Sunday, February 1, 2026
The friends you keep tell a lot about you
DOJ Epstein Files Reveal Michael Wolff’s Political Collaboration with Jeffrey Epstein to Undermine Trump
Previously unreleased emails reveal sustained, strategic, and often personal communications between journalist Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein, with exchanges focused on political messaging, media influence, and repeated discussions about Donald Trump—including efforts to shape public narratives about his candidacy and presidency.
Among the newly released records from the Department of Justice—part of a 3.5 million-page document production under the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed by President Trump—are emails between author Wolff and Epstein that reveal a striking level of political discussion, media planning, and apparent coordination related to Trump’s rise in 2015 and beyond.
The released records include a February 2016 message from Wolff warning Epstein, “NYT called me about you and Trump. Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.” Epstein responded simply, “Lots of reporters.” To which Wolff replied, “Yeah, you’re the Trump bullet.”
In another exchange from October 2016, Wolff said, “There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?”
Wolff workshopped talking points and responses with Epstein, in December 2015 musing: “If we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” The question came in response to a heads-up from Wolff the night before: “I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship wit= you–either on air or in scrum afterwards.” The next afternoon, Wolff followed up with strategic advice:
I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
In May 2016, Wolff reached out again ahead of a planned interview, asking, “Anything you think I should ask?” Epstein replied with a list of what he considered damaging topics for Trump, including “revenue of golf courses as income,” “total debt of all cost,” and “how much did his father leave.”
DOJ Epstein Files Reveal Michael Wolff’s Political Collaboration with Jeffrey Epstein to Undermine Trump
Previously unreleased emails reveal sustained, strategic, and often personal communications between journalist Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein, with exchanges focused on political messaging, media influence, and repeated discussions about Donald Trump—including efforts to shape public narratives about his candidacy and presidency.
Among the newly released records from the Department of Justice—part of a 3.5 million-page document production under the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed by President Trump—are emails between author Wolff and Epstein that reveal a striking level of political discussion, media planning, and apparent coordination related to Trump’s rise in 2015 and beyond.
The released records include a February 2016 message from Wolff warning Epstein, “NYT called me about you and Trump. Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.” Epstein responded simply, “Lots of reporters.” To which Wolff replied, “Yeah, you’re the Trump bullet.”
In another exchange from October 2016, Wolff said, “There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?”
Wolff workshopped talking points and responses with Epstein, in December 2015 musing: “If we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” The question came in response to a heads-up from Wolff the night before: “I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship wit= you–either on air or in scrum afterwards.” The next afternoon, Wolff followed up with strategic advice:
I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
In May 2016, Wolff reached out again ahead of a planned interview, asking, “Anything you think I should ask?” Epstein replied with a list of what he considered damaging topics for Trump, including “revenue of golf courses as income,” “total debt of all cost,” and “how much did his father leave.”
In a March 2016 email titled “Patterson,” Wolff advised Epstein that he needed an “immediate counter narrative” to the upcoming James Patterson book, proposing that Donald Trump offered “an ideal opportunity.” He wrote that “Becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now,” and urged Epstein to go public. Wolff outlined a media strategy that could include a television interview, an op-ed, and social media efforts and suggested assembling a group of media allies to support the effort.
An April 2016 email shows Wolff responding to a forwarded message about a Reuters inquiry into a lawsuit alleging that both Epstein and Donald Trump raped a woman in 1994. After Epstein shared the press alert with Epstein, Wolff replied, “Well, I guess if there’s anybody who can wave thus away, it’s Donald,” and added, “Let me know if there’s anything I can do.”
In January 2018, Wolff wrote, “Trump is going to go down—why doesn’t he use this opportunity to strike out on his own?” He suggested subtly implying that he had tapes and speculated, “I wonder, btw, if he isn’t interested in talking to you about in fact bringing down Trump. Can’t wait to hear?”
One message sent by Epstein to Wolff on January 15, 2019 breaks down alleged financial strategies involving Trump’s brand. It claims that Trump rents out his name to building projects without direct ownership and receives royalties or profit shares. The message describes how wealthy buyers use “trophy properties” for positive media exposure and cites examples involving Hyatt Hotels, the GANZ art collection, and offshore financial structures in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands. It concludes by alleging that Trump’s public financial disclosures are misleading because they reflect gross revenues or asset valuations, not net value or liabilities—calling them “meaningless.”
Additional emails include offhand characterizations. In a July 2017 thread, Epstein noted, “Donald now down on tillerson,” prompting an exchange about Sam Waksal, whom Wolff said he had met at dinner the night before, adding, “He had some good Trump stories.” In an October 2016 email, Wolff relayed a remark he attributed to Roger Ailes, claiming Ailes said he gave up trying to advise Trump, describing him as “the boy in pre-school who you just knew was going to throw a truck at another kid’s head.”
