Friday, June 12, 2026

Inside the White House panic over Epstein files and growing MAGA backlash

 

Inside the White House panic over Epstein files and growing MAGA backlash

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/inside-the-white-house-panic-over-epstein-files-and-growing-maga-backlash-126061100296_1.html 

Inside the White House panic over Epstein files and growing MAGA backlash

The president's top advisers gathered in a series of Situation Room meetings as they struggled to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself

Trump, Jeffrey Epstein

An image of US President Donald Trump alongside Jeffrey Epstein displayed on a vehicle | Photo: Reuters

NYT

Listen to This Article

By Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan
 
On July 17, 2025, at around 6 o’clock in the evening, President Trump’s top officials filed into the White House Situation Room — the secure bunker where classified and high-stakes national security matters are discussed and decided. This was where President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the president’s national security team, watched the raid that ended with the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.
 
Now, however, Trump’s most senior advisers had gathered — without him — to figure out how to gain some measure of control over a very different kind of crisis threatening to engulf the presidency: the Epstein files.
   
Ten days earlier, the Justice Department and the FBI had jointly released a memo that bluntly stated that their review had found no “client list” of powerful men for whom the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had allegedly procured underage girls and young women. Intended to put to rest years of speculation and end the pressure campaign to release the voluminous material in the department’s possession, the memo instead had the opposite effect, setting off a backlash that was notably loud among the MAGA base.
 
And it was about to get worse: The Wall Street Journal was preparing a damaging article about Trump’s relationship with Epstein. The president’s desperate attempts to kill the story had failed. His team now had to get everyone onto the same page about how to counter the growing swarm of attention. They needed a gesture of transparency to appease an increasingly angry base, but also a way to convey the message that the president was sympathetic to his supporters’ concerns. Which itself was a problem, because he clearly wasn’t.
 
Vice President JD Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy Conference Room of the Situation Room complex. “This is a huge problem,” he told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House counsel, David Warrington; the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt; the deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich; the communications director, Steven Cheung; the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche; the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward Jr.; and the deputy chief of staff James Blair. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the FBI director, Kash Patel, joined on speakerphone.
 
The vice president appeared panicked to others in the room about the way the subject of Epstein was already dividing the MAGA coalition. Some senior officials had the impression that Vance had bought into the darkest theories about Epstein and a cabal of predators hidden within the country’s ruling class. Wiles would tell others that the vice president had proved himself to be a major conspiracy theorist. Another top official said later that Vance had been pounding on the Epstein issue since the release of the memo. He was privately pressing for the administration to release all the Epstein files, everything in the Justice Department’s possession, even encouraging a congressional investigation.
 
Vance had also floated to colleagues an extraordinary P.R. gambit — that the White House enlist Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, in prison. It might help the president if Maxwell was willing to state that Trump had not been part of any wrongdoing with Epstein.
 
Vance told the group he believed all the files should be released as soon as possible. He argued that Congress was going to force the release of the files eventually. It was already clear that a bipartisan coalition in favor of such action was forming on Capitol Hill, and the momentum was going in one direction. If the administration got out ahead of this and released everything voluntarily — including whatever material existed about the president — it would at least get credit for transparency. The alternative was to let the story drag on for months as information dripped out, each new revelation renewing the cycle of suspicion and fury. Better to rip the bandage off and move on.
 
Even the unsubstantiated allegations and anecdotes about Trump should go out, Vance argued. They were going to surface regardless, and if the administration published them first, it would demonstrate good faith and take the oxygen out of the conspiracy theories. His arguments fell on skeptical ears, but some advisers thought it would be a good idea to have Justice Department officials call a news conference to explain their position on the Epstein affair — going beyond the memo that precipitated the crisis.
 
At this point in the meeting, Blair spoke up. “With all due respect,” he said, “the communications strategy of this group got us here. I don’t know that it’s going to get us out. And if you’re going to go in front of the press, you’ve got a lot of work to do.” He began to ask pointed mock questions, demonstrating how difficult a news conference might be.
 
As the president’s former defense attorney, Blanche had a unique vantage point in the discussion. He was better equipped than anyone else in the room to weigh the ideas being discussed against Trump’s personal and political interests. Blanche laid out what he saw as their best options.
 
Option 1 was to petition Federal District Courts in Florida and New York to unseal the grand jury testimonies — the secret transcripts of prosecutors’ presentations of witnesses and evidence in their efforts to obtain indictments in past Epstein-related cases. As those were almost certain to contain no significant new information, everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the president.
 
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always inviolate, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. If the courts refused to unseal them — as Blanche predicted — they could shift the blame for withholding the Epstein material away from the Trump administration and onto the judges. And all the better if the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents. Blanche’s suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the materials released, when it was almost certain not to happen.
 
Option 2 was to have Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly release the transcript — a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Blanche offered to interview Maxwell himself.
 
“What if we got her to talk to Congress?” Vance suggested.
 
Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell’s lawyer might expect something in return for her candor.
 
Warrington, the White House counsel, responded by laying out the available choices, without advocating any of them. Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced.
 
At that, several around the table spoke up to register their strong disapproval.
 
“Pardoning Maxwell, a trafficker of young girls, would create a huge P.R. problem,” Cheung said. He predicted that in the wake of a pardon, the Epstein accusers would be fanning out on TV, telling their stories and ripping the administration to shreds.
 
Blair was also adamantly opposed to a pardon. “We can’t offer Ghislaine Maxwell anything,” he said. “A, I don’t know why we would. And B, if we give Ghislaine Maxwell any sort of break whatsoever and then she turns around and says nice things about us, or says nice things about us and we give her a break, it will undermine the entire point of her saying good things. That will feed the conspiracy theory, period. If there’s nothing for her to say that hurts us, we shouldn’t have to offer her anything.”
 
The consensus was that calling for the release of the grand jury material was the best course of action. Wiles told the group she would discuss the matter with Trump and ask if he would send a Truth Social post calling for the release of the sealed grand jury documents.
 
Just then, The Wall Street Journal article they had been trying to kill was published online. Cellphones are forbidden in the Situation Room, so a staff member brought in printed copies of the explosive report, which detailed how Trump, and many others, had created birthday cards and letters to be assembled by Maxwell into a special birthday book for Epstein in 2003. The birthday card attributed to Trump depicted a nude woman, hand-drawn and inscribed with an imagined dialogue between the two men about a “wonderful secret.” The drawing was signed with what appeared to be Trump’s distinctive jagged Sharpie signature in place of the woman’s pubic hair.
 
In the days before publication, Trump, in the effort to quash the story, had called News Corp.’s chief executive, Robert Thomson; News Corp.’s owner, Rupert Murdoch; and The Journal’s editor in chief, Emma Tucker. Practically shouting, the president told Tucker, who is British, that she must “hate America.” He told her he would file a lawsuit.
 
But none of his bullying had worked, and now, as the group sat quietly reading the full story in the Situation Room, Wiles readied a public denial for the president, which he soon posted on social media.
 
Shortly after this, the president posted again. He was going along with the plan his advisers had hashed out in the Situation Room, though it was clear he didn’t like having to do it: “Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!”
 
In response to a request for comment, a White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, repeated Trump’s claims that he was innocent in all Epstein-related matters, adding that “by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”
 
At the start of last summer, as far as outside observers could see, Trump appeared to be at the pinnacle of his power. He had just bombed nuclear sites in Iran; completed a blitz of executive orders to reshape the immigration system; and rammed through Congress his signature piece of domestic legislation, the Big Beautiful Bill. He was using the levers of the government to go after his enemies, and out of fear and desperation, America’s corporate titans were falling over themselves to genuflect.
 
But behind the scenes, the Epstein crisis was paralyzing the Trump administration to a far greater extent than the public knew. In their public statements, Trump’s advisers were full of bravado, dismissing the crisis. In reality, it was consuming the highest ranks of the administration as no issue had for the president’s team since the Russia investigation in his first term. His aides were determined to keep their rising sense of panic out of public view.
 
The Justice Department had struggled with just how to dispose of the Epstein matter since the beginning of Trump’s second term. The issue was all-consuming for the president’s political base, but also potentially compromising for the president himself in ways that officials in the new administration didn’t fully understand. Any path forward would be fraught.
 
Some of that complexity was self-inflicted. In the engine room of the MAGA movement, the Epstein files were potent fuel. Elon Musk had used his social media platform to repeatedly question why a client list had not been released. Donald Trump Jr. and JD Vance had invoked the Epstein files as a broader campaign message to argue that “powerful people” were hiding the truth from Americans. Tucker Carlson and the young conservative leader Charlie Kirk had each insisted that the government should release the documents and each floated the idea that there was an expansive cover-up in progress.
 
