirut, including one that was housing displaced families and another where Israel claimed Iranian operatives were meeting.[]
Yesterday, it hit an apartment building in the central part of the city.
And today airstrikes hit several cars along the seaside, reportedly covering the sidewalk in bloodied sand and setting off panic in the neighborhood.[]
The strike reportedly killed at least eight people and injured dozens more, most of them displaced people.
And then the Israeli military issued an evacuation order for central Beirut, the first warning for an area within the city limits since the war began.
And, within an hour, the Israeli military began carrying out a new wave of strikes in Beirut—with Israeli officials saying the strikes were targeting infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah.
And with that, what Israel is doing in Lebanon isn’t the only thing being overshadowed by the war with Iran.
There’s also the matter of what it’s doing in Palestinian territories.
Right, because officials in Gaza claim Israel continues to violate the ceasefire on a daily basis.
And in fact, just a few days ago, Israeli air and tank strikes killed six Palestinians there.
With more recently a fire breaking out after a strike at tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in a refugee camp.
And then, in the West Bank, we’ve continued to see an uptick in settler violence.
With a key thing being that once the war started Israel's military blocked many West Bank roads and largely shut down crossings into Israel.
And you now have Palestinians in remote villages saying the roadblocks have left them increasingly exposed to this violence—which has reportedly killed at least five Palestinians in the West Bank since the war began.
A sixth man died after inhaling teargas fired during an attack, according to an Israeli rights group.
And last night settlers graffitied and attempted to set fire to a mosque.
But while violence is spreading across the region, the broader fallout is spreading across the globe.
The cost of oil has surged again after Iran attacked three ships in the Strait of Hormuz yesterday, with prices jumping to just over $100 a barrel this morning before dropping slightly.
Gas prices also rose for the 12th straight day since the war started, with the national average jumping to $3.60 a gallon — 20% since the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes.
But diesel prices have increased even more quickly, rising nearly 30% in the last two weeks, with a current average of $4.86 as of today.
And what we’re seeing now, it’s just the beginning — right, gas prices usually trail oil prices by a few days, so the crude cost bumps we’re seeing now aren’t even reflected at the pump yet.
And that’s just in the U.S. — things are going to be a lot worse in Asia and Europe, which rely more heavily on oil and natural gas from the Middle East.
Hell, it’s gotten so bad that Denmark’s energy minister literally told citizens to cut back on energy use and stop driving unless it was totally necessary.
And we’re seeing all those even after the International Energy Agency announced that the largest-ever release of oil stock in history, with 32 of the world’s biggest economies agreeing to release 400 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves.
But experts say the market reaction we’re seeing shows that the historic release didn’t reassure traders — it actually had the opposite effect.
Right, instead, it just emphasized how far away we are from seeing the Strait of Hormuz open and fully operational again.
And the thing is, they’re right to be worried — even though the release of strategic reserves will help, it’s a temporary measure that won’t do much if the war continues to drag on, as investors clearly think it will based on how the market has responded.
Right, in its monthly report, the IEA said that global supplies are expected to decrease by 8 million barrels a day — that’s almost HALF of the roughly 20 million barrels that moved through the Strait each day before the war broke out.
And I can’t overstate how major this is — the IEA says that the war has caused “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
And experts say that even if the war were to end and shipments were to resume, it could be MONTHS before the energy market goes back to normal.
But it’s not just the energy market: experts say we will see prices rising in other areas well — and particularly food prices.
Right, for one, when oil prices go up, it becomes more expensive to transport goods and services, which causes producers to increase their prices for consumers already struggling with high gas costs at a time when affordability is a huge issue.
And some businesses might not be able to keep up at all — right, experts say that many businesses are already operating on thin margins because they’re absorbing most of the cost of Trump’s tariffs.