As late as 2019, Wolff continued to send Epstein story drafts for input. “This is what I’m now going with—what do you think?” he wrote in March of that year, including a highly speculative passage implying salacious behavior by Trump.
In a February 2017 email thread, Wolff told Epstein he was working on a Trump book “for a pile of money” and asked him to arrange introductions to Tom Barrack and Kathy Ruemmler. Epstein replied that “kathy agreed,” indicating her willingness to connect.
Even seemingly mundane messages reinforce the intimacy of their exchanges—coordinating meetings, discussing travel, and navigating weekend plans. In one February 2016 thread, Epstein invites Wolff to meet that same day following a scheduled meeting with Ehud Barak, writing, “ehud barak at 1, would you like to join at 2?” He later adds that he’ll be in Paris but suggests they “can do it then” upon his return on the 5th. In another message, Wolff mentions he has to attend a funeral for an old relative in New Jersey and asks, “What’s your weekend look like?”
A 2018 email from Wolff to Ken Starr, with Epstein copied, reflects further coordination. Wolff wrote of sending Starr his Trump book and seeking input for a sequel focusing “on the legal case against Trump and Trump’s response to it.” Starr replied warmly, crediting Epstein for the connection: “With thanks to Jeffrey, I’m delighted to come into your orbit.”
As Breitbart News has previously reported, Wolff has repeatedly framed his work on Trump as an effort to discredit and ultimately remove him from office. In early 2018 media appearances promoting Fire and Fury, Wolff stated that his book would “end this presidency,” argued that Trump was “intellectually incapable” of serving as president, and asserted that “100%” of the people closest to Trump believed there was “something fundamentally wrong” with him.
Wolff further suggested that the 25th Amendment was actively discussed inside the White House and acknowledged having extensive access to Trump advisers and officials, recording dozens of hours of conversations—many of which participants believed were off the record—and using those accounts to construct a narrative of dysfunction and instability.
He described Trump as both sexist and racist, stating, “Yes,” when asked directly if Trump was sexist and again, “Um yes I do,” when asked if he was racist. Wolff added that Trump treats women “in as transactional a way as he thinks about everything.”
Breitbart News has also covered Trump’s strong dispute of Wolff’s claims, noting that Trump issued cease-and-desist letters ahead of the book’s release and publicly denied granting Wolff access, writing, “I authorized Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book!” and calling it “Full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don’t exist.”
Fulton County's Voter Rolls Might Have a Massive Problem
Fulton County's Voter Rolls Might Have a Massive Problem
Dems Demand Taxpayers Keep Funding ‘Obamaphones’ for the Dead
Dems Demand Taxpayers Keep Funding ‘Obamaphones’ for the Dead
Who needs phones more than the dead?
Great news:White Coat Waste Triumph: NIH Dumps New Dog and Cat Lab Funding
White Coat Waste Triumph: NIH Dumps New Dog and Cat Lab Funding
We've been following the ongoing efforts to back away from the federal government funding for questionable work done involving research using, among other critters, dogs and cats as subjects. This is a matter that hits close to the hearts of a lot of folks, as dogs and cats are our most popular pets; people understandably don't want to see them used as test subjects.
On Thursday, on X, investigative reporter, podcaster and activist Laura Loomer reported that the fiscal year 2026 federal budget contains no new funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct any research on dog and cat subjects.
The post is lengthy, but here are the high points.
A new White Coat Waste @WhiteCoatWaste review of federal grants reveals that the @NIH has apparently decided to not fund any new dog and cat experiments in fiscal year 2026. Sources tell me an official announcement from @NIH about dog and cat testing is coming soon, during the second week of February. If this news uncovered by White Coat Waste is confirmed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. @SecKennedy, this would be another huge victory against wasteful and abusive animal testing for WCW and the Trump administration.
Note that this appears to affect only new grants, not existing ones, unless there is something on existing grants in the expected official announcement.
White Coat Waste has been the only group calling out the NIH and demanding that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya @NIHDirector_Jay and certified Trump-hater and Fauci-lover Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer immediately end all funding for new and existing experiments that abuse dogs and cats. Meanwhile, @PETA and other left-wing anti-Trump groups have let Nicole and Jay off the hook. As I’ve reported with White Coat Waste since Tax Day of last year, Jay Bhattacharya and Nicole Kleinstreuer have continued to defend, support and fund Dr. Anthony Fauci’s labs and abusive tests on dogs, cats and other animals in labs in the US and foreign countries like China on US taxpayer dime.
