The unlisting––secrecy rediscovered
The Trump administration now finds itself in the odd position of asking the American public to believe the testimony of a convicted sex trafficker and perjurer.
There was a time—not long ago, though it feels like several scandals ago—when Donald Trump demanded full disclosure of the Epstein files. “Open it up!” he declared, arms raised as if summoning transparency from the heavens. His allies nodded vigorously. His base quivered with anticipation. At Mar-a-Lago, someone prepared a cake with the words Client List Coming Soon written in red icing.
That was January.
Now, in July, Americans find themselves once again caught in the riptide of narrative revisionism. The cake has gone stale. The client list never appeared. And the Trump administration—until so recently allergic to secrecy—has rediscovered the virtues of sealed documents, judicial restraint, and the selective deployment of amnesia. The Trump Justice Department, in a transparent attempt to divert attention, made requests to unseal grand jury testimony related to the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. However, one judge in Florida already denied this extraordinary request, and even if the grand jury transcripts are released, they would offer limited new information about the overall investigation into Epstein’s activities, as grand jury evidence is often focused on the specific charges being considered—a good way to blame judges for a nothing sandwich.
In the center of this epistemological backflip stands the administration’s newest legal conjurer: Todd Blanche. Formerly Trump’s personal defense attorney during the classified documents trial, Blanche now serves as Assistant Attorney General—a trajectory that suggests the only real crime in America is not being loyal enough.
But Blanche’s most recent appearance was not in a podium or the pressroom at the Justice Department. It was in a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, seated across from Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman convicted of multiple sex trafficking charges and long considered the Rosetta Stone of the Epstein saga.
This, in and of itself, might not be unusual. Governments do occasionally grant immunity to those convicted of heinous crimes in exchange for testimony.
What made this particular meeting unusual was that, according to leaks (because nothing is safe anymore), Blanche offered Maxwell a “limited-use” immunity deal in exchange for “clarifying” that Epstein and Trump had been estranged for many years—and that, in her words, “Donald was never that kind of guest.”
The phrasing struck many as curious. Not a denial. Not even a defense. More like the polite lie one tells about a family member at a parole hearing: He wasn’t that kind of drunk.
To recap: Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to entice and transport minors for sex, sex trafficking, and transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts in which she also participated. She received a 20-year sentence, and prosecutors—strangely—declined to bring her to trial on two additional counts of perjury, a decision now being reexamined by precisely no one.
And yet, somehow, the Trump administration now finds itself in the odd position of asking the American public to believe the testimony of a convicted sex trafficker and perjurer in order to clear the name of a former president convicted of sexual abuse himself. There are more troublesome reputational salvations—being endorsed by Kim Jong Un, perhaps.
In response to inquiries about the meeting, the DOJ issued a statement saying Maxwell had “voluntarily clarified” earlier misinterpretations and that Blanche’s visit was “routine.” One official added, “It’s not about who she was. It’s about what she’s willing to say now.”
Which begs the questions: What is she willing to say now? And for how much?
It’s unclear whether a formal pardon is on the table—many pardons in this administration are like Uber rides: you prepay, they just appear. Still, insiders report that Maxwell is “hopeful” and “cooperative,” and that her testimony will “shed light” on misunderstandings that have unfairly damaged “powerful reputations.”
One could be forgiven for wondering which reputations are being preserved here—and by whom. To Trump, Jeffrey Epstein was a “terrific guy”. Epstein believed himself to be Trump’s “closest friend” and praised the future president as “charming.”
Pam Bondi, once so confident that the “list” of Epstein’s clients was real and actionable––sitting on her desk just waiting for her review––, has gone quiet. FBI Director Kash Patel now sounds less like a man with secrets and more like a man trying to remember where he left them. Assistant FBI Director Dan Bongino is considering a return to podcasting, where the truth is never fact-checked. Both Patel and Bongino were two of the principal promoters of conspiracy theories before they were placed in those FBI positions and suddenly found themselves perplexed by their new inside-out perspective. And Elon Musk, bless him, is currently livestreaming from a subterranean Mars simulation, asking followers whether Epstein’s temple was actually an interdimensional teleportation hub––after crying out that Trump’s name was on the Epstein files.
And yet, the administration persists. Trump, asked directly about Maxwell’s testimony, said, “She’s been through a lot. People forget that. She’s very brave now.” He did not address her conviction. Nor her role in procuring underage girls. Nor the photos. Nor the witnesses. He simply added, “I always said she was nice to me. Very nice.” Because it’s always about Trump, nothing and nobody else.
It is perhaps fitting that the great revelation of 2025 is that truth is not a list or a document or even a conviction—it is a juncture of convenience and fatigue. Americans are being asked to believe Ghislaine Maxwell not because she is credible, but because she is useful to Trump. And because, after all, what else is left to believe?
To further drive that point, on July 22, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, sent the House of Representatives on an early summer recess to prevent passage of a bipartisan measure forcing the DOJ to release its Epstein documents. The GOP is so intent on not talking about Epstein and not revealing any details, it makes you wonder if there is something they don’t want released. It starts driving you toward a collateral conspiracy theory, a major coverup.
So, no, there will be no names. No list. No justice neatly delivered by flashlight and press conference. No satisfaction for millions of MAGA cultists whose presumptions about the veracity of their dear leader are crumbling after being promised lurid Epstein revelations by the very officials who now say there are none.
Just Maxwell, in her cell, blinking slowly at the camera, as she recites her lines from a script no one can verify and everyone is too exhausted to challenge.
She says she remembers things differently now. So does Trump.
And apparently, we are asked to credulously do the same.
