Did Donald Trump secretly plan this fight over the Jeffrey Epstein files to lure Democrats into another political trap? No. I don’t believe he did. I know people close to the president who were frustrated over the summer when he abruptly shifted from promising the files’ release to calling it a “distraction” and a “hoax.” I said at the time on my show that the switch was the first major misstep of Trump 2.0.

But I understand why the 4D-chess theory is so tempting now. It looks like a setup. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) spent months attacking Trump over Epstein. Then we learned that Jeffries may have accepted donor requests from Epstein after Epstein’s first sex-offense conviction. And a Democrat from the Virgin Islands — Epstein’s district — was literally taking dictation from Epstein on what questions to ask in a congressional hearing.

The 2026 midterms are coming fast. If the GOP wants to avoid another preventable disaster, it had better stop rehearsing the same script.

Those are facts, not theories.

The deeper truth, though, has nothing to do with strategy. American politics follows two patterns, and both showed up again this week.

First, Republicans pre-emptively surrender. Always.

Watch Democrats tell soldiers to ignore orders while Trump follows every instruction a federal judge hands him. His restraint isn’t Romney-level, but the Republicans around him shrink the space for any real fight. That’s why Attorney General Pam Bondi is developing a well-deserved reputation for overpromising and under-delivering.

RELATED: The right message: Justice. The wrong messenger: Pam Bondi.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Second, Democrats always overreach when Republicans fold.

We saw it in 2018 when Republicans gave up on repealing Obamacare and lost 40 House seats for their cowardice. The pattern continued in 2020, as Democrats pushed their false god evangelism into insane absolutism — on “fortifying” elections, on arresting Trump, on forcing people into taking the poisonous jab, on transitioning kids. It was mark of the beast stuff, and voters wanted no part of it.

The latest example came this week, when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) answered a question from a friendly reporter about why Democrats never pursued the Epstein files when they had the chance by snapping, “What is [Trump] hiding?” The Senate had just voted almost unanimously to release those files, and instead of revealing Trump, former Bill Clinton hack Lawrence Summers stood exposed for his ties to the sex offender, seeking his counsel as “wingman” in an effort to seduce the daughter of a high Chinese Communist Party official.

RELATED: ‘Swamp protects itself’: Republicans shield Epstein-texting Democrat — allegedly to save Cory Mills’ hide

Anna Rose Layden/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Both parties cling to their worst instincts. Republicans surrender too easily. Democrats push too far. And no politician in modern history has been buoyed more by his opponents’ excesses than Donald Trump.

So once again, Republicans hold the advantage on the Epstein files — at least for the moment. But early signs suggest they may squander it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Pam Bondi appear ready to narrow or redact the release into something the base will see as betrayal. If that happens, Democrats won’t need to win the argument. Republicans will beat themselves.

The 2026 midterms are coming fast. If the GOP wants to avoid another preventable disaster, it had better stop rehearsing the same script.

A little discipline — and a little courage — would go a long way.

​Opinion & analysis, Jeffrey epstein, Epstein files, Congress, Republicans, Democrats, 2026 midterms, Donald trump, Pam bondi, Chuck schumer, Hakeem jeffries, Stacey plaskett, Lawrence summers, Mike johnson, Courage, Justice department, Transparency 

The search for truth has always required something very much in short supply these days: honesty. Not performative questions, not scripted outrage, not whatever happens to be trending on TikTok, but real curiosity.

Some issues, often focused on foreign aid, AIPAC, or Israel, have become hotbeds of debate and disagreement. Before we jump into those debates, however, we must return to a simpler, more important issue: honest questioning. Without it, nothing in these debates matters.

Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

The phrase “just asking questions” has re-entered the zeitgeist, and that’s fine. We should always question power. But too many of those questions feel preloaded with someone else’s answer. If the goal is truth, then the questions should come from a sincere desire to understand, not from a hunt for a villain.

Honest desire for truth is the only foundation that can support a real conversation about these issues.

Truth-seeking is real work

Right now, plenty of people are not seeking the truth at all. They are repeating something they heard from a politician on cable news or from a stranger on TikTok who has never opened a history book. That is not a search for answers. That is simply outsourcing your own thought.

If you want the truth, you need to work for it. You cannot treat the world like a Marvel movie where the good guy appears in a cape and the villain hisses on command. Real life does not give you a neat script with the moral wrapped up in two hours.

But that is how people are approaching politics now. They want the oppressed and the oppressor, the heroic underdog and the cartoon villain. They embrace this fantastical framing because it is easier than wrestling with reality.

This framing took root in the 1960s when the left rebuilt its worldview around colonizers and the colonized. Overnight, Zionism was recast as imperialism. Suddenly, every conflict had to fit the same script. Today’s young activists are just recycling the same narrative with updated graphics. Everything becomes a morality play. No nuance, no context, just the comforting clarity of heroes and villains.

