In a carefully coordinated publicity stunt last week, Donald Trump received a McDonald’s takeaway order from delivery driver [Sharon Simmons](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/trump-doordash-delivery-grandma-mcdonalds), a 58-year-old grandmother of 10 from Arkansas. Simmons, a Trump supporter and advocate of his “no tax on tips” policy, testified before Congress last year that she began working as a delivery driver for the takeout app DoorDash in order to help cover the cost of her husband’s cancer treatment. The photo opp should have been a slam dunk for Trump: a simple way to promote one of his policies in the company of a sympathetic advocate and beneficiary. But Trump, in characteristic fashion, could not resist the urge to insert a non sequitur about one of his own grievances: trans women athletes. “Do you think men should play in women’s sports?” Trump [asked Simmons](https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/doordash-trump-transgender-athletes). “I really don’t have an opinion on that,” she replied, showing considerably more message discipline than the president. “I’m here about ‘no tax on tips’.” It was a small but revealing moment. Trump’s approval rating is [plummeting to new lows](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/live-blog/live-updates-trump-job-approval-poll-congress-doj-dhs-live-updates-rcna340909), and his working-class [support is crumbling](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/05/trump-working-class-support). He won a second term on the back of ordinary Americans’ widespread anger at inequality and dissatisfaction with their economic prospects, and yet his return to office has been marked instead with a fixation on culture-war grievances that many of those supporters find alienating. Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election was once seen as a definitive cultural shift, proof that his aggressive, domineering style of rightwing populism had found permanent purchase in [US politics](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-politics). Pundits hailed the triumph of conservatism; institutions scrambled to adjust to the new dominance of a regime with authoritarian aspirations. This was always a suspicious claim: was a narrow victory in one close presidential election really a sign of a broad and permanent cultural shift? Less than 18 months later, that thesis has collapsed. Trump and his allies have delivered an era of backlash and cultural retrenchment from the executive branch: slashing grants for [“woke” research](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/trump-scientific-research-climate); turning federal programmes meant to [promote equality](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/trump-executive-orders-dei) into engines for discrimination; [stymying promotions](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/27/pete-hegseth-cuts-black-men-women-military-promotion-list) for women and people of colour in the armed services in what critics say is an effort to [resegregate the military](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/pete-hegseth-military-diversity/686734/); and pressuring [athletic conferences](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/us-university-bans-trans-athletes-under-pressure-from-trump-administration) from the National Collegiate Athletic Association [to the International Olympic Committee](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-administration-plans-to-pressure-the-ioc-to-come-up-with-a-uniform-transgender-athlete-ban) to ban trans women athletes. They have made their cultural values felt in pervasive and sadistic ways. Americans see ICE officers patrolling their airports and tanks on the streets of major cities; they see their neighbours being snatched away by immigration agents; and they see the costs of housing soaring out of reach as the construction industry workforce dwindles as a result. They see Trump and his friends posturing on television, complaining over and over again about issues that their side has already won. And they also see the signs posted at their local gas station, where the price has now soared from an average of $3.10 a gallon in 2025 to [more than $4](https://gasprices.aaa.com/). In the aftermath of the 2024 election, many political commentators blamed the Democrats’ loss on the party’s supposedly excessive embrace of the social movements of the 2010s. The party had focused too much on culture-war issues, these pundits said, and not enough on economics. They pointed to a particularly popular and effective ad that the Trump campaign ran during the 2024 cycle, which [focused on Kamala Harris’s support](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/11/trump-republicans-transgender-ads) for publicly funded transition care for transgender prison inmates. “Kamala is for they/them,” the ad said. “Trump is for you.” It’s not clear to me that the Democratic party, which has often abjured its own left flank and frequently shied away from commitments on social issues, really did lean too hard into the culture-war agenda. But it is true that the Republicans claimed it did. Their own campaign, meanwhile, was a festival of male grievance and resentment, celebrated by the celebrities of young men’s online subcultures and touted on manosphere podcasts; it is these people whom the [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/trump-administration), now restored to power, seems to see as its truest constituents, and it is these people whose interests and desires it has tried to serve. But outside these online rightwing worlds, the ordinary, workaday voters who swung for Trump in 2024 are wondering what, exactly, they signed up for. What if the 2024 election was not, in fact, a revolt of a deeply and permanently socially conservative American people, but a plea for change from a working class that has long felt that it was falling behind? What if the gender and racial grievances that have long animated Trump’s most ardent supporters were not, in fact, the basis of his victory? What if the truth is that lots of people voted for him because they thought he would send employment up and prices down, and, now that he hasn’t, they have buyer’s remorse? That would certainly explain the poll numbers. Trump’s approval rating has [sunk to a dismal 37%](https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/poll-trumps-approval-rating-hits-130040217.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACOcJwsDVpNjcNFi1cjvAYSwlRYBbTHCPNUp5MGKTdzeCpebB3yybc86vGq_YwLnF9YiB21i62HdUws9f5xkb6cWNNlZoYII3908XPjbbDkXwSt5m53T8C_kFcbRJX8e04_0jzwGAfbYV0GLU1-EK6mtoUTnwAlQ6L1BkaOLUuaW); a shocking 63% of Americans now say they disapprove of how he is handling the job. It’s little wonder: a lame duck whose underlings are already openly vying to replace him and whose once lockstep Maga coalition is now fracturing under internal pressures, he hasn’t been able to get many of his much-touted policy proposals done. The supreme court [threw out](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/what-will-happen-to-trump-tariffs-after-supreme-court-verdict) his tariffs, his signature economic policy, and seems poised to abort his attacks on birthright citizenship. His draconian immigration crackdown, and mass detention and deportation programme have alienated many of the Latino men who moved towards his party in the 2024 elections. The Epstein scandal continues to humiliate him and his allies. Prices continue to rise even as domestic employment and wages remain stagnant. And, now, he has made the exact same mistake as his Republican predecessors did – one for which he once lambasted them when he launched his own political career: he has begun a regime-change war in the Middle East that he has no chance of winning. Now, ahead of November’s midterm congressional elections, Trump is increasingly unpopular, failing in his major policy initiatives and presiding over a fracturing coalition. The Democrats, ever eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, have yet to put forward a coherent agenda to counter him. But maybe they don’t need to. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. * Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

When King Charles’s mother became the first British monarch to [address](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egpyaH_QS7w) the United States Congress in 1991, she spoke in the aftermath of the US-led [response](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/gulf-war) to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, in which more than 50,000 UK troops participated. Queen Elizabeth II used the occasion to celebrate the role of the transatlantic alliance in upholding the rule of international law: “Some people believe that power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” she told her Capitol Hill audience. “So it can, but history shows that it never grows well nor for very long.” Different monarch, different times and a very different America. As the king [embarks](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/27/king-charles-visits-trump-what-are-the-potential-pitfalls-for-the-monarch) on a four‑day state visit to the United States, a foiled [assault](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/27/white-house-press-dinner-shooting-suspect-court) by a gunman believed to be targeting members of the Trump administration illustrated the extent to which political violence has become endemic in a deeply polarised country. Globally, Donald Trump’s illegal war in Iran (and prior to that the [abduction](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/04/tactical-surprise-and-air-dominance-how-the-us-snatched-maduro-in-two-and-a-half-hours) by US special forces of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro) underlines that in the view of the present White House, the possessors of military might have the right to set their own rules. In his own address to Congress this week, marking the 250th anniversary of US independence, the king will doubtless refrain from any direct critique of that presumption. Instead, he will seek to navigate safer territory, recalling an alliance that spanned two world wars and was strengthened through solidarity after the horror of 9/11. Necessarily, this will amount to a regal exercise in damage limitation. As the White House has [turned](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/03/trump-claims-starmer-weak-mocks-pm-uk-aircraft-carriers-iran-war) on Britain, and Sir Keir Starmer in particular, over the UK’s failure to do its bidding in the Middle East, the prime minister’s early hopes of becoming a conciliatory bridge between Mr Trump’s Washington and the European Union now appear naive. The volley of presidential insults and threats delivered via the Truth Social platform has, ironically, allowed Sir Keir to enjoy a vanishingly rare moment of public approval for his relatively robust response. But by pushing ahead with the state visit in such circumstances, the government has given the king what in footballing parlance is known as a “[hospital pass](https://learnenglishthroughfootball.com/football-language-hospitalpass/)”. For Mr Trump, whose narcissism blinds him to many truths, the king’s trip – the first such state visit since 2007 – will inevitably be treated as a personal tribute as well as a gesture honouring the US on its birthday. Given the lethal havoc that he has unleashed in his second term of office, and the disrespect he has shown to Britain’s elected government, its [armed forces](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/22/trump-nato-afghanistan-troops) and its [multicultural](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSCcBwowmTM) modern reality, that sticks in the craw. The unfolding of the Epstein scandal, as the king’s brother is investigated by police and the Trump administration [refuses](https://newrepublic.com/post/209448/donald-trump-department-justice-watchdog-epstein-files-release) a full release of related files, adds another unsavoury dimension to the visit. A skilful diplomat, the king will endeavour to make the best of a bad job. But if his mother spoke in Washington at a high point for the “special relationship”, the present monarch arrives at a historic nadir. Saluting the democratic values at the heart of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 may serve an edifying purpose, given a president who treats them with contempt. But once the king is back in Buckingham Palace, a veil should be drawn over the government’s failed charm offensive with a rogue head of state. * _**Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our [letters](https://www.theguardian.com/tone/letters) section, please [click here](mailto:[email protected]?body=Please%20include%20your%20name,%20full%20postal%20address%20and%20phone%20number%20with%20your%20letter%20below.%20Letters%20are%20usually%20published%20with%20the%20author%27s%20name%20and%20city/town/village.%20The%20rest%20of%20the%20information%20is%20for%20verification%20only%20and%20to%20contact%20you%20where%20necessary.).**_