Trump himself had been cagey. On the “Lex Fridman Podcast” in September 2024, when asked about releasing the client list, Trump responded, “I’d certainly take a look at it,” adding, “I’d have no problem with it.” The list “probably will be” made public, he said, but he sounded less than enthusiastic. In private, Trump later told Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene that a release of Epstein material could hurt some of his friends. He repeatedly insisted that he had done nothing wrong and that the whole saga was “fake news” designed to harm him politically.
 
But his posture was overtaken by the growing frenzy among his supporters. Throughout 2024, Greene had made it her mission to force the release of the files. And there were so many others. The far-right influencer Laura Loomer, the conservative activist Scott Presler, Chaya Raichik from Libs of TikTok. But when it came to propagating the Epstein files as evidence of a “deep state” capable of evil, two podcasters were not to be outdone: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.
 
Patel — a National Security Council director for counterterrorism and Defense Department chief of staff in the first Trump administration — had repeatedly claimed in podcast interviews that the government was hiding Epstein’s “black book” or client list, and he frequently asserted that the FBI was deliberately withholding names to protect the powerful. Patel promised that a second Trump administration would release “everything” to restore public trust.
 
On “The Dan Bongino Show,” Bongino’s background as a Secret Service agent had lent authority to his claims of a cover-up. “What the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein?” he’d asked his large audience of MAGA devotees. The release of the client list would “rock the political world,” he predicted. The “Washington swamp” was “not telling you the truth.”
 
And so as they took office in 2025, Trump’s advisers were subject to intense pressures of their own making. Attorney General Pam Bondi quickly made things much worse.
 
First, in a Fox News interview on Feb 21, she appeared to confirm the existence of an Epstein client list, something that the MAGA base had believed was sitting in the files, hidden — and hinted that its release was imminent. Asked whether the Justice Department might release the names, she responded, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”
 
But many viewed what came six days later as an even more egregious misstep.
 
On Feb. 27, the White House Communications Office scheduled a lineup of cabinet officials to brief popular right-wing influencers in the Roosevelt Room. The session began with Vice President Vance, followed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, walking the influencers through the administration’s agenda. In attendance was a who’s who of online MAGA: Mike Cernovich, Liz Wheeler, Collin Rugg, DC Draino. The president himself brought them to the Oval Office and gave them custom-designed challenge coins as a token of his appreciation. Before everything went wrong, one of them would remark, “It was the best day of my life.”
 
Then the attorney general and her team walked into the Roosevelt Room carrying boxes. Bondi had brought binders as handouts for the influencers; her aides would later tell colleagues that the FBI had prepared them, with the assurance that they contained revelatory details. Someone on her staff said: “Watch this. This is cool. This is going to be epic.”
 
But as Bondi’s staff started distributing the binders, the blood pressure of other officials in the room skyrocketed. They had no idea what was in the handouts. The attorney general was distributing something she was calling “the Epstein files” that had not been vetted by anyone in the White House. One official, opening the binder, began flipping through pages to see if Trump’s name was mentioned anywhere. A few pages in, right in the middle of the page, there it was.
 
Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, was at the White House that day. If news broke that the Epstein files had been released before the president was to meet the press with the prime minister, that would be all the journalists would want to talk about. And Trump would be blindsided.
 
One of Trump’s aides hastily steered the influencers out of the White House, telling them that the content of the binders was embargoed until after the president’s news conference with Starmer but that the communications office would be more than happy to talk about the files afterward. As the influencers left, they snapped selfies in front of the White House holding their binders, quickly posting the pictures on social media. They had now created a new shock wave of anticipation for what might be in them.
 
Like some others in the White House, Bondi had either grossly underestimated or simply been blind to the voracious appetite of the MAGA base for information about Epstein. Her binders contained information about him and his activities — flight logs, contact lists, summaries of items taken from his residences after his 2019 arrest and other material — but nearly all of it had been previously released. Bondi had somehow simultaneously oversold and trivialized the Epstein files, and now the influencers were made to feel like dupes.
 
In the Roosevelt Room, Bondi had told the influencers that this was just the first tranche of files. There would be more coming, she assured them. But that story would change, too.
 
Justice Department officials were reviewing the Epstein material, but months would pass before the department or any of Trump’s closest advisers knew just how many documents there were — more than three million pages of files related to Epstein, and potentially as many as six million. In the early months, officials were focused on going through a trove of what are known as 302 forms — records of FBI agents’ interview notes with witnesses, some of whom were victims of Epstein. These were raw records, often containing unverified information. Trump was mentioned numerous times, as were other prominent men.
 
In June, four months after the circus in the Roosevelt Room with the influencers, Bondi and Blanche briefed the president on the status of the Epstein review. “We’ve gone through the files,” Blanche told Trump. “There’s not a lot there. A lot of child pornography — obviously we can’t put any of that out. There are some mentions of you, but nothing substantive.” Most of Trump’s advisers had rejected out of hand the idea of releasing the FBI’s raw interview notes. More important, they wanted to avoid putting out anything that could damage the president.
 
With full transparency a nonstarter, a small group of White House and Justice Department officials decided to draft a memo that would explain why the department was not releasing any further information about Epstein. But even the process of composing the memo was fraught, in part because no one wanted their name on it and in part because of deep concerns within the leadership of the FBI
 
For weeks, Patel and Bongino, the deputy FBI director, had grown more infuriated as they realized the scale of the mess for which they were now being blamed. They repeatedly raised alarms internally that the Epstein crisis was gathering momentum with Trump’s supporters. Bongino wanted to convey something definitive to the MAGA base, and he and Patel pushed for the immediate release of the surveillance footage from the federal facility where Epstein was found dead in his cell.
 
Bongino hated the Justice Department’s nothing-to-see-here memo being drawn up for public release. He told Patel this would in no way align with their promises of transparency after taking over the FBI, and he objected to putting the FBI seal on the letterhead. But he was overruled.
 
Patel privately shared many of Bongino’s concerns. But in an internal email on July 2, the FBI director gave his support for the memo. 
“Thanks for the edits, and I still believe this is the correct vehicle forward,” Patel wrote, with the occasional typo, to a small group of colleagues, including Blanche. “I’m happy to add any additional sentences to compete the short fall. But I do think we addressed specifically why more can’t be released as it relates to specific topics ie court order, csam” — child sexual abuse material — “victim protections etc.”
 
Bondi rarely used her Justice Department email and was not on the chain where the group worked on the memo. She was aware of both the memo and the release of the prison video but was not involved in editing the document.
 
Inside the White House, Trump had no interest in releasing anything. And senior officials, including Wiles and Blair, were initially unconvinced about the reach of the Epstein crisis. They told colleagues that Republican voters didn’t care, and they had early data from Trump’s chief pollster, Tony Fabrizio, to demonstrate it. The Epstein brouhaha, in their view, was driven by fringe conspiracy theorists and amplified by noisy online influencers who didn’t represent a meaningful bloc of voters. If the White House engaged, it would only pump it up — putting an official stamp on the matter.
 
Wiles, Blair and others around Trump had seen him weather every storm imaginable for years. And in their view, this wasn’t a storm — it was passing clouds at most.
 
Bongino told anyone who would listen that this was a grave miscalculation.
 
“It’s not an online story,” he told White House advisers. “You don’t understand.”
 
On July 7, the Department of Justice and the FBI released the memo. It was brief, an unsigned one-and-a-half-page statement explaining that after an exhaustive search of “its databases, hard drives, and network drives as well as physical searches of squad areas, locked cabinets, desks, closets, and other areas where responsive material may have been stored” and a corresponding review of more than 300 gigabytes of evidence, the department concluded that there was no evidence Epstein had maintained a client list.
 
The memo also reaffirmed the official finding that Epstein’s death in 2019 had been a suicide. The memo was accompanied by the release of video footage from the federal jail in Manhattan where Epstein died, footage that officials said supported the conclusion of suicide. And with that, the memo indicated, the Trump administration would not be releasing further information regarding the Epstein case and no further investigation of uncharged third parties was warranted.
 
Less than five months after Bondi had referred to a secret client list of high-profile predators, the case was closed. Or so it seemed.
 
If the administration expected that the memo would be the last word on the Epstein case, and that the president’s most ardent supporters would accept the purported conclusions of the Department of Justice simply because the department and its investigative agencies were now controlled by Donald Trump, they were sorely mistaken. The memo was an earthquake, and it was received by a part of the MAGA base as an outright betrayal. It amounted to an abrupt disavowal of the sinister conspiracy theories that some of Trump’s closest confidants had hyped during the Biden presidency and that they had promised to expose once Trump was returned to power.
 
