White House Finds “Leaker” — Trump Has Them Physically Removed
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino set off a wave of speculation Wednesday after posting a blunt warning on X aimed at an unnamed former official or disappointed job-seeker he accused of attacking the Presidential Personnel Office through the media.
Scavino, who also serves as director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, did not identify the person he had in mind.
“When you get fired for doing a spectacularly shitty job at an agency, with your badge deactivated, building access revoked, and the full ‘you’re dead to us’ package — or when you get passed over for Ambassadorships, Boards, or Commissions — because there are candidates who are actually far more qualified than you, please resist the urge to sprint to every media outlet that will platform your lying bull shit, and then falsely attack the people in the Presidential Personnel Office who are out here serving President Trump, the Administration, and the American people each and every day — Just take the L, and move on, LOSER.”
Scavino ended the post with: “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
The message quickly drew attention from Trump allies online. FBI Director Kash Patel praised the post, writing, “Boss Move, Dan’s a legend.” An X account using the name 0HOUR1 joked, “I would like to report a murder.”
The wording of Scavino’s post fueled speculation about the identity of its target, particularly because he referred both to someone being fired from an agency and to people who had been passed over for ambassadorships, boards or commissions.
One name circulated by some users on X was Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned on March 17, 2026, over the administration’s war with Iran. Kent said in his resignation letter that Iran had posed “no imminent threat” to the United States and argued that the war had been driven by pressure from Israel and its American supporters.
President Donald Trump rejected Kent’s assessment at the time and responded to the resignation by saying, “It’s a good thing that he’s out,” while describing Kent as “very weak on security.”
Scavino, however, did not name Kent in his post, and there is no public confirmation that Kent was the intended target. The use of the word “or” also leaves open the possibility that Scavino was referring to more than one person — one who had been removed from a government position and another who had been passed over for an appointment.
The post comes as the Trump administration has been publicly focused on leaks and anonymously sourced reports involving internal deliberations and national security matters.
Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that Trump confronted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at Camp David over alleged shortages of key munitions during the conflict with Iran. The White House and Pentagon strongly denied the account. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she was present and that the confrontation “literally never happened,” while Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also disputed the report. The Post has continued to report its account based on unnamed sources.
The administration has also faced scrutiny over the disclosure of sensitive security details surrounding Trump’s July trip to Turkey. Subsequent reporting by multiple outlets said the president was secretly moved to a different aircraft because of a credible threat, while Air Force One departed as part of a security diversion.
Against that backdrop, Scavino’s message reads as a warning to former officials or rejected candidates whom he believes are taking grievances to the press. But despite the intense online speculation, the identity of the person — or people — he was addressing remains unconfirmed.
For now, the clearest takeaway is the one contained in Scavino’s own words: someone he believes was fired or passed over is speaking to the media and attacking the Presidential Personnel Office, and he wants that person to “take the L, and move on.”
Trump Administration Issues New Public Charge Guidance for Green Card Applicants
The Trump administration issued updated immigration guidance Tuesday explaining how federal officers should decide whether certain applicants for lawful permanent residence are likely at any time to become a public charge, expanding the range of circumstances officers may consider in the case-by-case review.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidance follows a Department of Homeland Security final rule published July 20 that rescinds the Biden administration's 2022 public charge regulations. The new framework takes effect Sept. 18, 2026, and USCIS has said the guidance applies to Forms I-485 postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date.
Under federal immigration law, officers making a public charge determination must consider an applicant's age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, and education and skills. The new rule also gives officers discretion to consider receipt of means-tested public benefits and other facts they view as relevant to whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge.
The determination remains individualized. DHS said in the final rule that it would not assign fixed weights to the various factors because the analysis is highly fact-specific, meaning no single characteristic is automatically decisive in every case.
Daniel Di Martino, a Venezuelan-born economist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute who researches immigration policy, praised the change and argued that the public charge authority has historically been used too narrowly.
“For over a century, immigrants coming to the United States have been required to prove that they’re not going to depend on the government, something that is eminently reasonable, but no administration until the Trump administration has actually implemented this rule,” Di Martino said.
The public charge concept has been part of federal immigration law since the late 19th century. The Immigration Act of 1882 barred certain immigrants considered unable to care for themselves without becoming a public charge, and later laws retained versions of the restriction. The modern Immigration and Nationality Act requires officers to make a forward-looking judgment using the statutory factors now emphasized in the 2026 guidance.
The rule was not entirely dormant before Trump. Public charge findings have been made under previous administrations, although Di Martino has argued that the authority was applied infrequently. In a 2025 Manhattan Institute paper, he noted that roughly 1,000 immigrant visa petitions out of more than one million were rejected on public charge grounds in 2017, with some of those cases potentially involving additional grounds or later reversals.
During Trump's first term, his administration adopted a broader public charge rule that expanded the types of benefits and circumstances officers could consider. That policy faced extensive litigation and was later abandoned by the Biden administration, which adopted a 2022 regulation defining a public charge more narrowly around primary dependence on government support, including public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.
