President Trump is a 79-year-old lame-duck president, approaching a difficult midterm in which he is likely to lose his Republican House majority.

To add to that is the hardball political reality behind his failing effort to hush the scandal surrounding the decased sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein: The right-wing talking heads with the biggest audiences are starting to turn on him.

Perhaps they are having pangs of conscience. Perhaps they are starting to think about their paychecks, their influence and their future livelihoods once Trump exits the stage.

Whatever their motives, those top voices in the Trump media echo chamber deserve credit for keeping their spotlight on the Epstein case. And it is a good-faith effort, because the central truth is that countless young women were abused.

It is deeply troubling that the justice system failed those young women. The plea deal given to Epstein in 2008, which allowed him to plead guilty to prostitution and not more serious charges of sex-trafficking, can only be politely described as “suspicious.” Even Epstein’s death by suicide prompted reasonable doubt and questions about possible foul play.

Huge payments to Epstein by several of the nation’s richest men remain unexplained to this day. And both Trump and former President Bill Clinton had close personal ties to Epstein.

Since World War II, the U.S. media has had to fight the government to learn the truth about the Kennedy assassination, President Nixon’s role in the Watergate scandal and bogus claims that weapons of mass destruction were secretly held in Iraq.

Americans searching for hidden truths kept digging while most big newspapers and broadcast networks played the whole thing down as a kooky preoccupation for weirdos. Without strong investigative reporting, a hothouse culture of conspiracy theories grew on supermarket scandal sheets and extremist radio shows. With the rise of the internet, the conspiracy culture also took root on websites and podcasts.

Beyond new technology, the rise of conservative media is tied to its “free-for-all” embrace of conspiracy theories that generated click-bait and created cults of true believers. Today, the biggest papers and networks are in the background. They follow stories from conservative media as the authentic voice of the right-wing base that allows Trump to dominate the Republican Party.

Even if those stories are false, they are now news. They gained in strength when Trump’s supporters believed the lie that the 2020 election had been stolen and some attacked police officers as they stormed the U.S. Capitol.

The Epstein case is an earthquake for Trump and his base because the man now keeping secrets is the one who was previously advertised by conservative media as their dragon-slayer. He was elevated as a counterforce to the big newspapers and the elite, highly educated people who dismissed the common man’s search for truth.

Now Trump is busy attacking his own followers as foolish for buying “into this ‘bulls—’, hook, line and sinker” and called them “weaklings.” He is also trying to distract his fans by releasing new files on Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination and sending out minions to make baseless, long-dismissed charges of treason against former President Barack Obama.

Trump has also filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch for reporting that Trump once sent a “bawdy birthday card” to Epstein. (Full disclosure: Murdoch’s News Corp also owns the New York Post and Fox News Media, where I have served as a political analyst for nearly three decades.)

Trump’s strategy of distraction is nothing new. Fifty-five years ago, Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew tried to deflect attention from his own corruption scandal by attacking the media, calling them “the nattering nabobs of negativism.”

It didn’t work. Agnew ultimately resigned the vice presidency in disgrace rather than face prosecution for his crimes.

Thirty-three years ago, Republican President George H.W. Bush attempted to revive his reelection campaign in the face of indictments tied to the Iran-Contra scandal. He handed out bumper stickers at rallies with the slogan, “Annoy the Media, Re-Elect Bush.”

The conservative-slanted media was still in its infancy when Agnew and Bush made their feeble attempts at distraction. Now, Trump is aiming his fire and fury at a full-grown conservative media ecosystem. These are the very loud voices that elevated him, elected him and re-elected him.

One of the MAGA media universe’s core narratives is that Epstein ran an underage sex trafficking ring for the richest and most powerful people in the country — and that the government was covering it up. Two of the loudest voices promoting this theory were Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, now serving as director and deputy director of the FBI, respectively.

“I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain,” former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) famously said during hearings on the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021. She is looking like a prophet.

In a striking exchange last week, MAGA-friendly podcast host Tim Dillon revealed that Vice President JD Vance invited him to a private dinner to spin him on the Epstein story. When the vice president is deployed to sway a podcaster, it only reinforces the perception that the Trump administration is involved in a cover-up.

Right-wing voices are right to keep the Epstein story alive. Even if it is only to keep the clicks coming, it must also be said that they are heeding Cheney’s warning about “dishonor.”