So basically, it’s just a double-Trump fuck: instead of lowering prices, the anti-war president who ran on affordability has started a war that will increase prices, further hurting American consumers and producers who are already struggling to make ends meet because of his tariffs…
But wait — it gets worse! — the affordability crisis this war is already causing goes way beyond oil.
Right, Strait of Hormuz is also a key shipping route for many other products, and the blockade has almost entirely halted container ship traffic in the waterway.
What’s more, temporary closures and disruptions at multiple major international airports in the region have paused nearly one-fifth of global airfreight capacity, which has caused disruptions to shipments of consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals, and precious metals.
But experts say that Americans could see the biggest impact in food prices and agriculture.
Right, in addition to oil, the Strait is also a key passage for fertilizer that is absolutely essential for global agriculture, with Bloomberg describing this as a “fertilizer crisis like never before.”
And that creates a chain reaction of events: when fertilizer supply is low, it makes farming costs higher and reduces crop yield — two factors that both mean higher food prices for consumers at the grocery store.
But that’s only further exacerbated by the rising energy crisis.
Right, energy is a HUGE input in the food supply chain — it’s used for everything: farm machinery, producing fertilizers, transportation, and processing.
So when prices increase for almost every aspect of food production, those are also passed off to the consumer in food prices.
But, despite all those very serious concerns, Trump has just continued to downplay the pending oil crisis while also making contradictory statements.
Right, while speaking at an event in Ohio, you had Trump claiming:
“I figured we’d be hit a little bit, but we were hit probably less than I thought. And we’ll be back on track in a pretty short while. Prices are coming down very substantially. Oil will be coming down.”
But then, literally at the same event, he also told local reporters that he would tap into the U.S.’s emergency petroleum reserves, with him later confirming the release of 172 million barrels.
But after that, we also saw Trump trying out an entirely DIFFERENT strategy and trying to paint high prices as a GOOD thing, writing on TruthSocial:
“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.”[]
Now, notably here, it is true that the U.S. is a huge oil producer, but it also imports a ton of other oil products.
And, what’s more, studies have shown that high oil costs only benefit wealthy oil producers and their shareholders, while American consumers end up footing the bill for higher prices.
But while Trump and his administration have painted the oil prices as short-term pain for long-term gain in Iran, it’s still unclear how short-term this will actually be.
Right, like we talked about, Trump has repeatedly contradicted himself about when this war will end.
And even if he did decide to end the war soon, doing so at this point would carry huge risks.
Right, as the Wall Street Journal explains, he’s basically in too deep now, because if any remnants of Iran’s regime are left in place, we would “essentially grant Tehran control over the world’s energy markets” while also sacrificing security in the region that could “make another, more devastating, regional war likely.”
Right, the Strait of Hormuz is an incredibly valuable piece of leverage for Iran — one they won’t give up easily.
In fact, just today, we saw Iran’s new Supreme Leader vowing to keep fighting while explicitly threatening to continue weaponizing the Strait in his first statement since assuming power.
Though, notably here, he didn’t read the statement himself, and he actually hasn’t been seen publicly at all since his appointment, which has raised speculation that he was injured in the strikes that killed many of his family members.
But in the statement, the new leader said Iran “would not refrain from avenging the blood of its martyrs,” claiming he will activate “new fronts” if the war continues, while also threatening to destroy enemy assets “to the same extent” that Iran’s assets have been destroyed.
With him going on to promise that he will continue to use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage.
And experts say that, at this point, even if the U.S. did end its war, there’s no guarantee that Iran would reopen the Strait quickly, and there’s also a risk that it will continue targeting boats or launching strikes at oil-rich Gulf nations, with one explaining:
“If the regime holds on—even a rump regime—what is to stop its missiles and drones from threatening tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, and the energy infrastructure of America’s Gulf allies at the time of their choosing?”
And there are signs that the regime is holding on, with Reuters reporting that U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran’s leadership is still largely intact and is not at risk of collapse any time soon.