_Good morning. You're reading the Up First newsletter._ [Subscribe](https://www.npr.org/newsletter/news) _here to get it delivered to your inbox, and_ [listen](https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510318/up-first/) _to the Up First podcast for all the news you need to start your day._ ### Today's top stories **The alleged gunman at the White House Correspondents' Dinner** is scheduled to make his first court appearance today. While police have not formally identified the suspect, [NPR confirmed the identity](http://npr.org/2026/04/27/nx-s1-5800175/white-house-correspondents-dinner-cole-allen-federal-court) of 31-year-old Cole Allen with two people familiar with the investigation who aren't authorized to speak publicly. Authorities say Allen charged through a security perimeter at the Washington Hilton, where President Trump and other top administration officials were gathered for the annual event with journalists. Law enforcement arrested Allen before he could reach the ballroom. One Secret Service agent was shot in his protective vest and not seriously injured. Allen faces charges including using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon, according to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro. Here's [what we know about Allen so far](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/g-s1-118826/cole-allen-suspected-white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooter-profile).  * 🎧 **NPR's Tamara Keith, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident, describes** what happened as tense and scary. She tells _Up First_ that the shooting came at the end of a bad week for Trump politically. He is facing his lowest-ever approval ratings as the war with Iran drags on. Keith says that while this incident [temporarily shifts the focus](https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=nx-s1-5800667:nx-s1-mx-5800667-1) from these issues, it feeds into the unease she hears from voters about how chaotic and divided the country feels. * 🎧 **The investigation is still in the early stages.** Authorities are still investigating his motive, NPR's Ryan Lucas says. A White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity told NPR that Allen's brother notified law enforcement a few minutes before the incident about a letter Allen had written and sent to family members. Allen's sister told law enforcement that her brother mentioned a [plan to do something to address](https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=nx-s1-5800667:nx-s1-mx-5800667-1) issues in today's world. * ➡️ **Take a look at** the photos of the [aftermath of the shooting](https://www.npr.org/sections/the-picture-show/2026/04/26/g-s1-118806/photos-the-aftermath-of-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooting). * ➡️ **Several NPR journalists, including _Morning Edition_'s Michel Martin,** were in the ballroom when the gunshots rang out. Martin [recounts her experience](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/27/nx-s1-5800165/nprs-michel-martin-on-shooting-at-white-house-correspondents-association-dinner) to co-host Steve Inskeep. Read the [accounts from other NPR journalists here](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/nx-s1-5800105/white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooting-scene-trump). * ➡️ **During a press conference after the shooting**, Trump said he does not think Allen's motive could be the war with Iran. The potential peace talks between Iran and the U.S. [remain on hold](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/nx-s1-5800054/iran-talks-on-hold-shooting-talks-pakistan). **King Charles III and Queen Camilla arrive in Washington today for a state visit** commemorating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. declaring independence from Britain. During their four-day trip, they will attend a state banquet hosted by Trump at the White House, and the King will address Congress. This visit comes at a low point in the relationship between the two allies, including disputes over the war in Iran and lingering controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Despite these challenges, many people hope that the visit [will help ease tensions](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/nx-s1-5788696/king-queen-state-trump) and strengthen the long-standing ties between the countries. * 🎧 **Polls show that the British people do not support the trip**, NPR's Lauren Frayer says. Some U.K. politicians have called for the trip to be canceled. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wanted it to go forward, despite the president insulting him. Frayer attended a small protest at the palace gates. She spoke with protester Tom Walker, a member of a group called the Stop Trump Coalition. Walker says he doesn't want the king's visit to be [seen as a show of support](https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=nx-s1-5800667:nx-s1-mx-5800667-1) for Trump. **The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case that could transform digital privacy.** At stake is a relatively new law enforcement technique known as geofencing, which allows police to tap into massive tech company databases to identify individuals who were near a crime scene. At the [center of the case is the Fourth Amendment](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/27/nx-s1-5777656/supreme-court-geofence-warrants)'s prohibition on unreasonable searches of people, their homes, papers and effects. A decision in the case is anticipated by summer. Watch NPR's Nina Totenberg break down how geofencing works, explain the incident that sparked the Supreme Court case and [look into both sides of the argument](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/g-s1-118359/supreme-court-geofencing-explainer-video). **Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court today** in a showdown between two tech world titans. Musk is suing Altman, alleging that Altman misled him when he transformed OpenAI from a non-profit entity into a for-profit powerhouse. OpenAI, now valued at nearly $1 trillion following the success of ChatGPT, was established in 2015 as a charity dedicated to benefiting humanity. According to statements OpenAI posted online, the founders, including Musk and Altman, quickly realized they needed to attract deep-pocketed investors, and the best way to do so was to create a for-profit company. After stepping down from OpenAI's board in 2018 due to potential conflicts with Tesla, Musk launched his own AI venture, xAI. Now, Musk is demanding that Altman and others [return billions of dollars earned by the for-profit business](http://npr.org/2026/04/27/nx-s1-5795661/trial-openai-elon-musk-sam-altman) to the part of OpenAI that is still not-for-profit. ### Today's listen  A new project from the Marshall Project is highlighting music recorded in American prisons. Each week, the media organization — which reports on the American prison system — is releasing a song performed by an incarcerated person in its newsletter, Redemption Songs. Marshall Project staff writer Maurice Chammah was inspired after surfing eBay one day in 2014 and finding a listing for a record featuring music recorded by men incarcerated in Texas back in the '70s. The performance was part of an annual prison rodeo, where incarcerated people competed and provided comedy and music. "I was surprised that a lot of the songs, first of all, were very good. And then second of all, it was very fun and a lot lighter than you might think," Chammah said. This led him to reflect on how much prisons have changed and eventually to an idea with his Marshall Project colleagues. Listen to [music by incarcerated people](https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=nx-s1-5786538:x) and [learn about the project's goals](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/24/nx-s1-5786538/new-project-puts-a-spotlight-on-music-created-in-american-prisons). ### Picture show  Southeast Asia is facing a critical environmental crisis, fueled by overfishing. The region produces over half of the world's fish. Since the 1950s, the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that 70-95% of fish stocks in the region have been depleted and are at risk of collapse. The trend is exacerbated by the rise of industrial-scale fishing, much of which is illegal. But legal overfishing also factors in the crisis. The U.S. imports about 50% of its seafood from Asia, with China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India accounting for nearly $6.3 billion in trade, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This activity harms unique ecosystems and significantly impacts artisanal and small-scale fishers in the region. Check out these [photos from three countries showing](https://www.npr.org/sections/the-picture-show/2026/04/18/nx-s1-5766110/overfishing-in-southeast-asia) the complex issues associated with overfishing. ### 3 things to know before you go  _This newsletter was edited by_ [_Suzanne Nuyen_](https://www.npr.org/people/859721331/suzanne-nuyen)_._

In the early hours of Sunday, I awoke to check the time on my phone and learned that there had been [a shooting](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooting) – apparently, an assassination attempt – at this year’s White House correspondents’ dinner, an event held annually to honor the journalists who cover presidential politics. I stayed awake just long enough to read that the attack had been thwarted and that no one had been killed, and then I went back to sleep. By morning, my social media accounts and email inbox was filled with entries that began with some version of the phrase, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist but … ” Even as they distanced themselves from crackpot takes on current history, some Americans were suggesting that the assault had been orchestrated to distract us from the war in Iran, the struggling economy, the Epstein files. Several news sites reported that the word “staged” had appeared in more than 300,000 posts on Tiwtter/X. This new attack, people were claiming, was no more credible than the 2024 shooting from which [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) emerged with a wounded – and almost miraculously undamaged – ear. And, many across the nation wondered, didn’t it seemed suspicious that the president seemed so unruffled by this new eruption of violence that he pivoted almost immediately to explaining why this event [demonstrated the urgent need](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-correspondents-dinner-shooting-white-house-ballroom-rcna342180) for the ultra-high-security White House ballroom that he has been so passionately planning to construct? Within a few hours, we learned that the shooter had been caught and identified as a 31-year-old Californian with an engineering degree who had allegedly sent his family members a “manifesto” expressing his anger at the president and the members of his administration. But his capture did little to neutralize the fears that, it seems to me, the story has inspired. The first and most obvious of these concerns is that many Americans, including myself, have grown so accustomed to being deceived that we no longer know precisely whom we can trust and what we can believe. As a consequence, we’ve become inclined to doubt everything the government tells us. Again and again, our political leaders and cultural figures have been caught in lies ranging from the trivial to the catastrophic, exposed for misrepresenting the truth in ways intended to conceal previous misrepresentations. Most of us know that we are not hearing the full story about the war in Iran and that the true villains in the Epstein scandal have remained unindicted. We’ve watched present and former cabinet members – Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Robert F Kennedy Jr and others – refusing to answer direct questions during congressional hearings, inquiries that would have led to the exposure of a wide range of purposely orchestrated and deeply disturbing cover-ups and distortions. We’ve seen high-ranking officials deny behaviors that we can plainly observe on our phones. Given the near-daily barrage of falsehoods to which we have been exposed, surely the average American can be forgiven for harboring some healthy skepticism about what transpired at the White House correspondents’ dinners – and why precisely it occurred. What’s equally disturbing is how this latest incident illustrates the horrifying degree to which violence in general and political violence in particular have been normalized. Massacres and school shootings rarely make the headlines unless the body count is exceptionally high. On this most recent occasion, some commentators appeared less concerned by the danger that had been posed to the president than by the question of why he had been invited to address a gathering of journalists, quite a few of whom he had personally insulted or worked diligently to silence. I was a senior in high school when JFK was assassinated, a senior in college when Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed, and I remember how shocking and profoundly traumatic these events were, for the entire nation. I can recall exactly where I was – waiting to meet an out-of-town-friend in a hotel lobby – on 30 March 1981 when John Hinckley Jr attempted to kill Ronald Reagan, ironically outside the same hotel, the Washington Hilton, where this year’s White House correspondents’ dinner was held. My friend and I went to the hotel bar to watch the unfolding events on TV, and though Reagan was by no means our favorite president, we were deeply shaken and on the edge of tears. Things are very different now, when one murder follows another so rapidly that we hardly have time to mourn one victim when another is tragically lost. The killings have occurred across the entire political spectrum. Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood in September 2025. Having done nothing wrong, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were shot to death by Ice agents just four months later. And we will never learn the names of the thousands and thousands of men, women and children who, in a relatively brief time, have been killed in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Iran. As a nation, as a culture, we have become so overwhelmed by the sheer number and the rapid succession of brutal and unnecessary deaths that we simply can’t process the horror and the grief. We have no idea whom we can believe and what we should sensibly doubt. Inevitably, periods of outrage will alternate with times of exhaustion and numbness; bursts of clarity will be interrupted by moments of confusion and bewilderment. It’s no longer possible but probable that people who pride themselves on retaining some vestiges of conscience, people who are still capable of being shocked, will now find themselves awakening to the latest report of some fresh calamity, some new disaster, and will be able – as I was on Sunday morning – to fall right back asleep. * Francine Prose is a former president of PEN American Center and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