The release of the surveillance video, which Bongino and Patel had intended as a gesture of transparency, further fueled the fire. The Department of Justice ended up releasing roughly 11 hours of prison video, intended to show that nothing nefarious occurred. But the footage was missing a minute — a visible time-stamp jump from 11:58:58 p.m. to midnight. Bondi initially attributed this to a nightly system reset. (The footage was later restored and released.) To many of Trump’s followers, however, this was yet more evidence of a cover-up. White House officials complained privately that they hadn’t been told about the gap before the release. Social media lit up with blame — not just for Bondi, but for Patel and Bongino, too.
 
None of the three had ever experienced anger at this volume from Trump’s conservative base. It was disorienting, especially for Patel and Bongino, whose power and influence had been built online. The movement that had treated them as heroes was suddenly turning on them. The two men were now tightly connected to a memo that stated, in black and white, that while information in the government’s possession showed ample evidence of Epstein’s own wrongdoing, there was no evidence of a wider conspiracy.
 
The day the memo was released, Bongino showed up to a daily Justice Department meeting with the FBI staff and the attorney general. He was in a volcanic mood. As soon as he entered the room, he erupted at Bondi, shouting at her.
 
“You fucked this thing up from the start,” Bongino yelled. “The way you’ve been talking about this — that dumb fucking charade with the Epstein files, the ‘They’re on my desk’ nonsense, all the promises to the folks out there.”
 
Patel and Bongino both subsequently told a White House official that Bondi needed to resign.
 
Two days later, on July 9, the two men were summoned to a meeting with Wiles and Bondi in the Situation Room complex. They were the last to enter the small, wood-paneled room. Seated around the table were Bondi, Wiles, Blanche and Taylor Budowich, one of Wiles’s deputies. The moment Bongino sat down, Wiles told him that she had been informed he leaked a sensitive story about Epstein and Trump to ABC News.
 
“I’ll tell you what,” Bongino replied. “I’ll give you $100,000 cash right now. I’m not kidding. Walk out to West Exec, put that reporter on speaker and get him to admit I leaked it. A hundred thousand dollars.”
 
Wiles snapped back, “Well, we all got ourselves into this —— ”
 
Bongino cut her off.
 
“No, no, no, no, no. We didn’t get ourselves into anything. I warned you guys about this the whole time, and you ignored me. And exactly what I said was going to happen happened. And now you’re pretending I was in on this. I was never in on this.”
 
Bongino’s aggressive response to Wiles startled the others; she was the White House chief of staff, essentially a stand-in for the president. Wiles put Bongino on the spot. “Going forward,” she said, “we’re all in. We’re all going to agree to move forward. Are you in or not?”
 
“No, I’m not,” Bongino said. “This is not my plan. I’m not part of this going forward. Forget it. I’m out of here.” He stormed out of the Situation Room and onto West Executive Avenue, where he climbed into the back of Patel’s armored S.U.V. and directed the driver to take him to FBI headquarters.
 
Some of Bongino’s close friends hoped he would resign right then — an act of protest that would have made him a MAGA martyr and only increased his following. But White House advisers intervened, urging him to stay. If he quit over Epstein and went public, it could severely damage the president. Bongino told associates he would remain for Trump’s sake and keep pushing for more Epstein information to be released.
 
Privately, he seethed. In conversations with confidants, he lamented what the job had cost him: millions of dollars in podcast revenue, family time, his audience. He was getting torn apart over a strategy he had opposed from the start.
 
The relationships at the top of the Justice Department were by now beyond dysfunctional. At another July meeting, in Wiles’s office, Bongino and Patel told the chief of staff they suspected that Bondi had leaked negative stories about them.
 
“Blondie fucked this whole thing up,” Bongino later told a confidant, echoing Loomer’s derisive nickname for the attorney general. “She was the one on TV saying over and over they had all this stuff. There was never anything. We were always clear about that. But now everyone thinks we did something wrong. And I gave up everything.” Bongino complained that he had given up his high-rated show and millions of dollars, “and now it’s all disappeared, because people think we screwed something up with Epstein.”
 
Bongino paused.
 
“This is going to be President Trump’s Iran-contra.”
 
On July 12, the president took to Truth Social to defend Bondi against criticism and to urge his “boys” and “gals” to stop wasting “Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.” Trump told aides he was very unhappy with some of his most influential supporters, including Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, all of whom were publicly urging the administration to come clean. Kirk had held a Turning Point USA event the previous day that turned into an Epstein grievance fest, with one speaker after another bashing Bondi over her handling of the situation. Trump had called Kirk and scolded him.
 
Nobody in Trump’s orbit had a better feel for the younger part of the MAGA base than Kirk, who saw that the Epstein cover-up, as it was now viewed, was capturing attention to an alarming extent. Donald Trump Jr. and JD Vance — both of whom spent considerable time on X and were tapped into the same younger and hyper-online portion of the base — were also worried. They urged the White House to change course and force the Justice Department to release more of the files.
 
Vance made clear to colleagues that he feared losing some of the so-called low-propensity voters, the young men who were not traditional Republicans but who had voted for the Trump-Vance ticket in 2024. This was an audience tuned in to the “manosphere” podcasters like Joe Rogan, and it was worrisome that the podcast hosts themselves were now rebelling.
 
But there was one major obstacle in the path of a solution: The president himself still had no interest in transparency. He wanted the whole Epstein issue buried, and he was snapping at anyone who mentioned it. His staff largely avoided the subject in their conversations with him, forced to worry among themselves.
 
Finally, on July 16, in an exasperated Truth Social post, seemingly desperate to make his case in language that might resonate with his base, Trump somewhat nonsensically called the Epstein case a “hoax” by Democrats and then proceeded to heap abuse on members of his party and his base, disavowing their support, calling them “PAST supporters” and “weaklings” who had “bought into this ‘bullshit,’ hook, line, and sinker.”
 
As the president was trying to redirect everyone away from Epstein on social media, members of both parties began to push the other way. Many Democrats embraced the growing Epstein scandal as a top focus in their messaging and as a weapon against Trump. They were joined by a few renegade Republicans, which added to the political pressure on the president’s team. Representatives Thomas Massie, a Republican, and Ro Khanna, a Democrat, filed H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, in the House, and although they did not yet have the votes for the bill, it would become the next battleground as the president dug in against releasing information.
 
Word reached the White House in late July, meanwhile, that a subpoena would soon be coming from the House Oversight Committee, led by James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky. It had been pushed by committee Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, and it compelled the release of files the Justice Department had on Epstein.
 
On the day the Trump team learned about the looming subpoena, another Epstein crisis meeting was convened in the Situation Room to discuss the pressure coming from Congress. It included most of the same group: Wiles and Vance, Blanche, Warrington, Patel, Bondi, Blair, Cheung, Budowich and Leavitt.
 
Blair told the group that they would try to make sure they were cooperating fully with the House subpoena, but that the priority was to release information that demonstrated Trump was not involved in Epstein’s crimes.
 
Blanche gave an assessment of the Epstein material he had personally reviewed or been briefed on, including a volume of child pornography. The conversation turned to how these files should be released to the public. The idea already in the works was to put all Epstein-related material on a website. That way, they could overwhelm the MAGAsphere with far-greater volumes of real information — in the form of a huge database.
 
The website had been easy to build, and they were looking at potentially going live within a week. They had already accumulated a mountain of material that Blanche had been scrolling through, and it included piles of documents from both civil and criminal cases. They planned to release it all. Blanche could then appear on Rogan’s podcast to promote the transparency from the White House.
 
But as it turned out, this searchable website would not go live on their initial timetable. And the version of the site they originally conceived would never be released to the public.
 
By late summer, it was plainly apparent to the president’s top aides that the Epstein saga was not the same as the countless other crises they had weathered during their service to Trump. To their great surprise — and growing disquiet — Trump’s old tricks of deflection and denial weren’t working.
 
In late July, as the Trump team had discussed in their crisis meetings, it was Blanche who interviewed Maxwell. Over two days, she told him she had witnessed no troubling behavior by Trump and didn’t recall him sending the birthday card drawn in the shape of a nude woman. Soon after, she was quietly moved to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas — a transfer left unexplained at first, which only deepened the public outrage. Blanche said nearly five months later that Maxwell had faced “numerous threats against her life.”
 
As the calls for transparency grew louder, the top ranks of the Trump administration spent even more time in the bunker. By now, the Situation Room itself had become inseparable from the crisis — a guarded space where Trump’s inner circle worked to steer the president around a scandal that would soon taint or consume careers at the highest levels of business, science and politics.
 
On Aug. 13, Trump’s team met again in the secure complex at 6 p.m. for two hours to refine the Epstein defense strategy. Again, the group included Wiles, Bondi, Blanche, Patel, Blair, Budowich, Cheung and Leavitt. Vance phoned in from Britain.
 