The 2026 DHS rule rescinds that 2022 framework and restores broader officer discretion. It does not, however, mean that the use of a particular benefit automatically makes an applicant inadmissible. Officers are directed to examine the totality of the circumstances and decide whether the evidence, taken together, indicates that the applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge.
Di Martino has argued that a stricter public charge system could improve the fiscal impact of legal immigration by favoring applicants who are younger, more educated, more financially secure, and less likely to rely on government assistance. His research has also proposed going beyond the administration's current framework by creating a points-based public charge system.
In that separate 2025 proposal, Di Martino estimated that a points-based system shifting some visas toward younger and more highly educated immigrants could reduce federal deficits by $11.8 billion over 10 years and by more than $1 trillion over 30 years under his assumptions. Those figures were projections for his proposed system, not an official government estimate of the fiscal effect of the 2026 USCIS guidance.
Supporters of a stronger public charge standard argue that the issue has become more consequential as the United States has developed a large network of federal, state, and local assistance programs. They contend that an immigration system operating alongside a modern welfare state should place greater emphasis on whether prospective immigrants can support themselves and contribute economically over time.
That argument echoes a point long associated with economist Milton Friedman, who warned that unrestricted immigration and a broad welfare state could create conflicting incentives. Advocates of the new policy say the public charge provision is intended to preserve legal immigration while reinforcing the expectation of self-sufficiency.
The guidance does not close legal immigration, and the public charge ground does not apply to every immigration category. Refugees, asylees and several other humanitarian classes are exempt under federal law and regulation. For applicants who are subject to the rule, the decision will turn on the totality of their individual circumstances rather than on a single income level, benefit, age, or educational credential.
The administration's change therefore represents a significant shift in how USCIS officers are instructed to use a longstanding area of immigration law. Whether the broader discretion produces the fiscal savings envisioned by supporters will depend on how officers apply the guidance in practice, the types of cases affected, and any legal challenges that follow its Sept. 18 implementation.
"🔥 POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE! — THE NEW EPSTEIN FILES TWIST THAT PUTS TRUMP UNDER MASSIVE SCRUTINY!"
A new wave of scrutiny surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files is putting Donald Trump back at the center of one of Washington’s most contentious political battles. Representative Ted Lieu has publicly urged authorities and the media to examine disturbing allegations contained in Epstein-related records, while congressional Democrats continue pressing questions about how the Justice Department handled the documents.
The dispute reaches far beyond a single statement from a lawmaker. It involves allegations of sexual abuse, questions about the completeness of a major document release, and a growing political confrontation over whether the public has received a full accounting of the records connected to Epstein.
For Trump, the renewed attention creates another difficult political moment. For Lieu and other Democrats, the central question is whether the available records have received the scrutiny they warrant — and whether additional disclosures could clarify what investigators knew.
But there is an essential distinction at the heart of the controversy: an allegation appearing in an investigative file is not the same as a finding that the alleged conduct occurred.
Ted Lieu Brings the Epstein Allegations Back Into the Spotlight
Lieu, a California Democrat and vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, drew attention to the allegations during a news conference on February 3, 2026.
He argued that Republicans’ focus on former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton risked diverting attention from references to Trump in the Epstein files. Lieu urged journalists to examine the allegations recorded in the documents and questioned whether the Justice Department was adequately investigating people connected to Epstein.
His remarks were forceful, but their meaning matters. Lieu was describing allegations contained in the records, not announcing that investigators had established the accusations as fact.
The distinction became particularly important as descriptions of his comments spread online. Some posts suggested that the files conclusively showed criminal conduct or that undisclosed records contained direct proof of abuse. Fact-checking reports found that such descriptions went beyond what Lieu actually said.
The documents include information gathered during investigations into Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose connections to wealthy and influential people have remained a source of public concern. Investigative records can contain witness accounts, tips, interview summaries, and information that has not been independently corroborated.
The presence of a person's name in such records does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct. Nor does the existence of an allegation automatically establish its credibility.
Lieu's intervention nevertheless intensified the debate over what the records contain, what the government has disclosed, and whether further investigative steps are warranted.
A Previously Withheld Set of Records Raises New Questions
The controversy took another turn in February when House Oversight Committee Democrats said the Justice Department appeared to have withheld documents concerning a woman who alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a minor.
According to reporting by ABC News, an index of materials associated with the investigation indicated that FBI agents had interviewed the woman multiple times in 2019. The public release initially appeared to include only one of several interview reports and related notes.
Democratic lawmakers said their review suggested that more than 50 pages of potentially relevant material had not appeared in the public database. They questioned whether the department had properly disclosed records covered by the release requirements.
The Justice Department disputed the Democrats’ characterization. It said responsive documents had been produced unless they fell into categories such as duplicates, privileged material, or records connected to an ongoing federal investigation.
That disagreement raises a substantive question: Were documents missing because of administrative or legal reasons, or did the release fail to include material that should have been made public?
Answering that question requires more than competing statements from politicians. It requires a careful examination of the document index, the records that were released, the records that remain unavailable, and the legal basis for withholding any material.