Bad-faith questions

This same mindset is fueling the sudden obsession with Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in particular. You hear it from members of Congress and activists alike: AIPAC pulls the strings, AIPAC controls the government, AIPAC should register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The questions are dramatic, but are they being asked in good faith?

FARA is clear. The standard is whether an individual or group acts under the direction or control of a foreign government. AIPAC simply does not qualify.

Here is a detail conveniently left out of these arguments: Dozens of domestic organizations — Armenian, Cuban, Irish, Turkish — lobby Congress on behalf of other countries. None of them registers under FARA because — like AIPAC — they are independent, domestic organizations.

If someone has a sincere problem with the structure of foreign lobbying, fair enough. Let us have that conversation. But singling out AIPAC alone is not a search for truth. It is bias dressed up as bravery.

RELATED: Antifa burns, the media spin, and truth takes the hits

Photo by Philip Pacheco/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

If someone wants to question foreign aid to Israel, fine. Let’s have that debate. But let’s ask the right questions. The issue is not the size of the package but whether the aid advances our interests. What does the United States gain? Does the investment strengthen our position in the region? How does it compare to what we give other nations? And do we examine those countries with the same intensity?

The real target

These questions reflect good-faith scrutiny. But narrowing the entire argument to one country or one dollar amount misses the larger problem. If someone objects to the way America handles foreign aid, the target is not Israel. The target is the system itself — an entrenched bureaucracy, poor transparency, and decades-old commitments that have never been re-examined. Those problems run through programs around the world.

If you want answers, you need to broaden the lens. You have to be willing to put aside the movie script and confront reality. You have to hold yourself to a simple rule: Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

That is the only way this country ever gets clarity on foreign aid, influence, alliances, and our place in the world. Questioning is not just allowed. It is essential. But only if it is honest.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Aipac, Israel, Foreign aid, Truth seeking, Debate, Opinion & analysis, American israel public affairs committee, Truth, Good faith, Bad faith 

Boo-hoo, Lucy Liu.

The veteran actress is in the awards season mix for “Rosemead,” the tale of an immigrant grappling with a troubled teenage son. That means she’s working the press circuit, talking to as many media outlets as she can to promote a possible Best Actress nomination.

No more peeks at Erivo’s extended, Freddy Krueger-like nails or Grande waving away a helicopter overhead as if it were about to swoop down on them.

If you think political campaigns are cynical, you haven’t seen an actor push for a golden statuette. That may explain why Liu shared her victimhood story with the Hollywood Reporter.

Turns out the chronically employed star (123 acting credits, according to IMDB.com) hasn’t been employed enough, by her standards.

I remember being like, “Why isn’t there more happening?” … I didn’t want to participate in anything where I felt like they weren’t even taking me seriously. How am I being given these offers that are less than when I started in this business? It was a sign of disrespect to me, and I didn’t really want that. I didn’t want to acquiesce to that … I cannot turn myself into somebody who looks Caucasian, but if I could, I would’ve had so many more opportunities.

Liu has had the kind of career most actors would kill to duplicate. That doesn’t play on the identity politics guilt of her peers though. Nor is it fodder for a “woe is me” awards speech …

Rest for the ‘Wicked’

That’s a wrap!

The “Wicked: For Good” press push got the heave-ho earlier this week when star Cynthia Erivo reportedly lost her voice. Co-star Ariana Grande pulled out of her appearances in solidarity.

Yup. Not remotely suspicious.

The duo made way too many headlines last year during their initial “Wicked” press tour. Why? It was just … weird. Odd. Creepy. The stars’ emaciated appearance didn’t help, but their kooky, collective affect was off-putting, to be kind.

Even the Free Press called out the duo’s sadly emaciated state.

They trotted out more of the same for round two, and someone had the good sense to yank them off the stage before the bulletproof sequel hit theaters Nov. 21.

No more peeks at Erivo’s extended, Freddy Krueger-like nails or Grande waving away a helicopter overhead as if it were about to swoop down on them.

Any publicity is good publicity, right? Not when it’s wickedly cringe …

RELATED: ‘Last Days’ brings empathy to doomed Sentinel Island missionary’s story

Vertical

Face for radio

John Oliver thinks it’s 1985.

HBO’s far-left lip flapper is furious that the Trump administration stripped NPR of its federal funding. Who will ignore senile presidents and laptop scandals without our hard-earned dollars?

Think of the children!

Never mind that Americans have endless ways to access news, from AM radio to TV, satellite, cable, and streaming options. Heck, just pick up a $20 set of rabbit ears, and you’ll get a crush of local TV stations in many swathes of the country.

You have to live in a bunker a hundred feet below the earth to avoid the news.

Oliver, to his credit, put his money where his mouth is. Or at least, your money. He set up a public auction to raise cash for NPR stations.