The vice president once again pushed to release as much of the Epstein files as possible. And with an eye on the public messaging, he proposed that he should be the one to appear on Rogan’s influential podcast. Vance had just gotten off the phone with Rogan, and he later told others that Rogan said he wouldn’t have Blanche on his show but would take Vance.
 
Vance argued that if he were the one to appear on Rogan’s show, then only a part of the conversation would be about Epstein. The rest of the interview, he told the group, could be about the president’s recently passed legislation and what it would do for working families.
 
But the larger conversation before them was how to handle the crisis and the public relations risks for the administration. The challenge would be any embarrassing or damaging allegations about the president, even if they were unsubstantiated. If everything was publicly available on the website they had planned, it could include all kinds of potentially humiliating material.
 
Suddenly, one of the officials in the Situation Room raised the subject of a disturbing but uncorroborated accusation against Trump that had come to light in unsealed filings from a 2015 defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre against Maxwell, which had been settled two years later. The secondhand accusation, alleging a specific type of sexual abuse, was the perfect example of something that would show up on the public website and put the spotlight on Trump, whether it was true or not.
 
Giuffre, who had met Epstein when she was a teenage spa attendant at Trump’s club, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., became one of the sex offender’s most outspoken victims. Giuffre stated in late 2016 that, to her knowledge, Trump had done nothing improper. She died by suicide in April 2025, three months after Trump returned to power. The old Giuffre case file included emails sent to a journalist by another Epstein victim, Sarah Ransome, who later sued Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein had also settled that case.
 
In the emails, Ransome claimed that she knew a girl in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring named Jen, who said she had sex with Trump. Ransome also claimed that Jen had told her that Trump had a predilection for nipples and that he had aggressively flicked and sucked hers. Ransome wrote that she had seen evidence when she shared a bathroom with Jen. “They looked incredibly painful as they were red and swollen and I remember wincing when I looked at them,” she wrote.
 
Ransome’s credibility was not uncomplicated; she had made another claim that she possessed video footage of prominent men having sex with young girls in Epstein’s entourage. She later retracted the claims, saying she feared for herself and her family if she proceeded. But after a federal judge ordered the unsealing of some of the Giuffre case files in 2023, the document that connected Trump to the claim about abused nipples was among the material that came out. It was an unconfirmed allegation and had not been made publicly, but the disclosure led to some articles that were quickly lost in the swirl of election-year news.
 
Some of Trump’s advisers in the Situation Room had never heard of the nipple claim; those who had seemed to have only a passing familiarity with it. Many in the room thought this was all just discredited nonsense. But it might not matter. The Ransome emails could get new attention if they were included in a “public-facing and searchable” Epstein library that carried the branding of the Justice Department. An administration official had already searched for Trump-related materials on the still-private test version of the website, and the nipple material was among the first items to show up. None of the credibility issues would come into consideration if a government-endorsed database gave Ransome’s claim about Trump a stamp of validity.
 
“This is out there,” one of the officials told the group in the Situation Room. “They’re going to make a huge scene of this, even though it’s not true and everybody knows it.”
 
Blanche argued that in context, the Ransome document — and Ransome’s disavowal of some of her other claims — would make clear why the allegations related to Trump had never been pursued for prosecution. Besides, these allegations were already available online because of what had been unsealed, so there was no reason to leave them off the Justice Department website.
 
The vice president said he thought the president would be OK with releasing the nipple-related documents, arguing that Trump had been accused of worse. “I think we should put it out,” he said. “It would cause people to say we’re going further than we need to.” Wiles quickly responded that the president would not, in fact, be OK with it. It was a point no one wanted to continue debating.
 
One official would later describe it as a “surreal” experience to be discussing nipples in the White House Situation Room.
 
This was, in miniature, the entire problem the White House had with the Epstein files: Piles of accusations were impossible to disprove and equally impossible to make go away. Every door they opened led to another room, and in every room were more claims from more women.
 
For a few weeks, they thought they had found a way out. The subpoena from Comer’s committee had specifically requested Justice Department documents, communications with the White House and material from the Epstein and Maxwell criminal case files — not material from civil litigation, such as the Ransome emails. They could comply with the letter of the subpoena, post the Justice Department material to a stripped-down version of the planned website and leave the rest aside. Civil cases were separate matters, outside the remit of the Justice Department. And the subpoena allowed for another escape hatch — the Justice Department could withhold certain documents, as long as it explained to House lawmakers what they were and why they were held back.
 
But that strategy collapsed quickly. More Republican lawmakers would press for additional disclosures, including former Trump allies like Greene and Lauren Boebert. And the Trump administration was slow to comply with even the initial limited set of documents required by the House subpoena.
 
By mid-November, the bipartisan coalition the Trump team had worried about since the summer finally had the votes to force the administration’s hand. The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the House and the Senate in quick succession, and on Nov. 19, Trump, yielding to the inevitable, signed it into law.
 
The new law went further than the House subpoena. It sought a broader tranche of files and contained a warning to the administration that “no record shall be withheld, delayed or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure or foreign dignitary.” It sought everything that Trump had spent the better part of the year trying to suppress.
 
The legislators who passed the bill had no idea how many files they had mandated to be released within a month. The pages would end up numbering in the millions, and the president, his family and places like his Mar-a-Lago estate would be referred to more than 38,000 times, according to a New York Times analysis.
 
The Trump Justice Department said there was no client list. But the entire episode was another flashing light in an era when belief in the American system of justice had corroded to the point of collapse. Raw witness accounts and evidence from incomplete criminal investigations were never meant to be seen by the public. There were longstanding systems in place to protect both the accused and the accuser. The files amounted to a public dump of any Justice Department document that mentioned Epstein’s name, no matter whether the information was confirmed as accurate or not. The released pages did name many powerful men. Among them was Epstein’s former close friend — now the president of the United States.
 
In a January 2020 email, a federal prosecutor told a colleague that Trump had flown on Epstein’s private jet far more than anyone knew. Flight records in the files showed at least eight trips between 1993 and 1996, sometimes with his second wife, Marla Maples, sometimes with his children. In January 2024, Trump declared that he had never been on the plane.
 
What else remained undisclosed? The question would only sharpen as people combed through what was redacted or missing. The Justice Department, after more than 3.5 million documents were made public, said no others needed to be released. Trump, characteristically, was creating his own reality. He had long claimed that everyone else was corrupt, especially his critics. These files, he would say — despite the avalanche of references to himself — were the proof.
 
“There are a lot of questions about it,” he told reporters at the White House in February 2026. “But nothing on me.”
 
Trump had declared Epstein a dead issue during the summer, but as he began the second year of his presidency, his own team could see that voter concerns about Epstein were still breaking through to an alarming extent.
 
In an internal memo circulated to roughly a dozen Trump advisers in late March 2026, the president’s pollster, Fabrizio, summarized findings from two nights of focus groups conducted that month. Fabrizio’s memo listed the “Epstein files” as the sixth most important issue raised in the focus groups, behind inflation, the economy, foreign policy, immigration and health care — but ahead of data centers, military issues, crime and safety, and being “pro-working class.” In the section on “key takeaways” of the focus groups, Fabrizio’s memo stated: “There is also a consistent mention of the Epstein files, which came up in every group and is a real negative with some of these voters.”
 
The Epstein crisis had exposed something that some of Trump’s closest advisers spent months refusing to see. The president could break institutions, redirect the federal government against his enemies and bring the world’s richest men into the Oval Office bearing tribute. But he could not, it turned out, make Jeffrey Epstein disappear.
 

First Published: Jun 11 2026 | 10:45 AM IST

Close Icon

Explore News

Next Story

Meeting Epstein was 'grave error in judgment': Bill Gates tells lawmakers

Gates said he was introduced to Epstein through people involved in his professional work and was drawn in by Epstein's claims that he could help raise billions of dollars for global health initiatives

Bill Gates

Gates added that he never went to Epstein's island or his other infamous properties | Image: Bloomberg

AP Washington

Listen to This Article

Bill Gates said Wednesday that he made a "grave error in judgment" by ever meeting with Jeffrey Epstein as the Microsoft co-founder faced questions behind closed doors from lawmakers about his relationship with the disgraced financier.

In an opening statement provided to The Associated Press, Gates said he "should never have met with Epstein in the first place," but that he "never witnessed nor had any indication that Epstein was engaged in ongoing criminal conduct".

The tech billionaire became the latest powerful figure linked to Epstein to testify before the House Oversight Committee. As Gates arrived at the Capitol, he noted that he was there voluntarily and said he hoped his testimony would be useful.