What’s more, analysts also say that if the U.S. wanted to forcefully reopen the Strait, it would likely require a ground operation that could escalate and is all but guaranteed to result in higher casualties.
So, basically, Trump has made everything worse by going to war with Iran for no discernible reason.
And even if he does pull out and declare victory, he’s fucked everything up so much that future conflicts — including ones the U.S. will get drawn into — are almost inevitable.
🎉7th Anniversary Rewards! Download RAID ios/android/PC ➡️ Raid to get $200 Anniversary Package: Legendary Champion Krok’mar the Devourer from the start, lvl 10 - Epic Skill Tome, lvl 15 - 500K silver, lvl 20 - 500 energy, lvl 25 - Epic Champion Galapo The Recluse, lvl 30 - 5-star
-
But jumping back into the news, while Trump’s waging literal war abroad, his coalition is waging metaphorical war against each other back home over that first war in Iran.
And the fault lines here are the same as they’ve been for other splits in the MAGA base, whether it’s over the Epstein files, the Kirk assassination, or the rise of Nick Fuentes.
Which is to say, it’s Ben Shapiro on one side, and pretty much everyone else on the other.
[Clip, 00:24 - 00:41] Caption: [Tucker Carlson:] “This is not the United States’ war. This war is not being waged on behalf of American national security objectives, to make the United States safer or richer. This war’s not actually even about weapons of mass destruction, nukes, chem bio. This war is waged purely because Israel wanted it.”
[Clip, 00:57 - 01:04] Caption: [Ben Shapiro:] “If Tucker wants to claim that Donald J. Trump is a tool of the Jews, which is clearly what he wants to say, he should just say it.”
With Megyn Kelly coming out to make an argument similar to Tucker’s, and calling out Ben directly.
[Clip, 00:13 - 00:23, 00:40 - 01:00] Caption: “No one should have to die for a foreign country. I don’t think those four service members died for the United States. I think they died for Iran or for Israel. … But our government’s job is not to look out for Iran or for Israel. It’s to look out for us. And this feels very much to me like it is clearly Israel’s war. Mark Levin wanted it. It’s his war. Ben Shapiro, Lindsey Graham, Miriam Adelson,. That’s obvious.”
To which Ben countered that Donald Trump is responsible for this war, not Israel or the Jews, and arguing that if you have a problem with the war, you have a problem with Trump.
[Clip, 04:07 - 04:23] Caption: “She is such a coward. She is such an unbelievable coward. You don’t like President Trump? You don’t like what he’s saying? Just say his name, you coward, you unbelievable coward. Tucker and Megyn both, unbelievable cowardice. Say his name. You won’t! You won’t.”
Then, he claimed that her cowardice extends beyond just her hesitation to call out Trump; it’s her entire politics.
[Clip, 01:07 - 01:14, 01:19 - 01:21, 01:26 - 01:33] Caption: “Some might point out that Megyn’s bravery stops precisely where the clicks end, that she was pro-trans until the clicks turned against it, … that she was pro-Israel until the clicks turned against it, … that she was pro-Erica Kirk until the clicks turned against it, at which point she went totally silent on Candice Owens slandering the widow of her supposed friend.”
Next, Ben went after Piers Morgan, giving this explanation for why he’s stopped going on Piers’s show.
[Clip, 35:46 - 35:53, 36:40 - 36:53] Caption: “He kept bringing on actual Nazis and the Nazi adjacent, and then treated them all too often as voices worthy of a large audience. … Listen, it’s Piers’s choice who he decides to have on his show and how he decides to conduct the kind of clown car battle Royale that he does on his show every night. And it’s my choice not to join that circus. We all make our choices, and we all live with them.”
With him then playing several clips from Piers’s show as examples, featuring Nick Fuentes, Candice Owens, and Norm Finklestein, among others.
But in response, Piers pointed out that he’s also hosted numerous people who are pro-Israel and anti-Iran, including pundits from The Daily Wire.