Note that Loomer calls out PETA for not opposing this work; despite PETA's online propagandizing, getting into the specifics like this isn't really their bag. PETA's activism is, like the Platte River in Nebraska, a mile wide and an inch deep. The organization exists primarily to fund Ingrid Newkirk's field trips to shove her face in front of cameras and occasionally to attend upscale Hollywood parties.
This effort, to pressure Congress to defund these projects, has been going on for some time, driven by members of Congress and activists alike. Now it seems to be bearing some fruit.
There are cases in which biomedical research requires animal subjects, and we should note that roughly 95 percent of the animal subjects used in the United States are rats and mice, not dogs and cats. There are good reasons for this; the kind of systemic, whole-organism modeling that is done can be done as accurately on mice and rats as with cats and dogs. Mice are cheaper, easier to house, cheaper to maintain, and easier to work with.
With every passing year, though, our need for animal models decreases. There are still some areas in which animal work can be unavoidable, if for no other reason than that the best computer and AI models we can come up with are laughably crude compared to a biological system. But the NIH has been notoriously unclear as to precisely what they are doing, and in any case, there's no constitutional justification for Washington to be funding this sort of work.
That makes this good news all around.
The Democrats version of making life in California more affordable?
Drivers fume over Dem-led push that could see them taxed for every mile: ‘Citizens treated like ATMs’
California drivers and Republican legislators are furious over a Democrat-led proposal that could see motorists taxed for each mile they drive.
With the state staring down a budget deficit in the billions and more Californians switching to electric vehicles, Democratic lawmakers are searching for new ways to shore up declining gas tax revenue.
Californians pay the second-highest gas price in the nation behind only Hawaii. In January, the average price was $4.23 per gallon, according to the American Automobile Association.
Biden Tried to Kill Costco-Style Discounts
Biden Tried to Kill Costco-Style Discounts. Trump Is Stopping It.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Did you know the Biden administration worked overtime in its final days to try to stop you from buying things in bulk at the prices you love? It pushed aggressive lawsuits that threatened to make volume discounts — the precise reason Costco, Walmart, and similar stores can offer everyday low prices on all your household needs —much harder to come byNow, thanks to actions ramping up this week, President Trump's Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson is positioned to shut down this nonsense once and for all.
In the chaotic closing stretch of the Biden-Harris FTC, Chair Lina Khan — who went on to become the co-chair of Zohran Mamdani's mayoral transition team — absurdly began turning bulk pricing discounts into a legal fight.
Why? Because she seemingly hates capitalism that much.
Trump's team is certainly not afraid to put pressure on big corporate monopolistic actors when they harm consumers (the same companies that I have been very critical of in my own op-eds and legal analyses).
But Khan seemed to want to punish businesses in the free enterprise system all the time — even when they are popular with consumers and provide them benefits —for the "sin" of being too successful.
One of the things her so-called "antitrust enforcement activities" demonstrated that she really didn't like was how big companies can get products to consumers on the cheap. Which is a shame, because everyone else in the country likes that.
She loved using a little-known Great Depression law, called the Robinson-Patman Act, to crack down on companies that offered bulk pricing discounts to their customers.
For example, in December 2024, Khan's agency sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, an alcohol distributor, for giving better deals to national chains like Costco, Total Wine, and Kroger while charging independent liquor stores more for the same products.
Then, on January 17, 2025 — just days before President Trump's inauguration — her FTC filed a similar suit against PepsiCo over promotional terms that she claimed favored Walmart and other giants over smaller grocers.
These companies weren't raising prices; they were lowering them. But they still got sued by Biden's administration through the Robinson-Patman Act.
Robinson-Patman wasn't written to stop companies from competing on price. That, after all, is the entire point of free enterprise. The act was written to stop companies with real market power from rigging prices with the intention of squeezing out competitors unfairly.
Yet neither of these two Biden administration Robinson-Patman Act cases pointed to a single direct harm consumers faced from this price-cutting.
At the time, then-Commissioner Ferguson called this egregious Biden abuse of power out for what it was. In his January 2025 dissent on the PepsiCo case, he labeled the filing "purely political," accusing the outgoing Democratic majority of "march[ing] staff into court with no evidence to support the most important allegations in the Complaint." He called it an "insult to the Commission's credibility, its hardworking and talented staff," and "a waste of taxpayer dollars."
Ferguson was right on target — and when he took the FTC's reins from Khan once Trump was sworn into office, he dismissed the PepsiCo case.
Now the Southern Glazer case — which has heated up this week thanks to a Monday motion filed in federal court — looks to be next.
Ferguson has already taken a two-by-four to this clear case of Biden overreach.