 

"I hope my testimony is helpful to the work, the important work, of the committee, to find justice for the victims," he said.

The committee chairman, Republican US Rep James Comer, formally requested that Gates testify after he appeared multiple times in a trove of documents released by the Justice Department as part of its Epstein probe.

Before the interview on Wednesday, Comer told reporters that "no one's accusing Bill Gates of any wrongdoing".

"This is about the survivors" of Epstein and his confidant Ghislaine Maxwell. "This is about trying to figure out how the government failed," Comer said.

Gates said he was introduced to Epstein through people involved in his professional and philanthropic work and was drawn in by Epstein's claims that he could help raise billions of dollars for global health initiatives. Gates says he ended the relationship in 2014 after concluding Epstein could not deliver on those promises.

Gates added that he never went to Epstein's island or his other infamous properties.

"I have never victimized anyone. While he may have sought to foster a personal relationship, I was never interested in that and never reciprocated," Gates said.

The remarks come as lawmakers review documents detailing Gates' interactions with Epstein. Included in the files are calendar entries for meetings between Gates and Epstein, email correspondence between the two about philanthropic projects and photos of Gates at events that Epstein also attended.

Their relationship began in 2011, three years after Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to soliciting prostitution from a minor, and continued until at least late 2014, according to the documents.

Gates, who chairs the Gates Foundation, has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein's abuse of girls. He has said the two met only to discuss philanthropy and previously described the relationship as "a huge mistake".

Both Gates and his ex-wife, Melinda French Gates, have said his association with Epstein created tension in their marriage.

The foundation acknowledged in February that a small number of employees had met with Epstein based on his "claims that he could mobilise significant philanthropic resources for global health". They never created a charitable fund together, and the foundation made no payments to Epstein.

Epstein was federally indicted in July 2019 on charges of sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The Justice Department alleged that Epstein formed a vast network of girls, some as young as 14, for him to sexually abuse between 2002 and 2005. He died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial.

The files released by the Justice Department read like a who's who of powerful men across tech, finance, politics and other industries. All have denied involvement in Epstein's crimes, but some maintained or formed friendships with him even after his history of sexual abuse came to light.

At another closed-door deposition in February, former President Bill Clinton faced more than six hours of questioning from lawmakers about his association with Epstein more than two decades ago.

Epstein visited the White House several times during Clinton's presidency, and Clinton flew occasionally on Epstein's private jet.

The former Democratic president said he saw no signs of Epstein's sexual abuse and stopped associating with him long before Epstein's 2008 guilty plea. Clinton has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.

Democrats on the House committee have pushed for testimony from President Donald Trump, a Republican who had his own relationship with Epstein. Republicans have said they have not come across any evidence that Trump did anything wrong during his well-documented friendship with Epstein.

Comer said Wednesday that he's planning to ask attorney Alan Dershowitz to appear and that he's been in communication with the Justice Department about acting Attorney General Todd Blanche coming in for questioning as well.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Jun 11 2026 | 10:30 AM IST

Close Icon
Next Story

FBI seizes 13 websites allegedly used by China to recruit US workers

Law enforcement officials identified the website through information from targets who came forward to report what they believed to be suspicious interactions

FBI

According to an FBI affidavit filed in connection with the website seizure, the fake websites relied on fraudulent or stolen identities and AI-generated photographs to give them the appearance of legitimacy | Photo: Bloomberg

AP Washington

Listen to This Article

The FBI has seized more than a dozen websites that officials say were part of a Chinese effort to target American workers who have access to classified or sensitive government information, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The 13 websites purported to be affiliated with consulting companies that advertised job openings for current and former holders of security clearances. But the companies were all fakes and the job postings were a sham, officials said.

The internet domain seizure is part of a broader effort by Western law enforcement and intelligence agencies to sound the alarm about alleged Chinese government plots to recruit workers who can be duped into disclosing sensitive information.

 

Last week, for instance, the English-speaking Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US - issued a bulletin warning that China is targeting personnel from those countries on job websites to get access to classified or sensitive information.

The bulletin said spies for Chinese military intelligence have been posing as workers acting on behalf of private businesses or think tanks, advertising for bogus jobs such as foreign policy or defense analysts and pressuring candidates to provide "non-public" information.

According to an FBI affidavit filed in connection with the website seizure, the fake websites relied on fraudulent or stolen identities and AI-generated photographs to give them the appearance of legitimacy, and advertised generic "consulting" jobs geared toward current or former US government employees.

"These websites are often linked or referenced within the entities' job postings on LinkedIn and other hiring platforms," the affidavit said.

Applicants and recruits were offered money for reports related to their work and for sensitive information, the Justice Department said. The operators of the plot, who officials allege to be tied to Chinese intelligence services, used cryptocurrency and online payment systems to hide their real identities, officials said.

Law enforcement officials identified the website through information from targets who came forward to report what they believed to be suspicious interactions.

"A lot of this information came from doing interviews, interviews with people who came forward that something didn't seem right," Dan Wierzbicki, the special agent in charge of the counterintelligence and cyber division of the FBI's Washington field office, said in an interview.

"They provided information and said, Hey, this is kind of weird, we're kind of getting paid by a cryptocurrency or an online payment system that's not typical," he added.

He said the FBI believes there are other websites serving a similar purpose and is seeking the public's help in identifying them.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington called allegations of Chinese espionage "entirely fabricated" and "malicious slander".

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Jun 11 2026 | 9:12 AM IST

Close Icon
Next Story

Anthropic pledges $200 million to study AI's economic impact, job losses

The announcement comes on the heels of Anthropic rival OpenAI on Monday outlining goals that included ensuring gains from the technology are 'widely shared'

Anthropic

The proposals add that the government should be able to "block or deter" the rollout of AI models that "pose a significant risk of catastrophic harms". (Photo: Reuters)

AP San Francisco

Listen to This Article

Anthropic on Wednesday joined growing calls for the artificial intelligence industry to find ways to cushion people from the technology's disruptions, announcing an initial $200 million investment to research AI's impact on jobs and the economy.

Alongside new policy proposals from the maker of the Claude chatbot, Anthropic CEO and co-founder Dario Amodei published an essay on his personal website that expanded on his position that the government should promise economic support for those financially impacted by AI. The technology could produce much larger disruptions to the labour market than previous technological advancements, Amodei wrote, and those disruptions could last longer.

 

"The key challenge in such a world won't be incentivising growth, but finding a way for everyone to share in the benefits," Amodei wrote.

The announcement comes on the heels of Anthropic rival OpenAI on Monday outlining goals that included ensuring gains from the technology are "widely shared". OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently met with Sen Bernie Sanders to discuss a plan for the public to take an ownership stake in artificial intelligence companies like OpenAI, using their stock to create a public wealth fund that would spread the fortune generated by AI behemoths.

In the Oval Office on Wednesday, President Donald Trump told reporters that he will soon meet with executives from several leading AI companies to discuss "giving back" to the public.

"We're talking about giving back something to the public, and if we do that, the public will become very rich," Trump said. "I think they'll do that, and I think it'll make it very popular."  In his essay, Amodei said he has warned of job displacement not because he is "trying to be a prophet of doom" but because he wants "both policymakers and the private sector to have the best chance to adapt and respond".

He proposed better data collection to track AI job displacement, pro-employment policy incentives to slow or reduce displacement and "mechanisms such as universal basic income" if job displacement more permanently drives down labour demand.

That universal basic income could be financed through taxes on "relevant companies" or by raising the capital gains tax, Amodei wrote.

Scant details were available Wednesday about the $200 million commitment from Anthropic, but the company said it will go to what it calls an Economic Futures Research Fund that will back research trials and "program evaluation" on public policies it deems promising. The company is also establishing a $150 million national fellowship program it says will help early-career professionals "extend the benefits of AI to communities across America".

Anthropic and OpenAI each recently announced they were moving toward initial public offerings of shares, following Elon Musk's rocket company SpaceX, which is pitching itself as an AI-focused space company as it prepares to go public.

The economic policy framework Anthropic proposed Wednesday set recommendations for how the US government could respond to three levels of economic disruption caused by AI: one in which the national unemployment rate reaches 5 per cent, 10 per cent and an unspecified, "unprecedented" level. The latest unemployment rate, reported last week, was 4.3 per cent.

In the "unprecedented" scenario, the company wrote that more permanent support will be necessary, and it listed several ways to generate and share revenue broadly, including basic income, sovereign wealth models and equity-sharing mechanisms. This would be "novel economic territory", the company wrote.

The company's proposals also outlined several suggestions for mitigating safety and security risks. Anthropic is known for its emphasis on safety and building reliable, "steerable" AI systems, with Amodei and its co-founders splitting off from OpenAI to form the new company in 2021.