Plus, for the interviews Ben cherrypicked, he left out the parts where Piers pushes back against his interviewees, even calling Fuentes a Nazi.
But Piers claims that ever since he started criticizing the Israeli government, Ben hasn’t even politely replied to his occasional text messages.
[Clip, 09:02 - 09:09, 09:13 - 09:28, 10:36 - 11:01] Caption: “Ben Shapiro used to make a mockery of deplatforming when the person being deplatformed was Ben Shapiro. … But his uncompromising views on Israel and America’s military and political support for Israel have turned him into a cancel culture vulture with the very same sneering intolerance he used to loathe. If you disagree with him, you’re a Nazi, he says. … The difference between me and you, Ben, is that I’m heavily criticized by both sides because I listen to both sides and very often I criticize both sides too without fear or favor. You’re only criticized by one side because you choose to air only one side, and you choose to ignore or even silence the other. I’m a journalist. You are a propagandist. Oh, and facts don’t care about your feelings.”
And reacting to all of this, Megyn Kelly piled on the ‘fuck Ben’ train too.
[Clip, 09:18 - 09:33, 10:33 - 10:39] Caption: “It’s very sad to me, as somebody who’s known Ben forever and helped make Ben. 100%, he became a star on my show, the Kelly File. I’m very sorry to see this happen. … Truly, how many people must be culled from the conservative movement in order to make Ben happy?”
Now you’ve got both sides of this debate claiming to represent the majority of the conservative movement, painting the other as a minority.
But at least on Iran, the truth is kind of complicated and very interesting.
Right, so before the war started, Republican support for a hypothetical strike on Iran was pretty weak, with 40% in favor, 25% opposed and 35% unsure. [Quote, find “40%”]
But after Trump started the war, support for the actual strikes ballooned all the way up to 85% of Republicans. [Quote, find “85%”]
With three quarters saying they believe Iran had posed an imminent military threat to the U.S., and six in ten saying the president’s actions are making the U.S. safer. [Quote same link, find “three quarters” and “safer”]
So basically, once Trump went full neocon, all that so-called “isolationist” anti-war sentiment just evaporated and his supporters fell in line.
Though interestingly, the party’s still split about fifty-fifty over putting boots on the ground. [Quote same link, find “boots”]
But putting all that infighting about the war aside, Republicans can at least come together over their shared hatred for journalists.
Use code “PHIL10” for 10% OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
-
Because the Secretary of War Crimes is this time targeting photographers who dare to take bad photos of him.
Right, the Defense Department has reportedly banned press photographers from all future press briefings about the war-not-war in Iran because - wait for it - they published photos of Pete Hegseth that were deemed “unflattering.” []
Now, the briefing that this whole thing was born from happened on March 2nd - just days after the joint military strike that killed Iran’s former supreme leader.
Notably, it was the first time that Hegseth appeared from the briefing room podium since June of last year. []
Anyway, for this briefing, the Pentagon welcomed a bunch of photographers from various sources - Bloomberg, the AP, Getty Images, Reuters, and a bunch more. []
So they snapped away and afterwards, those pictures were published in outlets around the world.
But members of Hegseth’s staff reportedly told colleagues that they did not like the way the secretary looked.
And so they took the only reasonable option - they blocked press photographers from the next two briefings on March 4 and March 10. []
With only the Defense Department’s staff photographers being welcome.
With Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson saying in a statement,
“In order to use space in the Pentagon Briefing Room effectively, we are allowing one representative per news outlet if uncredentialed, excluding pool. Photographs from the briefings are immediately released online for the public and press to use. If that hurts the business model for certain news outlets, then they should consider applying for a Pentagon press credential.” []
Which is, of course, a dig at the outlets that surrendered their Pentagon credentials and walked out after refusing to sign a policy prohibiting journalists from soliciting any information the government doesn’t expressly approve.
Now, as you can imagine, press rights advocates aren’t exactly pleased with this new development.