 Monday's arraignment of 31-year old Cole Tomas Allen, a California man who is charged with attempting to assassinate President Trump over the weekend, opened legal proceedings that many extremism experts will be watching closely. Allen, a high school tutor with a background in mechanical engineering and computer science, allegedly attempted to storm the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner on Saturday night, where Trump and other high-level administration officials were gathered with the Washington press corps. He was stopped by federal law enforcement officers before getting close to his presumed targets. [According to a White House official](https://www.npr.org/2026/04/26/g-s1-118826/cole-allen-suspected-white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooter-profile), Allen's sister told the Secret Service and local law enforcement that her brother was known to make "radical" statements. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and NPR has not confirmed this with Allen's family members. But this characterization has puzzled some experts who track extremism, who say that it does not align with writings and social media activity that are believed to link to the defendant. "You look at the social media profiles that have been attributed to this suspect and they're really not that radical," said Jared Holt, senior researcher at Open Measures, a company that tracks online threats and narratives. "Oftentimes it's like quite centrist, pretty moderate left wing, if anything." An affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of the charges claims that Allen sent an email to members of his family moments before initiating the attack. The email specifies some grievances against Trump administration officials and policies. "I'm not the person raped in a detention camp. I'm not the fisherman executed without trial. I'm not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration," the letter states. The letter appears to reference a range of issues from immigration detentions under the Trump administration, U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, the bombing of a girls' school in Iran and the Epstein scandal. In an apparent reference to Trump, the letter also says "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." But Holt and others say these views, however pointed some of the terminology may be, fall within a modern mainstream left. He and others say it is very unclear what may have tipped the individual from such widely held views into an alleged violent plot. "That's part of what's troubling, is when you start to have people who are kind of seemingly normal, law-abiding members of society feeling like violence is the solution," said Cynthia Miller-Idriss, founding director and chief vision officer at the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab, or PERIL, at American University. "I think there's a little bit of nihilism reflected here," Miller-Idriss said. "This idea that there is no more solution, violence is the answer, nothing else is going to change, nothing else is going to be effective." The alleged assassination attempt is the latest high-profile data point in a growing environment of political violence in the U.S. over the last decade. While most of that is attributed to the far right, [there is alarm](https://www.npr.org/2025/10/25/nx-s1-5583997/political-violence-left-right-wing) about rising violence from the left. Even amidst this backdrop, however, Holt and Miller-Idriss both note that the weekend incident at the Washington Hilton hotel stands out. For starters, Holt said he's seen no indication that the defendant was steeped in conspiratorial thinking. He said that more typically, people behind acts of violent extremism are nursing grievances fed by false narratives. "If you were to just kind of randomly bump into one of these people on the street, you might get the sense that something was a little off," Holt said. "Whereas this seems -- just looking at, you know, this BlueSky profile that's been attributed to the suspect and this document that's been attributed to the suspect – I'm not getting that same kind of read." In addition, Miller-Idriss said the defendant's presumed writings suggest that he felt personally responsible for not having taken action sooner against the administration. She said they do not appear intended to incite others to take similar action, or to spread a particular ideological message. The tone is one of "defeatism," Miller-Idriss said, which contrasts with a more typical pattern of political violence, particularly from the far right. "I don't think you usually see the defeatism on the far right, \[which is\] more of a mobilization of martyrdom, of wanting attention, of wanting to launch a movement, to be a firestarter, that kind of thing," she said. "This is like a much more hopeless kind of language and rhetoric being used." Holt said this tone is troubling, not simply because of how it may connect to the violence that Allen is alleged to have been planning. But also because it may signal that on the left, there may be a growing perception that the levers of democracy can no longer work to effect change. "That is a bleak point for an individual to get to," Holt said. "But I also think that people are getting to that point now should be cause for reflection for people who work in politics or who work in advocacy, or whatever it may be, that \[with\] the many problems that we're up against today, there is a subset of the American population that's losing hope and is having a hard time imagining a way out of it."

In the end, it was a royal triumph, as King Charles and Queen Camilla managed to avoid all the mines in their path (the strait of Hormuz is not the only place where they exist), and deftly repair the “special relationship”. For another few weeks, anyway. There were plenty of reasons to be anxious, on both sides of the Atlantic, before the king’s visit to Washington and New York. It is no secret that Donald Trump’s war of choice against Iran has alienated Great Britain, and all of the Nato allies, who were [not consulted in advance](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/04/09/nato-iran-rutte-trump-hormuz-support/2fb45ce0-340d-11f1-b85b-2cd751275c1d_story.html) of the decision and have since been browbeaten for [what Trump perceives](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/nato-countries-dont-want-get-involved-iran-operation-trump-says-2026-03-17) as [insufficient fealty](https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-iran-war-rutte-allies-europe-b2954206.html). During his many fits of pique, the president has [attacked Keir Starmer](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/03/02/exclusive-trump-very-disappointed-in-starmer-over-iran/) with particular ferocity, simply because the prime minister briefly refused British basing rights to Americans at the outset (Starmer later [reversed course](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/uk-airbases-us-attack-iran-trump-starmer)). That has deepened an Anglo-American rift that was already widening over [Greenland](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/05/keir-starmer-backs-danish-pm-donald-trump-threats-us-greenland-denmark), [tariffs](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/15/trump-us-uk-trade-deal-starmer-iran), [the Chagos Islands](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chagos-islands-uk-mauritius-explainer), and the [Epstein files](https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-stonewalls-british-probe-into-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/), which, oddly, have caused more damage in the UK than in the US (for the moment, at least). Unsurprisingly, these tensions have degraded relations. Some in Parliament were [calling on](https://time.com/article/2026/04/24/uk-lawmakers-king-charles-us-visit-canceled-calls-trump-iran-war/) King Charles to cancel the trip. Wisely, he kept calm and carried on, charming nearly all constituencies in the United States (not a simple task, given how divided the country is). The carefully choreographed visit included a [stately speech to Congress](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/29/how-king-charles-speech-written-how-to-read), interrupted many times by [standing ovations](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/28/king-charles-congress-trump). The speech was better, perhaps, than a dysfunctional Congress deserved, full of wit, learning, and a deep understanding of US history. It might have been awkward for Charles to celebrate a Declaration of Independence that called his ancestor George III a tyrant; or to honor a revolution that separated 13 large colonies from the realm. But he did so gracefully, [quoting the Declaration’s](https://apnews.com/article/king-charles-iii-us-congress-speech-9ff638ae63a41289dbd9ebfbb550e40e) egalitarian phrases with far more assurance than Trump ever has. Daringly, he slipped in statements that might even be perceived as critiques, if not so artfully tucked into otherwise glowing paragraphs about the relationship. The king asserted his respect for the limits on the executive that fortify democracy in both countries (something that speaker Mike Johnson, seated behind the King, seems loath to articulate). And he slipped in several stirring environmental thoughts, including a paean to “nature” (an important word in the Declaration), and a strong adverb – “disastrously” – to describe the melting icecaps in the Arctic. Though not quite a Love Actually moment, in which a British leader dresses down a rude president, still, it was impressive, like watching a skilled fencer overcome a slow opponent with a rapier. The state dinner continued the love-fest, with more charming remarks, and Trump on his best behavior, beaming toward the king throughout the evening. Even a notoriously hard-to-please audience, America’s late night comedians, were [besotted](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/arts/television/late-night-king-charles-comedy.html). Charles scored another hit with his gift – [a brass bell from the HMS Trump](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/29/us/hms-trump-submarine-king-charles-ww2.html), a British submarine that served in the second world war. It was not quite a royal orb, but close, and the president was obviously bedazzled. So bedazzled that he tried to enlist the support of the King by [asserting (without evidence)](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/king-charles-agrees-with-me-on-iran-nuclear-weapon-ban-says-trump) that Charles [agrees with him](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/king-charles-agrees-with-me-on-iran-nuclear-weapon-ban-says-trump) that Iran should never have nuclear weapons. But that reckless comment, like so many presidential statements in the last month, simply floated into the ether after persuading no one. The next day brought a visit to New York, and a busy schedule that included visits to the 9/11 Memorial, an urban farm in Harlem, the New York Public Library, and an evening gala. The only glitch occurred when New York’s charismatic young mayor, Zohran Mamdani, [suggested Britain should return](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/king-charles-visit-zohran-mamdani-nyc) the Koh-I-Noor, a huge and historic diamond appropriated by the British from a 10-year-old maharajah in India in 1849. It was an awkward moment, but it does raise a question: if the king had given a few of the crown jewels instead of an old bell