The proposals add that the government should be able to "block or deter" the rollout of AI models that "pose a significant risk of catastrophic harms".

Amodei wrote that AI regulations should match the rigor of Federal Aviation Administration regulations in that AI models would be required to go through technical testing and auditing like airplanes. They wouldn't be released if they didn't meet high safety standards.

Last week, Trump signed an executive order on AI oversight that established a framework for the government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release.

Amodei added existing regulations for aircraft, automobiles and drugs should serve as models for regulating AI. They are all "powerful technologies essential to the modern economy", he wrote, "but capable of killing large numbers of people if designed or operated poorly.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Jun 11 2026 | 9:08 AM IST

Close Icon
Next Story

Visa enables ChatGPT's AI agents to shop, complete purchases for users

Visa's collaboration with OpenAI will allow users to link their Visa cards to ChatGPT to shop and make it easier for merchants to accept transactions initiated by agents

VISA

Visa's biggest competitor, Mastercard, has also been introducing its own AI-shopping features to its payment network on a smaller scale (Photo: Reuters)

AP San Francisco

Listen to This Article

Payments giant Visa said Wednesday that it has embedded its payment network inside of ChatGPT, empowering the chatbot to independently shop and complete transactions on behalf of its user.

It means AI agents can not only recommend products but complete the purchase on the user's behalf, at potentially any merchant that accepts Visa. The payment network's previous attempts at this technological leap were confined to a single retailer or a small set of enrolled merchants.

It is not OpenAI's first attempt at e-commerce. The company late last year announced Instant Checkout, which allowed ChatGPT to scour the internet for a specific item like a digital personal shopper. But the process was prone to errors and was not widely adopted by merchants due to the fee that OpenAI was charging merchants. The company retired Instant Checkout in March.

 

Visa's collaboration is different from OpenAI's previous attempts, as it will allow users to link their Visa cards to ChatGPT to shop and make it easier for merchants to accept transactions initiated by agents.

OpenAI will provide the technology to allow agents to interact, make decisions and initiate purchases through ChatGPT. Visa, the world's largest payment network outside of China, will provide the payment authorisation and fraud monitoring needed to do this at scale.

"As AI agents become active participants in the economy, Visa's focus is to ensure transactions are trusted, secure and seamless," said Jack Forestell, chief product and strategy officer at Visa.

Speaking at a company event Wednesday in San Francisco Wednesday, Forestell gave an example of a customer telling ChatGPT they're looking for a pair of wireless headphones under $150. The chatbot would find a pair for sale under those parameters and buy it on behalf of the customer.

Visa and OpenAI did not disclose the financial terms of the collaboration and did not give details on the fees merchants or customers would have to pay.

Instant Checkout charged merchants 4 per cent of the transaction's value, which merchants saw as being too expensive.

Allowing AI agents to buy products on behalf of a consumer raises concerns for both banks and retailers. A customer could overspend, or the agent buys the wrong item, or the customer claims they did not authorise that transaction. Banks have been concerned about potential fraud claims that could occur when an agent uses a bank customer's credit or debit card.

Visa says the feature will have guardrails like spending limits, required approval steps and approved merchants for shopping in order to protect consumers and minimise fraud.

Retailers have introduced shopping assistants powered by AI that can recommend products and personalise the customer's shopping experience, with the earliest iterations of those experiments being Amazon's Alexa. But Alexa could only shop on Amazon, and OpenAI's Instant Checkout feature was limited to select merchants.

Visa's biggest competitor, Mastercard, has also been introducing its own AI-shopping features to its payment network on a smaller scale.

Mastercard announced that AI agents will have the capability to procure services on behalf of a business. For example, a coffee shop wants to start an advertising campaign as part of a launch, so it gives an AI agent the authorisation to purchase services from web and ad providers in order for the coffee shop to build out its campaign.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Jun 11 2026 | 7:28 AM IST

Close Icon
Next Story

Planning to try iOS 27 beta? Here's what you should know before updating

The iOS 27, iPadOS 27 and macOS 27 developer betas bring several headline features announced at WWDC 2026, but users should be aware of the risks before installing them

iOS 27, iPadOS 27, macOS 27 beta released (Image: Apple)

iOS 27, iPadOS 27, macOS 27 dev beta released (Image: Apple)

Aashish Kumar Shrivastava New Delhi

Listen to This Article

Apple released the developer betas of iOS 27, iPadOS 27 and macOS 27 following the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) 2026 keynote. Although these software updates are planned to roll out later this year, users can already access the new features through the developer beta programme. Apple has released early beta versions of iOS 27, iPadOS 27 and macOS 27, allowing developers and enthusiasts to test upcoming changes before the public launch.

iOS 27, iPadOS 27 and macOS 27: What’s new

Some of the headline features of iOS 27 include faster app launches and photo loading, up to 80 per cent faster AirDrop transfers between supported Apple devices, a transparency control for the Liquid Glass interface, and improved search across Spotlight, Photos and Mail.
   
Apple is also introducing AI-powered tab organisation and webpage monitoring in Safari, expanded parental controls, perimenopause and menopause tracking in the Health app, enhanced Apple Maps Flyover views, and support for full-resolution iCloud Shared Albums across Apple, Android and Windows devices.
 
The update also introduces a redesigned Siri experience and broader Apple Intelligence integrations, though several AI features will be limited to supported hardware.
 
Apart from many of the features announced for iOS 27, iPadOS 27 introduces several iPad-specific additions aimed at improving productivity and multitasking.
Apple is bringing a new always-visible Menu Bar option that makes navigation feel more desktop-like, alongside faster browsing and file transfers between external drives and the iPad. Apple has also refined the Files app to make file organisation and access more efficient.
 
With macOS 27, Apple says Spotlight search is becoming faster and more capable with Siri AI intergation. The update also introduces refinements to the Mac interface, including redesigned toolbars and window layouts, while expanding parental controls and Communication Safety features.
 
Notably, macOS 27 will be the first major macOS release to support only Apple silicon-powered Macs, marking the end of support for Intel-based Mac models.

Running a developer beta may involve risks

Before installing the developer beta, users should understand that these builds are primarily intended for app testing and development rather than everyday use.
 
Early beta software may not offer a polished experience. It may contain bugs, app compatibility issues, unexpected crashes, performance slowdowns, battery drain or features that do not work as intended.
 
It is recommended to back up devices before installing beta software. Users should ideally avoid installing a developer beta on their primary iPhone, iPad or Mac, particularly if they depend on the device for work, studies or daily communication.
 
In some cases, beta-related issues can require users to erase their device and restore it from a backup in order to return to a stable version.
 
While Apple’s latest developer betas include some of the features announced at WWDC 2026, not every feature is necessarily available from day one. Apple frequently introduces additional capabilities through subsequent beta releases as development progresses.
 
For users who prefer a more stable experience, it may be better to wait for the public beta release, which will kick off from July. Apple typically releases public betas a few weeks after developer betas, once major issues have been addressed. Even then, beta software remains pre-release software, so caution is advised before installing it on a device used every day.

iOS 27 developer beta: How to update

  • Sign in to the Apple Developer website and enrol in the iOS 27 beta programme.
  • Make sure your iPhone is signed in with the same Apple Account used on the Apple Developer website.
  • On your iPhone, go to Settings > General > Software Update.
  • Tap Beta Updates and select iOS 27 Developer Beta.
  • Once the update appears, install it through Software Update.
The process is similar for iPad and Mac. 

iOS 27: Eligible devices

  • iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 17, iPhone 17e, iPhone Air
  • iPhone 16 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16, iPhone 16e
  • iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 15 Plus, iPhone 15
  • iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 14
  • iPhone 13 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 13, iPhone 13 mini
  • iPhone 12 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini
  • iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max, iPhone 11
  • iPhone SE (second generation and later)

iPadOS 27: Eligible devices

  • iPad Pro (M4 and later)
  • iPad Pro 12.9-inch (4th generation and later)
  • iPad Pro 11-inch (2nd generation and later)
  • iPad Air 13-inch (M2 and later)
  • iPad Air 11-inch (M2, M3 and M4)
  • iPad Air (4th generation and later)
  • iPad (A16)
  • iPad (9th generation and later)
  • iPad mini (A17 Pro)
  • iPad mini (6th generation and later)

macOS 27: Eligible devices

  • MacBook Neo (2026)
  • MacBook Pro with Apple silicon (2020 and later)
  • MacBook Air with Apple silicon (2020 and later)
  • iMac with Apple silicon (2021 and later)
  • Mac mini with Apple silicon (2020 and later)
  • Mac Studio (2022 and later)
  • Mac Pro with Apple silicon (2023)

First Published: Jun 10 2026 | 5:17 PM IST

Close Icon
Next Story

Too many alerts, too little attention: Why your phone won't stop buzzing

As apps compete for attention on India's smartphones, push notifications have become a key tool for driving engagement, sales, and retention, despite growing user fatigue

The battle for attention begins before you even unlock your

The battle for attention begins before you even unlock your (Image: AI-generated)

Sweta Kumari New Delhi

Listen to This Article

Pick up your phone. Before you unlock the screen, there is almost certainly a food delivery offer expiring in two hours, a payment app nudging you to invest, a shopping app reminding you of something you left in your cart three days ago, and an over-the-top (OTT) platform telling you that a new show has dropped. None of these was requested. All of them were carefully designed to capture attention.
 