With the National Press Photographers Association condemning the decision and calling upon the Pentagon to restore the photographers’ access.
And their president saying in a statement,
“Excluding photographers from Pentagon briefings because officials did not like how published images portrayed them shows an astonishingly poor sense of priorities in the midst of a war and is, for a public servant, not a good look.”
“A free press cannot function if government officials decide that only favorable images of public officials may be created or distributed.” []
And Charles Stadtlander, spokesman for the New York Times, echoed that - saying,
“As The Times has long said, there is a clear importance and public service to allowing journalists to report fully on the U.S. military. This includes photojournalists, who deserve access and credentialing to attend Pentagon briefings.” []
But instead of pushing the Pentagon to allow photographers to do their jobs, the White House has chosen a more combative response to the whole situation.
Right, in the Washington Post article that initially broke this story, journalist Scott Nover wrote, quote,
“White House principal deputy press secretary Anna Kelly declined to comment on Hegseth’s decision to shut out reporters.” []
But Kelly herself pushed back on that, saying on X,
“Fake news “reporter” Scott Nover said we declined to comment for this story. Not true! He just didn’t like my comment because it exposes how little the Washington Post cares about access for photographers … Fake outrage.” []
With her sharing a photo of an email thread that appears to be her responding to Nover’s request for comment with, quote,
“Didn’t the Washington Post just fire all of its White House photographers?”
Which is true - just last month, the Washington Post laid off about 30 percent of all its employees.
Including 300 journalists and all of their staff photographers. []
So some right-leaning outlets have jumped on that fact to claim the Post is just trying to stir up drama and outrage against Hegseth, the Pentagon, and the Trump administration.
But it is worth mentioning that the Post’s article reporting on the photographer ban didn’t mention anything about their own staff getting shut out.
Rather, citing their sources about the decision to ban photographers and the reason for it - you know, like a news outlet does.
In fact, many people responded to Kelly’s tweet saying just that - including Dan Lamothe, a military affairs reporter for the Post. who said,
“Whether we have zero photographers or 72 photographers, this story about the Pentagon is still true.” []
But I’d love to know your thoughts about this whole thing.
Let me know what you’re thinking in those comments down below.
-
But then back to the final bit of the news, the House Oversight Committee just held a closed door deposition with Richard Kahn, Epstein's former accountant.
And so now, we are again seeing both sides play the spin game and create their own talking points about what was said and what should be believed.
Khan is now the executor of Epstein’s estate, though he claims he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, that he never observed any abuse or trafficking or heard any complaints, but that he still regrets he may have:[]
"unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way."
And according to the representatives there, he answered every single question and named some of the clients who contributed to Epstein’s absurd wealth.
Claiming that Les Wexner, Leon Black, Steven Sinofsky, Glenn Dubin, and the Rothschild family all paid Epstein millions.
Leaders in the committee also said that Kahn admitted to impersonating Epstein in communications with banks and facilitating a fake marriage between two women in Epstein’s orbit.
And when it comes to other powerful people who may have had ties to Epstein’s wealth, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (Sue-hoss Sue-bruh-mon-e-um) told MS NOW:
“We asked him about, were there any financial transactions between Epstein and other heads of state or politicians, and he did mention the name Ehud Barak. And remember, Virginia Guiffre had mentioned that a former Israeli prime minister, which Ehud Barak is, had violently r*ped her.” (1:45-2:00)
But you also have Republicans focusing on who Kahn did not implicate, especially Trump, again trying to use this deposition to clear the president’s name, with Chairman James Comer saying:
“Mr. Kahn testified under oath that, because Democrats asked this question, he had never seen any type of transaction to Trump or anyone in his family. That makes the fifth witness now that has testified under oath that they’ve never seen any involvement by Donald Trump.” (0:35:0:52)
But, as you can imagine, Democrats do not see it the same way, with them pushing back on a ton of Kahn’s deposition, saying they flat out do not believe that Epstein’s accountant and estate executor was clueless about his crimes.