to the bling-crazy president, who knows what he might have asked for in return? Nebraska? The entire United States? That would have been an interesting way to wrap up a visit designed to honor the American Revolution. Before the visit, a friend of mine jokingly wondered if Americans would plan any “No Kings” rallies during the royal visit, to use the name of the anti-Trump protests held in October and March. But it turned out the royal visit was itself something of a No Kings rally, in that it reasserted many of the democratic values that undergird an old but troubled friendship. The difficult issues have not disappeared: a [reported US proposal](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/24/could-donald-trump-withdraw-us-support-uk-sovereignty-falklands) to withdraw support for British sovereignty in the Falklands. [Diego Garcia](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-us-israel-war-updates-2026/card/iran-targeted-diego-garcia-base-with-ballistic-missiles-rb7MdZW1CfwRTauDYHOt). British consumers paying exorbitant costs for gas and home heating. A war in Iran that will not end well, with most US goals unmet, American prestige damaged, and allies resentful of rough treatment from the Trump administration. But the visit did a great deal of good, using soft power to rub the edges off these hard differences. In what is surely a good sign for Starmer, the president has begun [launching tirades](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/30/trump-tells-merz-to-fix-his-broken-country-in-new-attack-on-german-chancellor) at Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany. US-UK relations are clearly better at the end of April than they were at the beginning. For a happy 72 hours, the climate improved perceptibly, thanks to a king with a surprisingly sure common touch. * Ted Widmer is a former presidential speechwriter, and the author of a forthcoming book in June, The Living Declaration: A Biography of America’s Founding Text (Library of America)

[](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-1) Illustration: Guardian Design/Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images Lawyers for Leon Black, the billionaire investor who has been accused in a civil lawsuit of raping a teenage girl inside [Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/jeffrey-epstein)’s New York townhouse in 2002, reached out to a powerful federal judge in 2024 to raise doubts about the alleged victim’s claims, a Guardian investigation has found. The move set off a months-long court proceeding, which was conducted outside public view and led the US district judge Jed Rakoff to reverse a $2.5m award that had been granted to the alleged victim in a separate Epstein-related class action lawsuit, according to court records. She was later given a much smaller settlement in the class action case. Jane Doe, as she is known in court filings, has claimed she was [trafficked by Epstein](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/jeffrey-epstein-charged-manhattan-federal-court-sex-trafficking-minors) and raped by Black when she was a teenager more than two decades ago. The Guardian’s investigation is revealing new details about the private communications in Black’s legal campaign, which undermined Doe in her civil lawsuit against the Wall Street billionaire. In a recent court order, Doe faced a significant setback when Jessica Clarke – the federal judge presiding over her civil lawsuit against Black – [sanctioned Doe and her former lawyer for “serious, sanctionable misconduct in this case”. Judge Clarke said Doe’s former lawyer](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-sanctions-leon-black-rape-accuser-lawyer-2026-04-24/) had “repeatedly lied to the court and opposing counsel”, and directed her client to destroy a social media account. Doe was sanctioned for having “falsified” some sonogram images that appeared in personal journals, which were submitted to the court as evidence of her abuse by Epstein. However, it was not a complete victory for Black, as the judge also ruled that the high-stakes lawsuit could proceed. Black, the [74-year-old former Apollo Global Management CEO](https://airmail.news/issues/2023-8-5/the-158-million-question), paid [Epstein $170m](https://airmail.news/issues/2023-8-19/the-158-million-question-part-ii), according to an [investigation by the Senate finance committee](https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-releases-new-information-on-financing-of-jeffrey-epsteins-operations-by-billionaire-leon-black-seeks-documents-from-trump-administration), which he says was for tax and estate planning. Black has denied allegations that he raped or ever met Doe, who is now 40 years old. He has never been charged with any crimes in connection to Epstein or otherwise. The Epstein scandal has prompted questions about why the accused sex trafficker’s elite circle of friends and associates has not faced greater scrutiny. That may change. Black is due to testify before the House oversight committee on 26 June, according to a person familiar with the matter, as part of the committee’s investigation into, among other things, [Epstein’s sex-trafficking rings](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/03.3.2026-Leon-Black-TI-Request.pdf). He is also facing questions from the [Democratic senator Ron Wyden](https://airmail.news/issues/2025-12-13/the-158-170-million-question-part-iii), [who claimed in a recent letter to Black](https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senator_wyden_letter_to_leon_black_redacted.pdf) that the Epstein files released by the Department of Justice “remove any lingering doubt” as to whether Black was “connected to women in Epstein’s network” and alleged that “powerful associates in the US and abroad were surveilling and paying off women on \[Black’s\] behalf”. Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, called Wyden’s assertions “outrageous and false” in an emailed statement, and characterized the senator’s comments as a “politically motivated attack”. The Guardian’s investigation, based on access to extensive court records, many of which are still under seal but are due to be unsealed soon, reveals how Black and his legal team’s private pleas to a federal judge led to a legal battle involving extensive written submissions and multiple hearings in a case in which he was not a party. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-2) Jed Rakoff, a US district judge for the southern district of New York, was nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1995. Photograph: The Washington Post/Getty Images It included an extraordinary personal appeal from Black to Judge Rakoff, a well-known and respected jurist based in the southern district of [New York](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/new-york). The written message, which was obtained by the Guardian, portrayed Black as a victim, invoking the death of Black’s father, disputing Doe’s credibility and citing the damage the allegations have done to Black’s reputation. It was submitted by the billionaire’s lawyers days before Rakoff denied the $2.5m award that Doe was due to receive in the Epstein-related class action lawsuit. In another twist, Black’s legal effort was bolstered by a high-profile lawyer who is publicly heralded as an advocate for Epstein’s victims. All these communications occurred outside public view. In an exclusive statement to the Guardian in which Doe described her feelings about what has transpired, she said: “We are often taught that the justice system is there to protect victims and correct wrongs. My experience has shown me that it is far more complicated than that. Justice is not always blind. It is often shaped by power, access, and who is able to withstand the process. I am still here. And I am not done.” [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-3) Leon Black was chair and CEO of Apollo Global Management until he stepped down in March 2021, in the wake of revelations he had paid tens of millions of dollars to Epstein. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images Jane Doe takes Leon Black to court ---------------------------------- In July 2023, Jane Doe alleged in a legal complaint filed against Leon Black in the southern district of New York that [Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/jeffrey-epstein) introduced her to Black at Epstein’s townhouse in late spring of 2002. She was 16 years old. Black, who is worth an estimated $14bn, was the chair and chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management, a private equity firm he co-founded and led [until he stepped down](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/22/leon-black-quits-apollo-jeffrey-epstein-ties-inquiry) in March 2021, in the wake of revelations he had paid tens of millions of dollars to Epstein. Black has said the payments were for legitimate financial advice and that he was “completely unaware” of misconduct by Epstein, who in emails released earlier this year by the Department of Justice sometimes referred to Black as [“Mr Big”](https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01751488.pdf). Apollo announced in January 2021 that an [internal review by the Dechert LLP](https://www.apollo.com/insights-news/pressreleases/2021/01/apollo-global-management-announces-conclusion-and-release-of-independent-review-211549270) law firm, which Apollo’s board commissioned to investigate Black’s “previous professional relationship” with Epstein, found Black’s payments to Epstein were for “bona fide” financial services. The report found there was “no evidence” that Black was involved in Epstein’s criminal activities. That review has since faced scrutiny, however, including by Senator Wyden, who claimed his staff uncovered evidence that money paid by Black to Epstein “[was used to finance Epstein’s sex-trafficking operations](https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-releases-new-information-on-financing-of-jeffrey-epsteins-operations-by-billionaire-leon-black-seeks-documents-from-trump-administration)”. Black’s lawyer called Wyden’s “attack” on the Dechert report “completely baseless”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-4) Senate Democrats hold a news conference on the release of the Epstein files in Washington DC on 16 December 2025. From left: Dick Durbin, Ron Wyden, Chuck Schumer and Amy Klobuchar. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images In her legal complaint, Doe alleged that Epstein told her that Black was his “special friend” and that because she was Epstein’s “special girl”, he had chosen her to give Black the same kind of “massage treatment” that she gave to him. Doe understood, according to her legal complaint, this meant that she was expected to strip naked and have sex. But when Doe and Black went up to a third-floor massage room, she alleged in her complaint, Black threw her down on the massage table and then abused her vaginally and anally with sex toys. He then bit her vagina, she alleged, causing bleeding and extreme pain. Reflexively, the complaint says, Doe kicked him. In response, the complaint alleges, he became enraged, then raped her. Doe alleged in her complaint that the internal abrasions she suffered from the alleged attack that day continued to cause her pain more than 20 years later. The complaint describes Doe as having autism. While she has an above-average IQ, the complaint alleges, her neurodivergence makes her “extremely trusting”. In a subsequent amended complaint filed by Doe’s then lawyer, Jeanne Christensen, claims about the alleged assault by Black remained substantially the same. Some key details about how Doe said she met [Ghislaine Maxwell](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ghislaine-maxwell) and was trafficked by both Maxwell and Epstein changed significantly, according to a later court order. The Guardian has not independently verified any of Doe’s claims. Black’s attorneys have said Doe’s allegations are “entirely fabricated”. Black’s lawyers have also [previously called for Wigdor, the law firm that represented Doe until last year, to be legally sanctioned](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/leon-black-seeks-sanctions-against-law-firm-pressing-rape-claims-2022-12-16/) for relying on “false allegations and made-up stories” in other cases. When Doe had filed the suit against Black, Wigdor had already filed two other lawsuits against Black on behalf of women who also alleged he raped them. One was a lawsuit by [Guzel Ganieva](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/22/new-york-leon-black-court-case-scandal), a Russian model and former mistress [whose claim was dismissed](https://nypost.com/2025/01/16/business/billionaire-leon-black-defeats-defamation-claim-by-guzel-ganieva/) because she had previously signed a non-disclosure agreement, for which she had been paid $9.5m by Black. The other lawsuit, filed by a woman named Cheri Pierson, who alleged that Black had raped her at Epstein’s townhouse, was “discontinued with prejudice and without costs to any party as against the other”. Black has said he never met Pierson. Black’s lawyers have said the [allegations by both women had no merit](https://www.reuters.com/legal/apollo-co-founder-leon-black-wins-dismissal-rape-accusers-lawsuit-2023-05-24/). [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-5) Jeffrey Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan. Photograph: Erik Pendzich/Rex/Shutterstock Even as she pursued a civil lawsuit against Black, Doe was involved in another legal case in the southern district of New York – this one connected to the crimes Epstein was accused of before his 2019 suicide. In 2022, a class of Epstein victims sued JPMorgan Chase, alleging that the bank had violated anti-sex-trafficking laws because of its participation and “intentional involvement” in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. The victims were represented by Bradley Edwards, the Florida plaintiffs’ lawyer who has represented hundreds of Epstein victims and is famous for helping to expose the 2008 “sweetheart” non-prosecution agreement that shielded Epstein for years. The JPMorgan class action lawsuit, which was overseen by Judge Rakoff, settled for $290m dollars in June 2023 without an admission of liability, though JPMorgan said it regretted its association with Epstein. It included a fund for Epstein abuse survivors, to compensate them for physical and emotional injuries. A claims administrator was appointed to oversee the fund. Edwards’ firm, Edwards Henderson, together with co-counsel Boies Schiller, [were paid $87m](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65894178/doe-1-v-jp-morgan-chase-co/?page=3#:~:text=The%20Court%20awards%20Boies%20Schiller%20Flexner%20LLP,rate%20as%20that%20earned%20on%20the%20Qualified) for their work representing Epstein victims in the JPMorgan class action lawsuit. In late October 2023, Doe was interviewed by the claims administrator in the JPMorgan case. She later found out she was being allocated $2.5m. It was a moment of elation for Doe, her adoptive mother told the Guardian, because it was the first time she felt that her trauma was being recognized. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-6) The JPMorgan Chase global headquarters building in New York. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images Judge Rakoff approved the claims administrator’s proposed allocations on 5 January 2024, including the allocation for Doe. But he said he intended to exercise an “oversight role” to ensure the allocation of class funds was “fair and reasonable”. The oversight role would be _ex parte_, he said, meaning that each side of any conflict could make their case to the judge, without the other side being aware of it. It was unusual for Rakoff. The judge, who [has been called a “true judicial maverick”](https://davidlat.substack.com/p/judge-jed-rakoff-sdny-scotus-supreme-court-podcast-interview), has spoken publicly about the importance of transparency in the justice system. “Everything needs to be public,” the judge told the New York Times in 2009. “… The legitimacy of the courts comes from the fact that they reason openly, on the record, based on facts.” In January 2024, within days of Doe finding out about her $2.5m allocation, her Wigdor lawyer, who was participating in a mediation with Black’s counsel involving another client’s case, disclosed that Doe had been allocated a major award in the JPMorgan settlement, according to a chronology of events described in a 2026 court order. What happened next would later be characterized by Doe’s then lawyer as a violation of confidentiality. Black’s counsel, Susan Estrich, contacted Judge Rakoff on Black’s behalf. In a 21 February 2024 private and undocketed letter to Rakoff, Estrich claimed that Doe was perpetrating “serious fraud” on the court and was not a real Epstein victim, according to a court order that subsequently described Estrich’s letter. According to someone familiar with the matter, Estrich – who was not representing a party in the JPMorgan case – acknowledged in the letter that reaching out to Judge Rakoff was “unorthodox”. Estrich declined to comment on questions by the Guardian about this exchange. In the letter, Estrich asked Rakoff to open an inquiry into Doe and the allocation, according to a person familiar with the matter, and said she had “reason to believe” that the court-appointed class counsel – Brad Edwards and other lawyers – “would have directly relevant information to bear on the issues”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-7) Susan Estrich, Leon Black’s lawyer, contacted Judge Rakoff in February 2024, claiming Jane Doe was perpetrating ‘serious fraud’. Photograph: Variety/Penske Media/Getty Images Estrich’s letter succeeded: Rakoff and Edwards, representing class counsel, agreed to take a “closer look” at Doe’s claim, court records show. Legal experts consulted by the Guardian said an intervention, such as the one made by Estrich on Black’s behalf, raised questions, because such outside legal interventions in a proceeding are quite limited. “Somebody who has an interest in a piece of litigation may not intervene in some other dispute of a party against whom he is opposed just because he would like to do them damage in that case. That’s not how the system works. You litigate your own cases,” said Sam Issacharoff, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, who is a leading scholar on class action lawsuits. In theory, if a lawyer for a defendant who is accused of rape writes to a judge in a class action, in which that alleged victim has been given a claim, it could even be seen as a way of “harassing them and calling their testimony into disrepute”, he added. “It’s not allowed if it’s malintentioned, and the line between what’s allowed and what’s malintentioned is a very difficult one.” The Guardian reached out to Judge Rakoff for comment. His law clerk said in an emailed statement: “It is a matter of record that the great majority of Epstein-related proceedings before Judge Rakoff have been sealed at the express request of the various counsel for Epstein’s victims in order to protect the victims’ identifying information, and that all parties have at all times consented to this sealing. Beyond this, Judge Rakoff is prohibited by law from responding to your questions, as they relate, directly or indirectly, to an ongoing proceeding before Judge Clarke.” A call from attorney Brad Edwards --------------------------------- On 2 August 2023, this reporter – preparing to publish an article in another publication – reached out to Leon Black’s spokesperson, Whit Clay, with a list of questions about financial and sexual allegations related to Black’s ties to Epstein. The email included one question about the lawsuit that Doe had filed against Black a week earlier. Two days later, Black’s team emailed a response, including a statement from Estrich, Black’s lawyer, about Doe’s case, predicting it would be “promptly dismissed”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-8) Lawyers David Boies, left, and Brad Edwards speak to the press after a bail hearing in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking case, on 15 July 2019 in New York City. Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images Later that same morning, this reporter got an unexpected call on her mobile phone from a number she did not recognize. The caller introduced himself as Brad Edwards, class counsel in the Epstein victims’ lawsuit against JPMorgan, which had settled for $290m one month earlier. As class counsel, Edwards said he had been in touch with the entire class of victims and had access to hundreds of thousands of documents. When a particular case gets too much attention, he said, according to a contemporaneous record of the call, people would call up with stories about being victims of Epstein and he would have to sift through and figure out if they were true. “Not one piece of \[Doe’s\] story could ever be corroborated and a lot of what she says just definitely could not have ever happened,” Edwards said. He said he knew Doe was alleging she had met Black through Epstein. “So, in order for the Leon part to be true, the trafficking to Jeffrey Epstein would have to be true,” Edwards said. He said “the timeline” of Doe’s claims “can’t make sense for many reasons”, but when pressed for details he said he could not say more, because it could “expose other clients”. After making these comments, Edwards said he wanted his remarks to be “off the record”, meaning they should not be published. But according to principles widely followed by journalists, a reporter and source must agree information is “off the record” before the information is shared, not after. This reporter had not agreed that comments Edwards made about Doe were “off the record”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-9) Leon Black at the 2010 Milken Institute global conference in Los Angeles, California. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images Edwards, it would later emerge, appeared to have had other dealings with Black’s lawyers months before that phone call. The [New York Times reported](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/business/leon-black-settlement-jeffrey-epstein-claims.html) in 2023 that Edwards, in his capacity as an attorney for Epstein victims, attended a multi-day mediation between Black’s counsel and lawyers representing the US Virgin Islands, which concluded with Black agreeing to pay a $62.5m settlement to the US Virgin Islands in January 2023 in order for Black to be “released from any potential claims” related to local authorities’ investigation of Epstein’s sex trafficking in the territory. The New York Times noted at the time that the settlement – which had come to light in response to a public records request by the newspaper – showed the extent to which Black, once a Wall Street titan, had gone to limit scrutiny of his “decades-long social and business ties” to Epstein. Edwards declined to comment at the time and Black said the settlement was meant to resolve any potential claims that had arisen out of the “unintended consequences” of payments he had made to Epstein for “legitimate financial advisory services”. ‘I could not believe this was happening’ ---------------------------------------- Six months after Edwards’ surprise call to this reporter, a court order in Doe’s lawsuit against Black would later show, Edwards and his colleague Brittany Henderson sent a sealed letter to Judge Rakoff as part of the inquiry that had been launched into Doe’s claims. The 26 February 2024 letter described Doe’s account as “inconsistent” and said there were doubts she was a “veritable victim of Epstein and his associates”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-10) Attorney Brittany Henderson speaks at a news conference with alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein outside the US Capitol on 3 September 2025. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images Days later, on 1 March 2024, the then lawyer for Doe, Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor, sent her own letter to Judge Rakoff, criticizing the intervention by Black’s lawyers in the JPMorgan case and accusing “class counsel” – Edwards and Henderson – of acting improperly, according to a later court order describing the chronology of events. Christensen also disclosed a new potential bombshell: Doe had kept journals from ages 16 to 19 that, the lawyer alleged, documented her abuse. The journals had been kept in a storage unit belonging to Doe’s adoptive family, she claimed. The journals were school notebooks; there was one for each year from ages 16 to 19, beginning on her birthday, and each had a similar format. They had a scrapbook-like feel in that they contained magazine clippings and sonograms from her pregnancies, according to court filings. The text of her journals was written in gel pen in a simple two-line zigzag code meant to disguise a first-hand account of the violence allegedly perpetrated on her by Black, Epstein, Maxwell and others, according to court records. One entry states: “ … Mr Black is so important for some reason over my health. There is going to be hell to pay. I ruined their trip and I am dramatic when that fat fuck bit me! He threw me on the floor and blood all over Jeffreys carpet and I am the issue?” Another entry contains a typed copy of Sylvia Plath’s poem Stopped Dead. Several lines are underlined, including “fatso, millionaire”. The name Leon Black is handwritten next to the title, arranged in a coded pattern. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-11) Sylvia Plath’s poem Stopped Dead. Photograph: US Department of Justice Excerpts of the journals are included in Doe’s amended lawsuit and were released by the Department of Justice as part of the Epstein files earlier this year. In a statement to the Guardian, Black’s lawyer said the Guardian was ignoring the “outlandish nature” of claims in Doe’s journals, such as “that she had been trafficked by Epstein to 50 different men”, including powerful politicians. On 15 March 2024, less than a month after Rakoff received Estrich’s _ex parte_ letter, he convened the first hearing in the Jane Doe inquiry. At the hearing, for which Rakoff sealed the courtroom, Doe was put on the stand and cross-examined by Edwards. “I can’t discuss the substance of what she was asked,” said Doe’s adoptive mother, who was present at the 15 March hearing and was speaking publicly about it for the first time. But Edwards’ questioning, she told the Guardian, “was surreal. I could not believe this was happening.” “He questioned my daughter in a way that was aggressive and invasive. I was shocked by his tone, especially because he was there as class counsel, which meant that he should have been safeguarding her as a claimant rather than subjecting her to a hostile interrogation like you’d expect in a criminal proceeding,” she said. Edwards did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about his cross-examination of Doe. Black’s lawyers were barred from attending the hearing, despite their objections. A court order filed publicly in April 2026 by Judge Clarke, who is presiding over Doe’s case against Black, disclosed some details about the private proceedings. It described Doe’s 15 March testimony before Rakoff as being “at times, far-fetched”. Among her claims, Doe had described how she had been the victim of an “impregnation game”, and forced to carry out pregnancies from men who sexually abused her. In a court order, Doe is described as having testified that Epstein fathered four of her five children, though Doe’s lawyer later said in court that Doe was only sharing what Epstein “told her, not a representation of the truth”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-12) Jessica Clarke, a US district judge for the southern district of New York, was nominated to the bench by Joe Biden in 2023. Photograph: Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters A 2019 article by the [New York Times described how Epstein told scientists and businessmen](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html) “about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies”. Judge Rakoff, the court order said, considered Doe’s journals “to be central” in determining Doe’s credibility. Rakoff appointed an expert to assess the ink dating on Doe’s journals. The results were inconclusive. Rakoff convened another hearing on 8 July, this time by Zoom, without either Doe’s lawyer or Edwards present. These conditions had been agreed to by both parties, the judge presiding over Doe’s lawsuit against Black later wrote in a court order. Among other topics Rakoff asked Doe about was her relationship with Maxwell, and the frequency with which she was allegedly trafficked to Epstein while she was in high school. “Just so the claimant understands,” Rakoff said, according to an excerpt from the hearing’s transcript, which is cited in a separate legal order, “all of us, I feel, have a great deal of sympathy for you. You’ve had a very harsh life and our hearts go out to you.” The Doe inquiry culminated on 19 July 2024 with an extraordinary letter to Judge Rakoff from both Estrich and fellow Black attorney Michael Carlinsky, who is co-managing partner of the law firm Quinn Emanuel. The letter, which was obtained by the Guardian, contained within it a personal, emotional appeal from Black to Rakoff. Black’s lawyers stated in the letter that they were aware that Rakoff intended to issue his ruling in the Doe matter by 31 July. Estrich and Carlinsky said they had learned from a colleague at the Paul, Weiss law firm, which has also represented Black, that Rakoff had “raised the question” about whether Black might reach a settlement with Doe. It is not clear to which Paul, Weiss colleague the lawyers were referring. Brad Karp, the one-time chair of Paul, Weiss, was a known associate of Judge Rakoff. The two [reportedly had dinner on a somewhat regular basis, according to a 2017 book](https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/08/judge-jed-rakoff-has-regularly-dined-in-the-past-with-the-chairman-of-the-law-firm-that-just-got-a-big-win-in-his-court-in-the-jpmorgan-sex-trafficking-case/#:~:text=Eisinger%20writes%20this:,%2C%20the%20Leopard%2C%20Telepan.%E2%80%9D). Karp resigned from the chairmanship of Paul, Weiss in February, in the wake of revelations of his personal dealings with Epstein. Karp did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment. Black had no interest in settling with Doe, the two lawyers, Estrich and Carlinsky, wrote. They then shared an impassioned appeal from Black that they said the financier had asked them to convey to the judge. Both lawyers declined to comment on the 19 July letter. “The idea of settling with Jane Doe, Douglas Wigdor and the Wigdor firm is repellent to every core value I hold dear,” Black stated. “From childhood, my father, a former rabbi, taught me the importance of _Shem Tov_ \[Hebrew for ‘A Good Name’\],” he wrote. Doe’s lawyers at the Wigdor firm, Black said, had “disregarded the truth and behaved in what I believe to be profoundly unethical ways”. “Not since my father’s death 49 years ago have I felt such pain and seen such hurt inflicted on those I love … I cannot settle with Jane Doe and the Wigdor firm, not only because of the damage their lies have caused, but more importantly, because I don’t know how I could look my children and grandchildren in the eyes and teach them the importance of _Shem Tov_.” Invoking his father’s death in a letter to Rakoff was a striking choice. Black’s father, Eli Black, had been a socially prominent New Yorker and the CEO of a global company, the Chiquita banana importer United Brands. But on 3 February 1975, Eli Black killed himself by jumping out of the window of his 44th-floor office in the Pan Am Building on Park Avenue. After his death, it was revealed that he had authorized a $2.5m bribe to the president of Honduras in a bid to get lower export taxes on bananas. When United Brands was ultimately charged with criminal conspiracy on account of the scheme, Eli Black was, according to the New York Times, [posthumously named as a co‐conspirator](https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/20/archives/guilty-plea-in-foreign-bribe-case-united-brands-fined-15000-in-plot.html). [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-13) The 4 February 1975 New York Times article reporting the death of Eli M Black, Leon Black’s father. Photograph: The New York Times While Black did not share any details of his father’s death and its aftermath in his appeal to Rakoff, he did not need to; the rising star federal prosecutor who charged United Brands was none other than a young Jed Rakoff. Judge Rakoff declined to comment on questions about the personal message. As with other documents he received during the Doe inquiry, Rakoff did not enter the letter containing Black’s personal appeal into the JPMorgan class action’s publicly accessible docket. Lawyers and legal experts the Guardian spoke to said they found Rakoff’s decision to make his oversight role _ex parte_ to be unusual. One thing that sets class action cases apart from other cases is the “level of transparency” required, said Chris Seeger, a class action lawyer who was co-lead counsel on a class action lawsuit against the NFL. “Everything you do is out in the open, that’s the whole idea … No side deals. No secrets,” Seeger said. Rakoff ruled to rescind Doe’s $2.5m JPMorgan allocation in its entirety on 31 July 2024, less than two weeks after receiving Black’s personal appeal. He also withdrew Doe from the US Virgin Islands (USVI) Mental Health Fund for Epstein survivors, a class of which she was now officially no longer a member. For Doe, it was a crushing blow, her adoptive mother told the Guardian. As Doe would recount nearly one year later in a sealed court declaration in her claim against Black, Black’s letter to Rakoff “was accepted without notice to me and was apparently considered prior to a final ruling, despite raising emotionally laden arguments about \[Black’s\] character and suffering. Meanwhile, I was never permitted to submit a narrative, impact statement, or rebuttal.” She also had “serious concerns about inappropriate influence and access”, saying she had “no equivalent means” of communicating with the court. “That Defendant’s team had such access underscores the systemic imbalance that plagued these proceedings,” she wrote. Judge Rakoff declined to comment. The sealed declaration, which was seen by the Guardian, also hit back against some of the claims Doe said were made by Brad Edwards. Doe claimed, for example, that Edwards had asserted that no other victims had recognized Doe, even though – Doe claimed – he had only consulted two individuals. Doe said Edwards had also dismissed “physical evidence” that supported her “connection to Epstein”, including photographs from Martha’s Vineyard, by stating Epstein had not been to Martha’s Vineyard. In fact, Doe said, there is evidence Epstein spent time on the island, which has subsequently been reported by [ITV News](https://www.itv.com/news/2026-03-13/itv-news-uncovers-first-photo-of-andrew-mandelson-and-epstein-together) and [the New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/magazine/jeffrey-epstein-money-scams-investigation.html). Edwards did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about Doe’s claims. Doe pushed back, too, against claims that have been submitted to the court about her by an investigator working for Black’s legal team, such as the claim that she had a “personality disorder”, not autism, and that her biological family said that Doe had a “history of making up alternate realities”. Doe’s own records, a person familiar with the matter said, show she was legally adopted as an adult in the state of Virginia for “good cause”. Medical documentation, which the source said was submitted to the court, confirmed her autism diagnosis and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from long-term sexual abuse. The medical record also states Doe has no history of personality disorder or psychosis, the source said. Doe was urged by her attorneys to appeal Rakoff’s decision to rescind her $2.5m award, according to a sealed declaration she later filed. But on 21 August 2024, just three weeks after Rakoff rescinded Doe’s allocation, Rakoff signed off on a stipulation – between Doe and the JPMorgan settlement fund for Epstein survivors – granting Doe a $200,000 settlement, according to a court filing seen by the Guardian. This made her eligible – once again – to participate in the USVI Mental Health Fund. Judge Rakoff did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about the August 2024 settlement stipulation. [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black#img-14) Douglas Wigdor, founding partner of the Wigdor law firm, which represented Jane Doe until last year. Photograph: John Lamparski/Getty Images Last month, on 23 April, Judge Clarke, who is presiding over Doe’s lawsuit against Black, issued a 76-page ruling in response to Black’s motion for the case against him to be dismissed. Doe’s former lawyer, Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor, and Doe had “engaged in serious, sanctionable misconduct”, Clarke found. Christensen had “lied repeatedly to the court and to opposing counsel” about what was happening in the JPMorgan Doe inquiry and had also “directed” Doe to “destroy a relevant social media account” that Doe had used to “communicate publicly about her experiences as a purported Epstein victim”. Clarke also wrote that Doe had “falsified” three sonogram images, out of a total of 11, that had been included in Doe’s journals. Wigdor withdrew as counsel for Doe days after disavowing three of the sonograms. Doe is now representing herself in the proceeding. Estrich, Black’s attorney, said in a statement to the Guardian: “The only thing that matters is that a federal judge found as a matter of fact that Jeanne Christensen, the Wigdor law firm and Jane Doe lied … They are being punished by the federal court. Nothing they say has any credibility. They are liars and should be completely ignored.” While the order was widely seen in press reports as a serious rebuke of Doe and her legal team, Judge Clarke said the misconduct “need not doom” Doe’s case. The case will proceed. Christensen, the attorney at Wigdor, did not respond to the Guardian’s questions. Douglas Wigdor, the law firm’s founding partner, said in a press statement in response to the order: “While we are upset about the sanction, we are pleased that our former client will get her day in court.” In a letter submitted to Judge Clarke this week that referenced the sanctions, lawyers for Wigdor and Christensen asked for permission to file under seal a motion for reconsideration. Wigdor also [recently filed a separate lawsuit](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/03/leon-black-lawsuit-epstein) against Black, claiming he has deployed “multiple frivolous and malicious lawsuits” as retaliation for representing accusers. His lawyers rejected the claims. In her statement to the Guardian, Doe said she began her case as an effort to seek accountability, but she believes her lawsuit has “become something much broader”. “It has become about what happens when a system meant to provide justice instead becomes another source of harm. I have faced retaliation, misrepresentations, public scrutiny, and repeated efforts to undermine my credibility. I have been left to navigate this process alone, with limited time, limited resources, and overwhelming personal cost,” she wrote. “There were moments when I did not know if I could continue. But I made a promise to myself that I would not stop.”