Juan Williams is senior political analyst for Fox News Channel and a prize-winning civil rights historian. He is the author of the new book “New Prize for These Eyes: The Rise of America’s Second Civil Rights Movement.”

In a move that surprised many on both sides of the political aisle, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently voted — with an overwhelming majority of House Democrats and Republicans — to support funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. 

To be sure, Ocasio-Cortez’s vote made little difference to the final tally. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), which could have cut U.S. support, was shot down 422-6. 

Nevertheless, voting to support continued funding was extremely revealing for what it says about Ocasio-Cortez’s grander ambitions.  

Indeed, not only did her vote mark a clear break with other members of the progressive “Squad,” who made up five of the six objections. 

More importantly, it positioned Ocasio-Cortez closer to the Democratic mainstream at a time when her name has been brought up as a candidate for the Senate, and potentially even President. 

Further, this vote positions the congresswoman well vis-à-vis Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who trails Ocasio-Cortez by 19-points (55 percent to 36 percent) in a poll reported by Politico. 

This is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has broken from the progressive wing in order to strengthen her candidacy for higher office, although it is the most serious.  

In 2021, in the wake of another war between Israel and Gaza, Ocasio-Cortez publicly lobbied against Iron Dome funding only to reverse course and vote “present.” At the time, MSNBC called her actions a bid to “preserve the possibility of challenging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.” 

Much like that vote, Ocasio-Cortez has maintained her image as a critic of Israel, but one who recognizes its right to exist and to self-defense, albeit her recent statements make it clear that she has an extremely narrow definition of “self-defense.” 

This position, much closer to the wider Democratic Party and national electorate, is also in stark contrast with other progressive rising stars, such as Zohran Mamdani. 

Mamdani, the front-runner to be New York City’s next Mayor has said Israel should not exist as a Jewish State, expressed support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement, and who has taken a decisively one-sided view to Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks as well as the ensuring war. 

And yet, given the vastly different circumstances between the 2021 vote and present day, Ocasio-Cortez’s July 18 vote carries considerably more weight. 

For months, even as many have doubted Ocasio-Cortez’s viability for statewide or national office, she has travelled the country, drawing thousands to her rallies. Even in red states and districts, voters are coming out to see her.  

At one rally in Plattsburgh, N.Y., a district represented by Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, Ocasio-Cortez reportedly drew a full 10 percent of the entire town. 

In that same vein, she has shown herself to be unmatched at fundraising ability.  

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, Ocasio-Cortez has raised $15.4 million this year, nearly twice as much as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and 23 times more than Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the longest serving woman in the House.

Moreover, virtually all (99 percent) of Ocasio-Cortez’s contributions have come from individuals — her average donation in the second quarter was just $17 — rather than big-spending political action committees.

Tellingly, almost three-quarters (72 percent) of her contributions have come from out of state, with a significant share also being spent on advertising in states other than New York. 

In fact, at this point — three years out from the 2028 elections — Ocasio-Cortez is seemingly more popular, marketable and noteworthy than former President Barack Obama was three years before the 2008 election.  

Obama, it will be remembered, was not even included in polls during the summer of 2005. His first appearance in a national poll came that December but was still considered such a longshot that his next appearance did not come until October of 2006. 

Conversely, the Race to the White House polling aggregator shows Ocasio-Cortez (12 percent) in fourth place, and she’s consistently a top five finisher in individual polls. Polymarket even shows her having the second-best odds, 17 percent, behind only Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) at 21 percent.

Additionally, in Democratic primaries, the left-wing of the party tends to dominate, giving her a considerable boost, particularly given the enthusiasm she tends to generate among this group.  

Taken together, it increasingly appears that Ocasio-Cortez’s growing national appeal supports her growing political ambitions. 

However, as I’ve stated elsewhere, there are legitimate reasons to doubt whether her viability for higher office corresponds with her aspirations.  

Aside from her age, she will turn 39 three weeks before the 2028 election, and inexperience, Ocasio-Cortez’s political leanings could alienate a sufficient number of swing voters. 

The 2024 election indicated that Americans, including a significant number of Democrats, do not want a far-left Democratic Party, and Ocasio-Cortez has historically been squarely on that side.  

Likewise, even if she is taking steps to quietly move to the center on some issues, she may be underestimating the potential damage it may do among her own base of support. 

Just days after the vote on the amendment, a far-left group defaced Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx office, painting “Ocasio-Cortez funds genocide” in red paint. Her campaign advisor has also said that they’ve received death threats due to her vote. 