With Robert Garcia, th e committee’s Democrat lead, writing that:
“Jeffrey Epstein’s massive sex trafficking ring would not have been possible without the consistent payments and services of his long-time accountant Richard Kahn.”
“It’s not credible that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s activities, and his testimony today only raises more questions.”
And when it comes to Trump, Garcia specifically said that Kahn “confirmed that Epstein spoke about Trump ‘a lot.’”[]
With Rep. Sue-bruh-mon-e-um adding that the committee asked Kahn about the settlement program he is running for the estate and:
“You know, he is proud of this program he set up, but a lot of the survivors have said that it has not been distributed fairly, that they have been trying to minimize the amount of distributions. We asked about, specifically, if one of Trump’s accusers had actually gotten a settlement and he did confirm that” (2:06-2:21)
So, once again, because this deposition did not happen live before the public, we have two different narratives about what was said and what should come next, especially with Trump.
But when it comes to the public’s feelings on Trump’s role in the files, well, someone in D.C. made their thoughts very public.
Because a statue depicting Trump and Epstein in the Titanic “King of the World” pose just went up in the National Mall.
With a plaque accompanying it saying:[]
“The tragic love story between Jack and Rose was built on luxurious travel, raucous parties, and secret nude sketches. This monument honors the bond between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, a friendship seemingly built on luxurious travel, raucous parties and secret nude sketches.”
It was put up by a group of anonymous artists, who got a permit allowing it to be up in the mall through Friday.
Though the White House tried to deride it as a stunt by “wealthy Democrat donors.”
As for what Trump thinks? Well, he has repeatedly claimed the files are a hoax, but also that they exonerate him.
But you also have a ton of people now focusing on his choice to attack one of the Republicans who has led the charge on exposing the files, Thomas Massie.
Right, Epstein is one of many issues Massie has bucked Trump on over the last year.
So yesterday Trump went to his Kentucky district and railed against him and endorse his opponent:
“He is the worst person.” (46:11-46:13)
“He’s disrespecting our country, he votes against everything.” (48:50-48:53)
“Thomas Massie is a disaster for our party.” (51:39
“He’s got one good thing going, he went to a good college. But I know a lot of stupid people that went to a good college.” (52:30-52:36)
“We gotta get rid of this loser. This guy is bad. He is disloyal to the Republican party, he is disloyal to the people of Kentucky, and most importantly, he is disloyal to the USA.” (52:59-53:13)
With Trump then bringing Massie’s opponent on stage to speak.
Which, quick aside: on the note of people who joined Trump on stage in Kentucky, you also had Jake Paul.
Right Jake spoke at the rally, and Trump even encouraged him to step into politics.
“I’m going to make a prediction that in the not too distant future, you will be running for political office. And you have my complete and total endorsement, okay? (1:04:38-1:04:51)
Which, that is just a problem we as a society don’t have time for right now, so back to the actual story.
It seems Trump’s crusade against Massie might be working.
Because according to CBS News, conservative groups are spending over five million to oust Massie in the primary.
And while Massie has gotten some support from outside groups, it’s not nearly as much as the money going against him, which is a big deal because this is likely his toughest primary yet.
For his part, Massie has shot back at Trump by claiming the president’s team was paying to bus people to the rally, arguing Trump voters in his district:[]
“also support my work on the Epstein files, reigning in spending, ending forever wars, draining the swamp, and food freedom!”
But we will see in May how voters feel about this Trump vs Massie issue when they take to the polls.
And for now, I would love to know your thoughts on anything here, whether it be these depositions, or the idea that the Epstein issue is irking Trump so much it is impacting his endorsements and creating fractures within the party.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(719x210:721x212)/Statue-Trump-Epstein-National-Mall-in-Washington-2026-031026-914793812b6e4fc5ad8f4aa99c6f55af.jpg){kind=link}