In his December 2024 dissent from the Khan FTC decision, Ferguson wrote that Southern Glazer "appears likely to succeed on a cost-justification defense." He pointed out that bulk orders to centralized warehouses cost the business far less per bottle than frequent small drops to individual independent stores, so it's only logical to charge them less.
Here's the kicker: The Robinson-Patman Act, which the Biden team cited as the basis of its case, explicitly allows for these cost-based pricing differences. And why shouldn't it? If the courts ruled them illegal, it would wipe out the very bargains that make Costco runs worthwhile for everyday Americans.
My wife would never forgive them, that's for sure.
Commissioner Melissa Holyoak drove this point home in her 83-page Biden dissent: "Not only does the Complaint fail to identify harm to competition or consumers, the proposed remedy would likely impede price competition and harm consumers."
"Consumers may purchase spirits from large retail chains rather than small liquor stores because of lower prices," Ferguson added, "But they may also do it because of some other feature of the favored retailers' business—for example, the convenience of buying alcohol alongside other household goods and groceries."
My family certainly agrees with this sentiment, and I'm sure yours does, too.
Which raises the question: How could the Biden team be so tone-deaf in filing these cases?Perhaps they have never done their own grocery shopping and thus didn't understand how we all shop or what we prioritize.
Or — and I fear this might be more likely — perhaps they know exactly what we all do, but they didn't take that into consideration when filing the cases, because shaping the world to more closely resemble their progressive, anti-capitalist worldview was more important to them than protecting consumer welfare.
Maybe the Biden holdovers tried to take away your Costco deals because they truly hate capitalist business efficiency that much. But Chair Ferguson and the rest of the Trump administration are making sure they won't succeed.
If that's not grounds for a free lifetime Costco membership, then I don't know what is.
John Pierce is the founder of the National Constitutional Law Union (NCLU). He has represented many high-profile clients, including Tulsi Gabbard and Rudy Giuliani, and his writing has been shared on Truth Social by President Donald J. Trump.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting and opinion? Support our work by joining Townhall VIP! Use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Finding who funds the riots...a riot is not protected by free speech
Patel says FBI has discovered groups funding anti-ICE protests in Minnesota
"We've actually found groups and individuals responsible for funding it 'cause it's not happening organically," FBI Director Kash Patel said.
FBI Director Kash Patel said more arrests are coming in Minnesota in the midst of a federal operation and local protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and said the bureau has made progress in its investigation of groups who are allegedly funding the demonstrations.
Speaking to podcaster Benny Johnson on Monday, the FBI director said the bureau is investigating alleged group funding of ongoing protests against ICE officials in Minneapolis, coming in the wake of two shootings that left protesters dead.
“We’ve got also investigations ongoing into the funding of this. We’ve made substantial progress,” he said. “We’ve actually found groups and individuals responsible for funding it ‘cause it’s not happening organically.”
Also in the interview, Patel said four people were arrested earlier this month after a federal vehicle was broken into in Minneapolis. He said that another person was arrested on Sunday.
“In a vehicle, we discovered not just [FBI] firearms, which thankfully we recovered, but also personal information about law enforcement,” Patel told Johnson. “That personal information was being used on the ground to issue threats of life to FBI agents, along with their wives and their children. There are going to be more arrests on that same matter, today and tomorrow. We’re not done.”
The FBI recently announced it would be offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and capture of individuals who allegedly stole government property out of an FBI vehicle.
This comes after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a protester, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed after he approached Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun.
Videos from the scene circulating on social media appear to show Pretti holding an object in his hand as he struggles with agents. The man’s family said in a statement shared by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that Pretti was “clearly not holding a gun” but instead had “his phone in his right hand, and his empty left hand is raised above his head.”
Earlier this month, Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. Videos show she was driving her Honda Pilot toward the officer when he fired at her. Federal authorities said the officer was struck by the vehicle and hospitalized with internal bleeding.
The Trump administration has defended the ICE agent involved in the shooting, saying his life was at risk. Local and national Democratic officials say both shootings were unjustified and threatened to shut down the federal government before the Jan. 30 funding deadline if funding for DHS, the agency that oversees ICE, was included in the package.
“Democrats sought common sense reforms in the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, but because of Republicans’ refusal to stand up to President Trump, the DHS bill is woefully inadequate to rein in the abuses of ICE,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement last Saturday. “I will vote no.”
Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton also decried the shooting of Pretti, with Obama claiming it’s a sign that “many of our core values” are “increasingly under assault.” In a statement Sunday, Clinton also offered critical comments about the Minneapolis operation and condemned the events leading to Pretti’s death.
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Jan. 26 that he had spoken with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, and told Walz that “I would have (Border Czar) Tom Homan call him, and that what we are looking for are any and all Criminals that they have in their possession.” Walz on Monday confirmed he spoke with Trump.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