According to DataReportal, a research platform that tracks global digital adoption trends, India had 1.06 billion active cellular mobile connections in late 2025, with internet penetration reaching 70 per cent of the total population. As apps compete for attention on over a billion screens, the push notification has become one of the most widely used tools in the country's app economy — a free, instant, always-on channel that sits directly on a user's lock screen.
   
Mumbai-headquartered customer engagement platform CleverTap analysed over 300 billion push notifications and reported that nearly 30 per cent of consumers delete an app specifically because of excessive advertising and notifications. The same tool companies use to keep users engaged may also be pushing them away. Yet notifications remain a central part of how apps compete for attention.

Why notifications matter

Most apps are free to download, meaning companies must find other ways to make money. Some rely on advertising. Others generate revenue through subscriptions, financial products, shopping transactions, or commissions. Regardless of the business model, one challenge remains constant: users need to keep returning.
 
A user who downloads an app and never opens it again has little value to a company. A user who returns every day, however, may watch ads, make purchases, subscribe to services, or recommend the platform to others. This is where notifications become valuable.
 
Unlike advertisements that require companies to pay for visibility, push notifications create a direct communication channel between an app and a user. Once permission is granted, companies can reach consumers instantly and at virtually no additional distribution cost.
 
An industry report from AppsFlyer describes engagement and retention as among the most important metrics for mobile app businesses, with re-engagement channels such as push notifications playing a central role in bringing users back into apps. For app companies, every notification is essentially an invitation to return.

Economics of retention

The importance of notifications becomes clearer when viewed through the economics of customer acquisition. Acquiring a new user has become increasingly expensive.
 
Companies spend heavily on digital advertising to persuade users to install their apps. Once those users arrive, businesses must ensure they remain active. If a user stops opening an app after a few weeks, the acquisition investment may never be recovered.
 
As a result, retention has become almost as important as acquisition itself. For many businesses, it is cheaper to bring back an existing user through a notification than to acquire an entirely new one through advertising campaigns. That economic reality explains why notifications have become embedded in nearly every category of mobile application.
 
For Indian apps competing in one of the world's most downloaded-but-discarded markets, this is not an abstract statistic. According to a Ken Research report on India's app market, approximately 70 per cent of app users in India uninstall an app within 30 days of downloading it, with excessive notifications cited as one of the primary reasons alongside poor user experience and lack of compelling content.

How notifications drive business

The link between a notification and a company's bottom line is more direct than it might seem. When a user opens an app in response to a push alert, the clock starts. Time spent in-app translates to ad impressions, which translate to revenue.
 
CleverTap's cross-channel research, published in 2024, found that push notifications contribute to a 26 per cent uplift in first-transaction rates for fintech apps when combined with in-app messaging.
 
The same report found a 6 per cent increase in e-commerce conversions when push notifications were part of a broader multi-channel engagement strategy. These are not marginal gains; at the scale of platforms with tens of millions of users, a 6 per cent conversion bump can mean hundreds of crores in additional gross merchandise value.
 
India's spending on remarketing, or re-engaging users who have already installed an app, grew 118 per cent year-on-year in 2025, the fastest pace among major global markets, according to AppsFlyer. The surge highlights the growing challenge of retaining users in an increasingly crowded app ecosystem. As competition for attention intensifies, companies are investing more heavily in efforts to bring inactive users back to their platforms.

Engagement drives revenue

Notifications are not merely about keeping users informed. They are designed to influence behaviour. An e-commerce app may alert users about a limited-time sale. A fintech platform may encourage users to complete a payment or investment. A social media company may highlight new interactions to trigger another session.
 
Each notification aims to create a small action that eventually translates into business value.
The connection is particularly important for advertising-supported platforms. Advertising revenue depends heavily on user engagement. More time spent inside an app often means more advertisements viewed and more monetisation opportunities.
 
Notifications do more than keep users informed; they are designed to influence behaviour. A shopping app may promote a flash sale, a fintech platform may remind users to complete a payment or investment, while a social media app may highlight likes, comments, or new followers to draw users back. For app companies, every interaction has value. The more frequently users return, the more opportunities there are for purchases, transactions, subscriptions, or ad views. This is especially important for advertising-supported platforms, where higher engagement often translates directly into greater revenue.
 
This creates a direct relationship between engagement and revenue. The more often users return, the more valuable they become. That is one reason app marketers continue investing heavily in retention and re-engagement strategies. 

How different apps use the same tool differently

Not every notification is built the same. The way e-commerce, fintech, and social media apps use push alerts reveals how differently the same tool can be deployed — and how differently users respond.
 
E-commerce: Creating urgency
  • Shopping apps such as Meesho, Flipkart, Myntra, and Nykaa primarily use notifications to drive purchases. Common alerts include flash sales, price drops, abandoned cart reminders, and low-stock warnings.
  • The goal is to create a sense of urgency and encourage users to act immediately.
Fintech: Delivering useful information
  • Payment and financial apps use notifications for transaction confirmations, UPI payments, EMI reminders, SIP updates, and account activity. Unlike promotional alerts, these notifications provide information users actively want and expect to receive.
  • This makes notifications a trusted communication channel for fintech companies.
The challenge for fintech apps arises when trusted transactional channels are used for marketing. Loan offers, insurance promotions, and credit card pitches can dilute the value of notifications that users rely on for important financial updates.
 
Social media: Driving engagement
  • Social platforms use notifications to bring users back into the app. Alerts typically revolve around likes, comments, follows, messages, and friend recommendations.
  • The objective is not a transaction but increased time spent on the platform

India's notification overload

India's notification overload is closely tied to the scale of its app economy. With more than a billion mobile connections and millions of users spread across shopping, fintech, entertainment, and social media platforms, notifications have become one of the easiest ways for companies to reach consumers directly. As businesses compete for engagement, retention, and transactions, the volume of alerts landing on users' lock screens continues to grow.
 
This easy access to users also helps explain why notification volumes remain high. According to a Ken Research report, around 70 per cent of Indian users uninstall an app within 30 days of downloading it. Yet product teams are measured on engagement and app opens, creating a strong incentive to send more notifications even if they risk frustrating users over time. 
Too many notifications, too many uninstalls.
Too many notifications, too many uninstalls.
 
Personalisation
 
CleverTap in its report stated that basic personalisation can increase open rates by 9 per cent, while adding emojis can boost click-through rates by another 9.6 per cent. The findings suggest that relevance, rather than volume alone, plays a key role in how users respond to notifications.
 
Users generally dislike irrelevant notifications, not notifications themselves. Personalisation aims to make alerts more relevant based on a user's interests, purchases, and behaviour.
 
Indian apps are increasingly using AI and customer data to improve notification targeting.
According to CleverTap's 2024 cross-channel engagement report, brands with higher AI adoption achieved conversion rates up to four times higher than those using basic broadcast methods.
 
Personalisation remains challenging because users interact with multiple apps, and each platform has only a partial view of their behaviour. Even relevant notifications must compete with dozens of other alerts on an already crowded lock screen. 
When notifications are relevant, conversions follow.
When notifications are relevant, conversions follow.

Limits of the notification strategy

Attention is finite: Every app is competing for the same limited resource — user attention.
 
Notification overload reduces effectiveness: As more apps send alerts, individual notifications become easier to ignore.
 
Users are fighting back: Consumers increasingly mute, filter, or disable notifications they consider unnecessary.
Platforms are adapting: Features such as Apple's Focus Modes and Android's notification controls give users greater control over interruptions.
 
Regulatory scrutiny is growing: Authorities are paying closer attention to dark patterns and manipulative engagement tactics.
 
Retention is becoming more expensive: Companies are spending more on remarketing and re-engagement to bring inactive users back.
 
Losing attention has a direct cost: Disengaged users mean lower engagement, fewer transactions, reduced ad revenue, and higher marketing expenses.
 
The next challenge is relevance: Companies must find ways to stay visible without overwhelming users with excessive notifications. 

