The Jeffrey Epstein controversy continues to dominate headlines, but President Donald Trump is hoping it will go away. Trump is urging MAGA Republicans to move on from Epstein, claiming that the story is a "hoax" being pushed by Democrats. But former Fox News host Megyn Kelly is saying that Trump's hardcore MAGA base has no desire to move on.

In an article published on Friday morning, August 1, Bloomberg News' Jason Leopold reports that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to federal law enforcement show Trump's name to be redacted from Epstein-related material.

"While reviewing the Epstein files," Leopold explains. "FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents, the people familiar with the matter told me. Dozens of other high-profile public figures also appeared, the people said. The appearance of Trump's name or others in the Epstein files is not evidence of a crime or even a suggestion of wrongdoing. In preparation for potential public release, the documents then went to a unit of FOIA officers who applied redactions in accordance with the nine exemptions."

READ MORE: 'Not a stunt': Dems make a shock move against Trump — as one shrugs it off

Leopold adds, "The people familiar with the matter said that Trump's name, along with other high-profile individuals, was blacked out because he was a private citizen when the federal investigation of Epstein was launched in 2006. In particular, the reviewers applied two FOIA exemptions to justify their redactions."

A Trump White House spokesperson and the FBI declined to be interviewed for Leopold's article, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) didn't respond to him.

"If you're surprised by the revelation that the FBI used privacy exemptions to withhold the name of a sitting president, you're not alone," Leopold reports. "However, it's common practice for government agencies to redact names on privacy grounds, even when they're clearly public figures like Trump. I lost count of how many times the government invoked a privacy exemption in response to my FOIA requests to deny releasing records on public figures and government officials."

Leopold's reporting is generating a lot of discussion on X, formerly Twitter.

READ MORE: The truth finally trickled out of Donald Trump — but the media largely ignored it

The conservative group Republicans Against Trump tweeted, "NEW via Bloomberg: The FBI redacted Trump's name from the Epstein files just before higher-ups said last month that releasing the documents 'would not be appropriate or warranted.' This is what a cover-up looks like."

X user Pure Phoenix posted, "Wild how the name gets scrubbed right before they say it's 'not appropriate' to release. Feels shady — like, why the secrecy if there's nothing there? Markets might shrug, but folks like @CharlesMooreX1 would probably call this another elite handshake moment. Sketchy either way."

Another X user, Gerald Wayne, wrote, "The FBI REDACTED Donald Trump's name from the Epstein files, confirmed by Bloomberg. Let that sink in. While the media drags corpses to connect everyone else to Epstein, Trump’s name gets black ink and federal protection. Why? Because he was a 'private citizen' in 2006? So was everyone else on the damn list. This isn't about privacy. It's about selective shielding, the system protecting its own. You still think this is about justice?"

Podcaster Brian Allen commented, "BREAKING: According to Bloomberg, the FBI has reportedly redacted Donald Trump's name from the Epstein files. The same agencies that lost the camera footage… The same ones that claimed he 'wasn't in the files'.… Are now accused of scrubbing his name from documents tied to one of the largest trafficking rings in modern history. The cover-up is worse than the crime and the crime was monstrous. More to come."

Accountant Brian Coyle tweeted, "Makes Watergate look like a minor misdemeanour."

READ MORE: 'That was brutal': Wisconsin GOP lawmaker flounders at 'hostile' townhall

Read the full Bloomberg News article at this link.

The Department of Justice appears to be outright ignoring its legal obligation to disclose files related to Jeffrey Epstein, and according to a new analysis from Julie K. Brown, this presents a dangerous situation in which "no laws are safe" from being ignored by Donald Trump.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed in both Chambers of Congress by overwhelming margins in November, compelling the DOJ to release of its files about its investigations into Epstein, a notorious deceased sex trafficker with links to numerous high-profile public figures. The deadline for the release of these files was Dec. 17, which was over a month ago, and so far only a small percentage of the files have been released in heavily redacted form, prompting outrage and calls for accountability from lawmakers and Epstein survivors alike.

The DOJ claimed when it released the small batch of files last month that considerable work was needed to prep the millions of files for release, specifically to make sure the names of victims and other innocent parties are not exposed. Given Trump's months-long resistance to releasing the files and his long-time friendship with Epstein, many in the public suspect that the DOJ is stalling the release of the files because they might implicate the president in the trafficker's crimes, or at least show that he was aware of them for years. Reports from last spring indicated that Trump had been informed that his name was in the files.

Brown is a veteran reporter widely credited with first bringing Epstein's story to national attention with her Miami Herald stories about his lenient plea deal from 2008. In a Substack piece published Friday, she cast doubt on the DOJ's stated reason for delaying the release of the files, suggesting that it is unrealistic that this much time would be needed for redactions if the department was not engaged in a massive cover-up.