The department has attributed some problems in the broader release process to the scale and complexity of the records. Democrats have argued that the apparent gaps deserve further investigation.
The dispute has also intensified scrutiny of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has faced congressional questions about the department’s handling of the Epstein files.
What the Allegation in the Records Actually Says
The allegations at issue are serious. According to ABC News, an FBI presentation summarized a woman's account that Epstein introduced her to Trump and that Trump subsequently assaulted her when she was between approximately 13 and 15 years old.
The account is an allegation, not an established finding of fact.
The public record also contains important limitations. An FBI interview summary documents what a witness told investigators; it does not necessarily establish that investigators independently verified the account. Likewise, the appearance of an allegation in a presentation prepared for prosecutors does not, on its own, demonstrate that prosecutors or investigators concluded it was substantiated.
ABC News reported that an internal FBI email indicated the woman ultimately declined to cooperate. That detail is relevant to understanding the investigative record, but it does not independently prove or disprove her account.
The Justice Department has said that some Epstein-related materials contain untrue or sensational claims submitted to the FBI. The White House has also rejected the allegations against Trump as baseless. Trump has denied wrongdoing.
Those responses do not resolve every question about the records or how they were handled. But they are part of the public record and must be considered alongside the allegations and the available documentation.
A responsible examination of the case must keep three issues separate: what a witness alleged, what investigators documented, and what evidence — if any — independently corroborates the allegation.
Confusing those categories can mislead readers and turn an unresolved claim into an apparent conclusion.
Why the Justice Department’s Handling of the Files Matters
The political conflict is not limited to the allegations involving Trump. It also concerns the government’s obligation to handle Epstein-related records transparently while protecting victims’ privacy and complying with legal restrictions.
The release process has attracted criticism over redactions, missing or delayed documents, and the disclosure of sensitive information. Epstein survivors and lawmakers have raised concerns about whether the process adequately balances public accountability with the need to protect people who experienced abuse.
That balance is difficult. Excessive redaction can prevent the public from understanding how authorities handled a major criminal investigation. Insufficient redaction can expose victims’ identities or release private material that should remain protected.
The Justice Department has said that some material must remain withheld for legal reasons, including protections for victims and restrictions involving ongoing investigations. Critics have questioned whether those explanations fully account for every apparent omission.
Congressional oversight could help establish how the department interpreted its obligations, what internal procedures it used, and whether any documents were improperly excluded. It could also determine whether apparent gaps resulted from administrative errors rather than deliberate concealment.
At this stage, the public dispute over the records should not be treated as proof of a coordinated cover-up. That is a conclusion that would require evidence beyond the existence of missing documents or disagreements over disclosure decisions.
The stakes are nonetheless substantial. The credibility of the release process depends on whether the government can explain its decisions and demonstrate that the rules were applied consistently.
A Political Clash With Consequences Beyond Trump
Lieu’s statements have become part of a wider confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration over the Epstein investigation.
Democrats have accused the Justice Department of failing to disclose all relevant records and have demanded greater transparency. Administration officials have countered that some claims circulating in public are unsubstantiated and that the department must follow legal requirements governing sensitive information.
The disagreement has created a political feedback loop: each new document or allegation generates demands for more disclosure, while each dispute over the release creates additional suspicion about what might remain unavailable.
That dynamic can make it difficult to distinguish legitimate unanswered questions from claims that go beyond the evidence.
For Democrats, continued scrutiny offers an opportunity to demand explanations from the administration and test whether the department complied with its obligations. For Trump and his allies, the challenge is to respond to questions about the records while arguing that unverified allegations should not be treated as proof of misconduct.
The political consequences will depend partly on what additional records show and whether independent evidence supports any of the claims. They will also depend on whether congressional inquiries establish procedural failures in the release process.
An investigation may uncover significant new information. It may also conclude that some allegations cannot be substantiated or that missing documents were withheld for legally permissible reasons. Neither outcome should be assumed in advance.
The Questions That Remain
The Epstein files have become a test of public trust in the institutions responsible for investigating abuse, protecting survivors, and disclosing records of legitimate public interest.
Several questions remain central. Were all responsive documents released under the applicable requirements? If material was withheld, what legal or administrative reasons justified the decision? What did investigators establish independently, and which statements remain uncorroborated allegations? And how can the government provide meaningful transparency without exposing survivors to further harm?
Lieu has pressed for greater scrutiny of allegations involving Trump, while other Democrats have focused on the department’s handling of the documents. Those efforts have renewed pressure on the administration, but public statements and congressional accusations are not substitutes for documented findings.
The next meaningful developments will come from the records themselves, any additional disclosures, and the results of formal oversight or investigative proceedings.
For now, the controversy remains a collision of serious allegations, disputed disclosure decisions, and partisan conflict. The public deserves clear answers about the documents and the process used to release them — without treating an allegation as a proven fact or dismissing legitimate questions before the evidence has been examined.
That is what will ultimately determine whether this latest Epstein files dispute produces meaningful accountability or becomes another chapter in Washington’s ongoing political battle.