The next competitive edge

The companies most likely to win the next phase of India's app economy are not the ones that figure out how to send more notifications. They are the ones who figure out how to send fewer and make each one count. That requires a shift in how success is measured, with greater emphasis on notification quality, including open rates, conversions, and retention impact, rather than the sheer volume of messages sent.
 
A handful of Indian platforms are already moving in this direction. Better AI tools, richer behavioural data, and growing user sophistication are creating new opportunities for more targeted engagement. This is particularly true among users in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, many of whom are entering the app economy for the first time and are still deciding which platforms they trust. For companies, that creates an opportunity to build a more valuable and less intrusive relationship with users.
 
For the billion-plus smartphone users in India, the notification wars are not going anywhere. But the terms of engagement are slowly starting to shift. The apps that treat the lock screen as a billboard will keep losing users. The ones that treat it as a conversation may be the ones worth keeping.

First Published: Jun 10 2026 | 4:12 PM IST

Close Icon
Next Story

Claude Fable 5 explained: What Anthropic's guarded frontier AI model can do

Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 brings Mythos-class AI to public users with safeguards, while the full Mythos 5 model remains restricted to vetted organisations

Anthropic's Claude Fable 5

Claude Fable 5 is Anthropic’s attempt to make its most powerful AI usable, without exposing the high-risk capabilities seen in Mythos systems

Harsh Shivam New Delhi

Listen to This Article

Anthropic has introduced Claude Fable 5, a new artificial intelligence model that brings its most advanced “Mythos-class” capabilities to general users, while retaining strict controls over how those capabilities can be applied. Alongside it, the company has also released Claude Mythos 5, a separate version of the same system that remains restricted to vetted organisations under its Project Glasswing programme.
 
The dual release marks a shift in how Anthropic is deploying frontier AI systems. Instead of limiting access entirely, the company is separating capability from access, exposing a controlled version publicly while keeping full capabilities within restricted environments.

What is Claude Fable 5

Claude Fable 5 is a Mythos-class model, meaning it operates at the same capability level as Anthropic’s most advanced internal systems. It is designed as a general-purpose AI system capable of handling complex, multi-step tasks across domains such as software engineering, reasoning, and scientific analysis.
 
Unlike earlier Claude models, Fable 5 is built for sustained workflows rather than single prompts. It is designed to plan, execute, and iterate across tasks, making it closer to an agent-style system than a traditional AI chatbot.

What does Claude Fable 5 do

Fable 5 is positioned for high-complexity use cases, including:
  • Large-scale software engineering and codebase transformation
  • Long-form reasoning and knowledge work
  • Vision-based tasks involving structured and unstructured data
  • Scientific and technical problem-solving
Anthropic has indicated that performance gains are most visible in longer and more complex tasks, where the model is able to maintain context and execute multi-step workflows.

Mythos Preview, Mythos 5 and Fable 5: What has Anthropic built

Anthropic’s Mythos programme has evolved in three stages, each reflecting a different deployment approach.
 
Claude Mythos Preview was the first version, released under Project Glasswing as a restricted system focused on cybersecurity. It was designed to identify vulnerabilities in software and, in some cases, explore exploit paths across systems. Because of these capabilities, access was limited to vetted organisations, including infrastructure providers and cyberdefence teams.
 
Claude Mythos 5 is the latest version of this system. It builds on Mythos Preview with improved reasoning, coding, and cybersecurity performance. It is a separate model release, not just an update, and continues to operate under restricted access through Glasswing.
 
Claude Fable 5 is the public-facing version of the same underlying system. It shares the same architecture and capability level as Mythos 5, but introduces safeguards that limit how those capabilities can be used.
 
The difference between the three is therefore defined by access and control:
  • Mythos Preview: Early, cybersecurity-focused system with strict access controls
  • Mythos 5: Updated system with full capabilities, still restricted
  • Fable 5: Public version with safeguards and controlled behaviour

How the models differ

Anthropic’s evaluation data shows that Mythos 5 and Fable 5 perform similarly in general-purpose tasks, including coding, reasoning, and knowledge work.
 
In benchmarks such as Agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro and FrontierCode) and multidisciplinary reasoning (Humanity’s Last Exam), both models outperform earlier Claude versions and competing systems, indicating that their underlying capability is aligned.
 
However, differences emerge in high-risk domains.
 
In cybersecurity evaluations (Firefox, OSS-Fuzz, CyberGym, CyScenarioBench), Mythos systems (Mythos Preview and Mythos 5) show high success rates in completing offensive tasks across environments such as browser exploitation and fuzz testing. These results reflect the model’s ability to identify and act on vulnerabilities.
Fable 5, when safeguards are active, shows a near-complete suppression of these outcomes. In automated adversarial testing, attack success rates drop sharply compared to earlier models, indicating that the system is actively blocking or limiting such behaviour.
 
A similar pattern is visible in biology-related evaluations. Mythos 5 shows higher performance in predicting experimental biological properties compared to Mythos Preview and earlier models, while Fable 5 may restrict or limit responses in these domains depending on the query.
 
This indicates that the difference between Mythos 5 and Fable 5 is not capability, but behaviour.

What safeguards are in place on Claude Fable 5

Claude Fable 5 introduces safeguards designed to address these risks.
 
These include:
  • Blocking responses in high-risk domains such as cybersecurity and biology
  • Falling back to Claude Opus models for sensitive queries
  • Applying conservative filtering to prevent misuse
In adversarial testing, these safeguards significantly reduce the model’s ability to complete offensive cybersecurity tasks. In some benchmark environments, success rates fall to near zero when safeguards are enforced.
 
However, these safeguards are not without trade-offs. They can also block legitimate queries or reduce the quality of responses in sensitive areas, as the system may either refuse to answer or fall back to a less capable model.

Why Mythos systems were restricted in the first place

The decision to restrict Mythos systems is tied directly to their real-world implications.
 
AI models capable of identifying vulnerabilities and generating exploit pathways can compress the time between discovery and exploitation. This is a concern already highlighted by cybersecurity agencies, including frameworks such as those from India’s CERT-In, which note that attackers are increasingly able to act within hours of vulnerability disclosure.
 
Mythos-class systems extend this capability further. They do not just identify issues, but can assist in understanding how those issues can be exploited in practice.
 
This creates a dual-use problem. The same capability that can be used for defence can also be used for attack.
 
This is why Mythos Preview was never released publicly, and why Mythos 5 continues to operate under restricted access.

Do safeguards on Claude Fable 5 address these concerns?

The safeguards directly target the risk of AI-assisted exploit development by reducing the model’s effectiveness in offensive scenarios. This is also clear from the benchmark scores presented by Anthropic.
 
From a policy perspective, this aligns with concerns raised by regulators and cybersecurity agencies about automation in vulnerability exploitation.
 
However, it should be noted that only the outputs are restricted, the underlying capability still exists. This creates a system where risk is managed through control layers rather than removed entirely.

Claude Fable 5 vs GPT models and Gemini

According to Anthropic's benchmark data, Fable 5 outperforms competing models across several agentic and cybersecurity-focused evaluations.
 
For agentic coding, Fable 5 outperforms OpenAI’s GPT 5.5 and Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro on several benchmarks such as SWE-Bench Pro. It also scores significantly higher than both on Multidisciplinary reasoning benchmarks such as Humanity’s Last Exam.
 
While all three companies are competing across similar areas including agentic workflows, coding, and multimodal systems, their approaches differ in how these capabilities are deployed and integrated.
 
With its newer flagship GPT models, such as GPT 5.5, OpenAI has increasingly focused on building general-purpose agent systems capable of carrying out multi-step tasks across software tools and services.
 
Google, meanwhile, is integrating AI more deeply across its ecosystem with its latest Gemini 3.5 models. Through initiatives such as Gemini Intelligence on Android, Gemini Live, and Gemini-powered Workspace features, the company is focusing on persistent, context-aware AI that can operate across devices, applications, and services.
 
Anthropic's approach differs from both. Rather than positioning Fable 5 primarily as a consumer assistant or ecosystem layer, the company is emphasising high-performance reasoning, coding and scientific work.
 
The release of Mythos 5 alongside Fable 5 also shows that Anthropic is developing specialised frontier models for high-risk domains while maintaining separate safety controls for broader deployment, a step that no competitor has taken yet.

Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5: Pricing and availability

According to the company, Fable 5 is available globally through the Claude API and consumption-based Enterprise plans from day one. Developers can access the model directly via the API, with pricing set at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. The same pricing applies to Claude Mythos 5.
 
However, access differs significantly between the two models.
 
Claude Mythos 5 remains restricted under Project Glasswing and is currently availa

 

No comments:

Post a Comment