"If all you are redacting is the names of victims, that could have been done efficiently months ago. And didn’t the DOJ already spend $1 million to scour the files last Spring?" Brown wrote. "In March, Bloomberg’s Jason Leopold reported that FBI Director Kash Patel had tasked 1,000 FBI agents to work on making the files ready for public review."

Brown further warned that if Congress allows the DOJ to keep ignoring the Epstein Files Transparency Act, as she believes it is doing, it poses a major risk for all laws in the future, as it creates a precedent for the administration to ignore any and all laws they disagree with.

"If Congressional leaders don’t respond, it means no legislation, no laws, are safe," Brown wrote. "What is to prevent others from ignoring laws passed by Congress? Are we just a nation that only complies with laws we like or agree with? If leaders of Congress do nothing, they will render all legislation they pass open to being ignored. Our founders considered the Rule of Law a cornerstone of our Democracy. It means that all people, including government officials, are equally accountable to the law. Ignoring this principle will cause significant harm to the foundations of all our institutions."

President Donald Trump and his administration have been hit with an onslaught of lawsuits since his return to the White House, but according Newsweek, on Friday they received some rare legal pushback from a conservative organization.

Per Newsweek's report, Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that the agency had failed to provide a timely response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The group requested survey information pertaining to abortion-related research at a facility in Pittsburgh.

The request was initially submitted on May 30 of last year, and according to the filing, while it was acknowledged by HHS on the same day, the organization has not heard back about it since then. The nonprofit is looking to obtain "All documents and communications of officials in the Office of Extramural Research concerning the Final Research Performance Progress Report (FRPPR) for the GUDMAP program at the University of Pittsburgh (Project Number U24- DK110791-01)," as part of an investigation for fetal tissue research programs using federal funds.

"As of the date of this Complaint (Jan. 2, 2026), Defendant has failed to: (i) determine whether to comply with the request; (ii) notify Plaintiff of any such determination or the reasons therefor; (iii) advise Plaintiff of the right to appeal any adverse determination; or (iv) produce the requested records or otherwise demonstrate that the requested records are exempt from production," the lawsuit alleged.

Newsweek noted that this lawsuit is among many that the Trump administration has faced for its alleged failures to comply with FOIA requests in a timely manner. Judicial Watch, for example, also sued the Justice Department over allegations that its FOIA request for "records about the alleged transfer of fetal tissue" was not answered sufficiently.

“Americans have a right to know basic information about the taxpayer-funded abortion industrial complex," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement. "As long as the government continues to fund these gruesome projects, Judicial Watch will work to expose them.”

CNN analysts on both sides of the political aisle agreed that President Donald Trump messed up the entire narrative around sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as Americans demand the release of files pertaining to the investigation into his alleged crimes.

Despite a legally mandated deadline, the Justice Department is slowly releasing information, and there are questions about whether Trump's name is being removed or hidden entirely.

Speaking to CNN Wednesday morning, host John Berman noted that one of the strangest stories of 2025 has been the rare bipartisan unity around the release of the files.

Democratic strategist Meghan Hays said that Trump can't run on stopping the "Deep State" and then have the "Deep State" rum cover for him

"'He needs to be prosecuted. We need to see the files,'" Hays said, quoting Trump. "Then when you're in office, say, 'Oh, nothing to see here. The files don't exist. There's nothing in them."

"That just leads the American people to believe that you are also then lying," Hays added.

She noted that it has also been "fascinating that this is the one issue that really has united both Democrats and Republicans, not only in Congress, but in America and across the country, like 8 in 10 Americans or something, believe the Epstein files should be released."

"There are all these different aspects where people really feel passionate that someone should pay consequences for it," Hays said.

It's one of the many reasons that Trump bungled it from the beginning.

"And so I just think that that was a miscalculation on Trump's part. But I think the bigger miscalculation is when Trump kept saying it's a Democratic Hoax," Hays calculated. "And over and over again saying that because when you're so defensive, it makes you look guilty. And also, you're just saying, we don't believe women, and we don't believe victims. And we've been through this movie before, and it doesn't end well for him."

The GOP commentator agreed that the White House failed on the messaging from day one.

"They got the messaging all wrong. You can't deny, deny, deny. And because Donald Trump surrounded himself with people like Dan Bongino, who built a cult following on the Epstein files, well, they're now a part of his administration," said Melik Abdul, a GOP strategist.

"And I think — I do believe that in that sense, it was a miscalculation," Abdul said.

That said, he doesn't think it will factor into the 2026 midterm elections.

He parrotted the language being used by the White House that if Trump were complicit in a crime, he would have been investigated for it by now.

Abdul says the issues Americans will care about are affordability and the economy.