In the murky world of criminal misadventure, what happened at the Likquid Lounge in Chester, New York, on a night in April 2016 may have some bearing on Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody three years later. In many ways what happened there has become a conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory. For while speculation about the actions of Epstein and his circle has long spread across the US, the Likquid Lounge is at the center of a fresh mystery of exactly how Epstein died. It was there, according to prosecutors, that 49-year-old retired cop turned cocaine dealer Nicholas Tartaglione lured four men, at least one – Martin Luna – with ties to the Mexican mafia. Tartaglione suspected Luna had stolen $250,000 from him and planned to confront him. Luna, 41, brought along two nephews and a family friend. Tartaglione allegedly forced one of Luna’s nephews to observe as he beat and strangled Luna to death with a zip tie. Tartaglione and two others then took Luna’s body, along with Miguel Luna, Urbano Santiago and Hector Gutierrez, to his dog and equine animal sanctuary in Otisville, [New York](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/new-york). The three surviving men were forced to kneel and were shot in the head, execution-style, and all four buried in a mass grave. Nine months later, after investigators connected Tartaglione to Luna, the bodies were unearthed. A neighbor said Tartaglione’s property “smelled like death”. Tartaglione was arrested and charged with kidnapping and murder. But it wasn’t until 2023 that the bodybuilder, who had a patchy career as a police officer, was convicted and sentenced to four consecutive life sentences for the killings. He’d pleaded not guilty, claiming that he’d been framed. But in that time, while held at the now-abandoned metropolitan corrections center in Manhattan, Tartaglione was placed in the same cell as Epstein, the notorious sex trafficker whose scandal as roiled American politics. It was later reported they “gotten along pretty well” as cellmates. But after Epstein was found with injuries to his neck in July 2019 – an incident that Tartaglione alerted guards to – he initially said Tartaglione attacked him. He later retracted the claim, and prison officials concluded that Epstein had tried to kill himself. Crucially, Tartaglione reported finding a note from Epstein hidden in a graphic novel he was reading but had not discovered it until four days later, after Epstein had been removed from their cell and briefly placed on suicide watch. Tartaglione passed it to his lawyers. Two weeks later, in what was ruled a suicide, Epstein was found dead in his cell. That note was finally released last week, after the New York Times petitioned the federal court in White Plains, New York, where Tartaglione was tried. “They investigated me for month – FOUND NOTHING!!!” the note begins, adding that the result was charges going back 15 years. “It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye,” the note continued. “Watcha want me to do – Bust out cryin!!” the note reads. “NO FUN,” it concludes, with those words underlined. “NOT WORTH IT!!” But it has only turned up now because it became part of a dispute between Tartaglione’s lawyers in the murder case and court-appointed lawyers assigned to fight the death penalty phase of the case should he be convicted, but prosecutors ultimately dropped their intent to seek that penalty before Tartaglione’s case came to trial. He was facing the death penalty at the time and his conduct in jail is a relevant factor in front of a jury whether or not they should they vote for death, says Tartaglione’s trial lawyer Bruce Barket. “There were some unsubstantiated allegations that he had assaulted Epstein when Epstein tried to kill himself the first time. We had the note, and we knew that wasn’t true, but we thought we could use it for those purposes,” he adds. But initially, “nobody was quite sure what it was, who wrote it, or who it belonged to, until several months later”. Plus, Barket says, “Nick had a variety of other issues to deal with, chief among them would be defending himself against a quadruple homicide allegation. Once we got passed there was no allegation that he’d harmed Epstein, it become irrelevant to us.” But the existence of the note has hardly quieted theories that Epstein was killed in jail. Mark Epstein, Epstein’s younger brother, who has long maintained Epstein was murdered in his cell, has claimed the note is a forgery. “It wouldn’t be hard to get some pro forger to forge a note,” he told Business Insider. “That’s the easiest f\*\*\*ing thing in the world to do.” He said the phrase “bust out cryin” line is a reference to the Little Rascals TV show the brothers had watched as children. The line appears in Epstein’s emails, he acknowledged, “so they stole it from me to make it sound like it was him”. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion,” says Barket, who adds that the using the note to bolster an Epstein murder scenario is “laughable” since it would require someone to have access to Epstein’s emails in 2019, six years before they were released by congressional order. “There is no conspiracy,” he says. “The idea that \[Epstein\] was murdered is absurd. He killed himself. He’d tried at least one other time and he succeeded.” The idea that Epstein was murdered, he continues, “is a great mission impossible. The idea that someone got to the 10th floor of a federal detention center and somehow snuck in, murder somebody, snuck out, and no one ever saw that person is kinda ridiculous.” Theories that it could have been someone on Epstein’s tier of cells is equally far-fetched, he says. “They’re all a bunch of knuckleheads, no offense to my client, and they’re all locked into their own cells at night.” But in the carnival funhouse of the Epstein scandal, nothing is ever accepted as it appears. The intersecting Tartaglione story is no exception and it has been taken up by blogger Jessica Reed Kraus. Tartaglione left her a voice mail last week claiming that Epstein actually wanted to be placed back in the cell with him. “Epstein offered me money to not return to general population and stay in the box with him because he felt safe with me,” he reportedly said on the voice mail. He also pointed out, “If I wanted to hurt Jeffrey Epstein, I could have hurt Jeffrey Epstein. I didn’t hurt Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.” Tartaglione is seeking to appeal his conviction on the grounds that it was obtained on shaky evidence – no murder weapon, drug money or trafficking paraphernalia was ever found, and his DNA was not found on the zip tie prosecutors said he had used to strangle Luna. His appeals lawyer Inga Parsons provided a statement to Kraus. In it, she pointed to fact that Tartaglione was prosecuted by Maurene Comey, who also led the prosecutions against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean “Diddy” Combs. “Nick is retired law enforcement. He rescues animals. He is not a killer, nor is he a member of the Mexican cartel as the main cooperator, and the men who were killed by the cartel were cartel members. Nick Tartaglione is innocent and is unjustly serving life sentences for crimes he did not commit,” Parsons said. According to Barket, his former client’s brief encounter with Epstein was neither helpful nor unhelpful to his case. “It’s an unfortunate sequence of events. I don’t think it hurt Nick at all but it didn’t help him. But it led to a long hearing involving me and my firm about our conduct around the note. All things being equal, I would have taken a pass on all this.”