Without downplaying the seriousness and inexcusability of political violence, it is doubtful that the far-left would stay away if Ocasio-Cortez began to be considered a legitimate frontrunner in the next three years.  

Furthermore, were she to become the party’s nominee for either the Senate or the presidency, there is likely a “built in” vote among Democratic voters who would support the party, regardless of the candidate.  

That’s especially true given that she addresses critical needs for Democrats — their lack of fresh ideas, new faces and overall lack of energy. 

Of course, this is certainly not to suggest that she will be the nominee. She may very well decide that making a run at the Senate first makes more sense. Her appeal may also begin to fade between now and 2028. 

Ultimately, the prospect of Ocasio-Cortez becoming Democrats’ 2028 presidential nominee is not out of the realm of reason, and even looks considerably more plausible than it did just one year ago. 

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.”

Opinions on President Trump’s budget cuts to institutions like the Department of Education, NPR and PBS tend to differ along partisan lines. But the intent behind these actions is clear: to dismantle longstanding ideological bias within publicly funded educational and media institutions.

However, if the administration’s objective is genuinely to root out institutional bias, its scope must extend beyond traditional media. Trump must also confront the digital giants — most notably, Google, whose influence over public discourse dwarfs that of any single news outlet or federal program. 

Google receives substantial financial benefit from federal contracts and partnerships. It has also repeatedly faced scrutiny for partisan behavior and the suppression of conservative voices. While some argue that it is the only realistic option for search, there are alternatives that offer a more balanced experience and directly address concerns about partisan filtering. 

In 2019, former Google engineer Zach Vorhies leaked more than 950 internal documents exposing ideological manipulation within the company. These documents, shared with the U.S. Department of Justice, revealed a troubling ecosystem of “blacklists,” manual overrides and algorithmic demotions specifically targeting such right-leaning news sources as Newsmax and The Western Journal.

Public perception echoes these concerns. A Pew Research Center survey revealed that 73 percent of Americans believe social media platforms and browsers censor political views. Among Republicans, the figure rose to a staggering 90 percent.  

While partisan suspicion alone is insufficient to prove systemic bias, academic research adds weight to the claim. 

Robert Epstein, a behavioral psychologist with credentials from Harvard and former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, provided peer-reviewed findings to the U.S. Senate indicating that Google’s search manipulation may have influenced up to 2.6 million votes in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.  

Epstein’s research reveals how subtle algorithmic biases in search results can profoundly influence voter behavior. In certain demographic groups, that swing can climb to an astonishing 80 percent. This influence is particularly dangerous in close elections, where even a small nudge — between 4 percent and 8 percent — could determine the winner. He emphasized that such influence operates below the threshold of awareness, undetectable by users and immune to oversight, making it one of the most powerful and least accountable forms of political persuasion in the digital age.

To be clear, Epstein had no political motive behind his findings. He was a supporter of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election, said he has never supported a conservative candidate, and has remained center-left throughout his life.

More recent audits show the trend continues. In 2024, AllSides conducted a systematic review of Google’s election-related search results and found that 65 percent were geographically mismatched. AllSides concluded that this misdirection not only limited access to localized, relevant information, it also diminished the digital presence of conservative voices. 

Yet despite these troubling findings, Google’s footprint within the federal government continues to grow. In July 2025, the tech giant’s public-sector arm secured a Department of Defense contract worth up to $200 million for artificial intelligence services. Google also participates in the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability initiative, a $9 billion cloud infrastructure project shared with Amazon and Microsoft.  

Through the General Services Administration, Google supplies Workspace tools to numerous federal agencies under a contract projected to save $2 billion over three years. Collaborations with DARPA, NASA, and the Department of Energy further entrench Google within critical government operations. 

Google isn’t the only search engine available, but it still dominates the market, accounting for roughly 90 percent of global usage. That said, there are meaningful alternatives worth considering. Luxxle, for example, is a privacy-focused search engine that gives users greater control over their data and the ideological slant of the content they see. Unlike Google, it doesn’t track searches, monitor user behavior, or build consumer profiles.

If the Trump administration truly aims to uphold ideological neutrality and preserve intellectual freedom, cutting off funding to biased government institutions is just the first step. The greater challenge lies in confronting powerful private entities like Google, which function as modern-day gatekeepers of public discourse. 

Gregory Lyakhov is a high school student from Great Neck, N.Y., and a nationally syndicated columnist.