Why? Because we’re all going to croak without it. That’s assuming you didn’t die following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the lack of net neutrality.

“Public radio saves lives. The emergency broadcast system. Without it, people would die.”

A second-rate satirist might have a field day with anyone pushing the “you’ll die without X, Y, or Z” card. Alas Oliver doesn’t warrant that ranking …

‘Running’ on empty

Rising star status ain’t what it used to be.

Glen Powell seemed like the next Tom Cruise for a hot minute. Handsome. Affable. Unwilling to insult half the country. He stole a few moments during “Top Gun: Maverick” and powered a mediocre rom-com — 2023’s “Anyone but You” — into a $220 million global hit.

So when Hollywood handed him the keys to the “Running Man” remake, the industry assumed he had finally arrived. Give him his “I’m on the A-List” smoking jacket.

That’s until the remake’s opening weekend numbers came in. Or rather trickled in. That $16 million-plus haul just won’t cut it.

Now Powell’s next film is under the microscope. The project dubbed “Huntington” just got a last-minute name change to “How to Make a Killing.” The film follows Powell’s character as he tries to ensure he’ll inherit millions from his uber-wealthy family. That’s despite getting cast out of the clan’s good graces.

The movie now has a Feb. 20 release date, hardly a key window for an A-lister like Powell.

Then again, his time on the A-list may have already expired.

​Hollywood, Entertainment, Lucy liu, Culture, Wicked, Ariana grande, John oliver, Donald trump, Toto recall 

During the final hours of the shutdown fight earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) slipped a toxic provision into the continuing resolution that reopened the government. The clause created a special pathway for select senators to sue the federal government, bypass its usual legal defenses, and claim large payouts if their records were subpoenaed during the Arctic Frost investigation.

The result? About eight senators could demand $500,000 for every “instance” of seized data. Those instances could stack, pushing potential payouts into the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. That is not an exaggeration. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has all but celebrated the prospect.

Graham said he wanted ‘tens of millions of dollars’ for seized records while victims of weaponization still face shattered lives.

No one else would qualify for compensation. Only senators. Anyone who spent years helping victims of political weaponization — often pro bono, while prestige law firms chased billable hours — can see the corruption in plain view. The message this provision sends on the central Trump-era promise of accountability could not be weaker: screw the people, pay the pols.

The surveillance of senators was wrong. It should never have happened. But senators did not face what ordinary Americans endured. Senators maintain large campaign accounts to hire top lawyers. They operate out of official offices, armed with constitutional protections such as the Speech and Debate Clause. They do not lose their homes, jobs, savings, or businesses. Thousands of Americans did. Many still face legal bills, ruined livelihoods, and ongoing cases. They deserve restitution — not the politicians who failed them.

Graham helped push this provision forward. As public criticism grew, he defended it. On Sean Hannity’s show the other day, he said: “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue.” Hannity asked how much. Graham replied: “Tens of millions of dollars.”

Democrats will replay that clip across every battleground in the country going into an uphill midterm battle in 2026.

Graham embodies the worst messenger for this fight. He helped fuel weaponization long before he claimed victimhood. He urged the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to pass the Steele dossier to the FBI. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did nothing to slow the Justice Department and FBI as they pursued political targets. He even supported many of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees who later embraced aggressive lawfare tactics. If anyone owed restitution to victims, Graham sits high on the list.

RELATED: Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Fortunately, enough Republicans recognize the political and moral disaster of funneling taxpayer funds to senators while real victims remain abandoned. The House advanced a measure today to repeal the provision. Led by Reps. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas), the House forced the Senate to address in public what it attempted to smuggle through in private.

Thune defended the measure in comments to Axios. He argued that only senators suffered statutory violations and said the provision was crafted to avoid covering House members. He did not explain why any House member who was illegally surveilled should receive no remedy.

The Senate leader also claimed the financial penalty would deter a future Justice Department from targeting lawmakers, citing the actions of special counsel Jack Smith. His emphasis on “future” misconduct glossed over a critical fact: The provision is retroactive and would cover past abuses.

That defense cannot survive daylight. Repeal requires 60 Senate votes, and not a single Democrat will fight to preserve a payout for Graham. Republicans should not try either. Efforts to strike the measure need to begin immediately. Senators — especially Thune — should commit to an up-or-down vote. If they want to send tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Graham, they should do it in public, with the country watching.

Washington already reeks of grift and self-dealing this year. If senators protect this provision, that smell will spread nationwide.

​Opinion & analysis, Senate, Republicans, Lawfare, John thune, Lindsey graham, Sean hannity, Mike johnson, Special treatment, Weaponization, John mccain, Justice department, Russian collusion, Senate judiciary committee, Fairness, Austin scott, Chip roy, Public vote, Restitution, Payouts, Lawsuits, Populism