The most shocking revelation in files released on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as Britain’s trade envoy isn’t that he loves golf or prefers ballet over theatre. It is that no one asked the obvious question: how risky would it be for a headline-grabbing prince with no business experience to front the UK’s commercial diplomacy [without formal vetting](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/21/security-vetting-due-diligence-prince-andrew-uk-trade-envoy)? The 11 documents that were released on Thursday show that having experience and being an expert weren’t as important as being a member of the royal family. After the Epstein scandal, those assumptions no longer look merely anachronistic. They look dangerous. [The late Queen pushed](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/21/queen-elizabeth-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-trade-envoy), wrongly as it turned out, for her son to inherit the role from the Duke of Kent, according to the papers released through a humble address motion. David Wright, then head of British Trade International, wrote that it was her wish for the then Duke of York to assume a “prominent role in the promotion of national interests”. In 2000, royalty was not peripheral to Britain’s commercial diplomacy. It was central to it. The Liberal Democrat leader, [Sir Ed Davey](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2pjg397l2o), proved his constitutional worth by getting the government to release the papers relating to the “open-ended” high-profile role for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. No other candidates were considered. The unpaid job was designed to spare him the burden of board meetings and paperwork while granting him privileged access to Britain’s trade and diplomatic networks. The files show a British establishment so dazzled by royal status that it stopped asking normal questions about power. [](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/21/the-guardian-view-on-the-mountbatten-windsor-papers-they-expose-the-collapse-of-britains-good-chap-state#img-2) Jeffrey Epstein in custody in West Palm Beach, Florida, on 30 July 2008. Photograph: Uma Sanghvi/AP Trade diplomacy is about networking: receiving “prominent” visitors, acting as host at meals and receptions, and cultivating relationships at the top. But the informal, personalised diplomacy reads differently after emails emerged that appeared to show the then trade envoy forwarding sensitive information to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. These allegations led to Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s [arrest this year](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/19/the-guardian-view-on-the-royals-and-the-law-no-more-managed-disgrace) on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He denies any wrongdoing. The memos do not prove anything in themselves. But the [papers](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-humble-address-motion-of-24-february-2026) are telling – exposing how the state functioned at the intersection of monarchy, business and diplomacy. They are painfully revealing about class assumptions and royal tastes for the “more sophisticated countries”. But more significantly they raise questions about the nature of soft power. The problem is that Britain created a lightly supervised global diplomacy role and applied minimal scrutiny. In short, optics mattered more than oversight. If it is true that sensitive information was shared with Epstein from inside Britain’s business and diplomatic networks, then the story becomes one of systemic failure. It is true that even in the late 1990s, Britain relied largely on a constitutional order built on discretion, aristocratic deference and tacit understanding. It was part of the “[good chap](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4445410.stm)” theory of government, which had its upsides: public officials acted in good faith, respected implicit limits on their power and adhered to unwritten ethical boundaries. A modern bureaucratic state starts from the assumption that people are flawed, and asks about key roles: what are the reporting lines? What conflicts checks exist? What records are retained? Where’s the compliance framework? These may sound like dry bureaucratic exercises. But they are designed precisely for moments when trust alone proves insufficient. * _**Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our [letters](https://www.theguardian.com/tone/letters) section, please [click here](mailto:[email protected]?body=Please%20include%20your%20name,%20full%20postal%20address%20and%20phone%20number%20with%20your%20letter%20below.%20Letters%20are%20usually%20published%20with%20the%20author%27s%20name%20and%20city/town/village.%20The%20rest%20of%20the%20information%20is%20for%20verification%20only%20and%20to%20contact%20you%20where%20necessary.).**_

Getty Images Todd Blanche, pictured with Trump in the press briefing room, has been the face of the fund President Donald Trump's plan to hand out $1.8bn (£1.3bn) in taxpayer funding to political allies lasted all of two weeks before his Department of Justice (DOJ) abandoned the idea amid an intense backlash from Republicans in Congress. The department's decision to officially end the "anti-weaponisation" fund on Tuesday followed a revolt within Trump's own party. Republicans threatened to derail a critical immigration bill if the administration didn't drop the plan to give public funds to Trump supporters - including, potentially, rioters who participated in the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Republican lawmakers and Trump allies viewed the controversy as an unforced error by Trump in a moment when the president and his party can least afford one. "This was a total self-inflicted wound and completely unnecessary," said a former Trump adviser who asked not to be named to speak candidly. "It speaks to the president's myopic view sometimes," the source added. "He's going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether it hurts Republicans." Trump is grappling with an unpopular war in Iran, high gas prices at home and a low approval rating that could drag down Republicans in the midterm elections. The fund, part of a settlement over a lawsuit Trump dropped against the IRS, would have paid people the administration decided were unjustly targeted by the Biden administration. It also banned current tax audits of Trump and his family and businesses, a provision Republicans and Democrats criticised as corrupt. The administration argued the fund was needed to "make whole" Americans wrongly prosecuted in the past and insisted anyone was eligible for payouts, including Democrats. But administration officials had refused to rule out paying Jan 6 rioters. And on Tuesday, Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche said the provision shielding Trump and his family from tax audits would remain in place, further angering Republicans who said it should be scrapped. Getty Images Democrats said Jan 6 rioters could receive taxpayers' money under the scheme The firestorm over the fund was the latest example of a trend taking shape in Trump's second term - the willingness of some Republicans to push back when they feel the president's attempts to expand his power, reward allies and punish political opponents have gone too far. They have taken on Trump multiple times since he returned to office, a sign the president does not have an ironclad grip on his party in his second term. Several Senate Republicans joined Democrats in passing a war powers resolution last month to limit the length of the conflict with Iran. (A similar resolution still has not passed the House, and it's unclear if the measures would force Trump's hand on Iran). Last year, in another blow to Trump, Republicans voted to force the Justice Department to release files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The White House sought to contain Republican anger over the Epstein scandal over a period of months before Trump finally bowed to pressure and agreed to release the files. In this case, the Republican condemnation of the DOJ fund was swift and appeared to catch Trump and his top aides off guard. Senate Republicans criticised the fund in a contentious private meeting on 21 May with Blanche, two days after it was announced. Republicans were "blasting the attorney general," Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said the day after the meeting on his podcast Verdict. "There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing," Cruz said. The pressure campaign from Republicans to abandon the fund only increased from there. Republicans stalled progress on legislation to fund US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), sending Trump a message that this planned fund could unravel a long-delayed spending plan for two key immigration agencies. When lawmakers returned to Washington this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune urged the administration to end its plans for the fund. "The best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves," Thune told reporters at the Capitol on Monday. The mounting Republican opposition came as Democrats vowed to hold up the immigration bill over the fund, and as several groups filed lawsuits in court to block the programme. It was a rare - but of late increasingly frequent - moment of bipartisan anger in Washington directed at Trump. The outrage from Democrats was not a surprise, as the party has opposed Trump at nearly every turn in his second term. But among Republicans, who have largely been stalwart supporters of the president regardless of controversy, few rushed to defend him in public. The uproar also sparked another test for the courts, where numerous legal battles have played out over Trump's expansion of executive power since he returned to power. In a ruling on Friday, a federal judge ordered the justice department to suspend the fund to allow for a lawsuit against it to move forward. Getty Images The justice department on Monday said it was temporarily suspending the compensation scheme, citing the court decision. But critics, including some Republicans, demanded the administration go further and make clear it was giving up on the idea altogether. Blanche finally pulled the plug on Tuesday, telling House lawmakers: "We're not moving forward with the fund." But that likely isn't the end of the saga. Much as the administration may want to move on, the issue won't disappear anytime soon. Blanche also told lawmakers he wasn't "committing to putting anything in writing", a sign some interpreted as leaving the door open to return to the issue in the future. And even before Blanche's announcement, critics on Tuesday vowed to press forward with legal challenges. "Litigation provides a safeguard to make sure" Trump doesn't revive the idea, said Norm Eisen, the co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, a group representing plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against the administration. Democrats and Republicans have also vowed to introduce amendments to the immigration bill that would prevent presidents from using taxpayer dollars to reward political allies. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina is one of them. "The only way that you're going to just end this two-week drama is to end \[the fund\]," Tillis, who is retiring at the end of this term, told reporters on Tuesday. The issue has already become a flashpoint on the left and will surely feature in Democratic campaign ads against Trump this fall ahead of the crucial midterm elections. On Tuesday evening, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chamber's top Democrat, said the administration's promise to end the fund was not enough. "Blanche and Trump's words are worthless," Schumer said in a social media post. "The only way to stop Trump's nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund and his blank check to commit tax fraud is to abolish it by law - permanently." He added: "Senate Democrats will force a vote on the floor to end Trump's corrupt scheme for good."  Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly [US Politics Unspun](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68093155) newsletter. Readers in the UK can [sign up here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsletters/zgmn46f). Those outside the UK can [sign up here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lkky9zngvo).

Donald Trump declared he would not go to war with Iran last year, according to a new book, which claims he told [Tucker Carlson](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/tucker-carlson) and Elon Musk: “We’re not doing that.” The US president is said to have provided the assurance during an Oval Office meeting with rightwing commentator Carlson and SpaceX CEO Musk – the world’s richest person, who recently became its first trillionaire – early last year. According to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, though Carlson had criticized Trump from his perch as an influential rightwing media voice, Trump “solicit\[ed\] Carlson’s advice, believing he still had sway over a significant portion of the base”. “Carlson had criticized Trump for refusing to knock \[Israeli prime minister Benjamin\] Netanyahu over the Gaza carnage; now he would make clear to the president that a broader war would be his ruin,” Haberman and Swan write. “‘They want you to go to war with Iran,’ Carlson said. ‘We’re not doing that,’ Trump answered.” Trump is also said to have told Carlson: “I don’t think there’s ever been an American president as powerful as I am.” “Struck by this hubris,” Haberman and Swan write, “Carlson replied: ‘Certainly not since FDR. Really, the only thing that could wreck it is war with Iran.’” This year, on 28 February, Trump attacked Iran. An agreement ending the war was signed earlier this week. Haberman and Swan’s reporting appears in a book, Regime Change, that will be published in the US on Tuesday. Excerpts have included accounts of Trump’s [decision to go to war with Iran](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html), Situation Room discussions about the [Jeffrey Epstein scandal](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/magazine/trump-epstein-files-white-house-vance-doj.html) and attempts to [suspend legal rights](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-scharf-habeas-corpus-insurrection-act.html) amid an immigration crackdown. Trump is also said to have “regaled” Musk and Carlson with “lingering” descriptions of injuries including “mutilated genitals and missing hands” caused by Israel’s 2024 “[exploding pagers](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/18/hezbollah-pagers-what-do-we-know-about-how-the-attack-happened)” attack on Hezbollah. The US president told “horror stories of the destruction that the explosions had wrought” in the Oval Office, Haberman and Swan write. “He had seen pictures, he said. Mutilated genitals and missing hands. He was horrified by the injuries, but fascinated as well, lingering on the scenes and the details,” according to the book. “One survivor, he said, ‘looked like a great white shark came and just took a chunk out of him. It was like a shark bite. It was horrible.’ “He grew volatile, repeating, ‘It’s horrible, horrible!’” The Oval Office scene with Musk and Carlson is an example of extensive reporting about the ageing president’s increasingly erratic behavior. Israel carried out its pager attack on leaders of [Hezbollah](https://www.theguardian.com/world/hezbollah), an Iranian proxy group, in Lebanon in September 2024. Haberman and Swan’s depiction of Trump’s fascination with injuries caused by the pagers appears to have been informed by Carlson, a critic of Israel and the Iran war. Musk, who was then leading the “department of government efficiency” attack on the federal government at the time of the exchange, is depicted as “transfixed” by a golden pager presented to Trump by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Carlson’s words and those of Trump are presented in quotes, which the authors say indicates personal knowledge of words and situations. “There was something else that captivated” Trump, the authors write. “Many of the devices had detonated in public, and it was hard to know who was holding a pager when it exploded. The indiscriminate nature of the killing and maiming had shocked Trump, and while he was taken by the ingenuity, he showed a measure of disbelief at its recklessness. “He seemed at once enthralled and horrified.”

Bill Gates has called for “human reserved” jobs in certain sectors to prevent AI replacing them, and expressed concern that governments are not prepared for the impact the technology will have. In a 6,000 word essay titled [The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make are critical](https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/make-ai-work-for-everyone/reader/a-turbulent-ai-era-and-critical-choices-to-make?WT.mc_id=20260826_ai-overture-2026-med-med), the billionaire Microsoft co-founder likened the need to spare roles from digital encroachment to how nature reserves operate to protect the environment. “Many jobs will disappear forever,” he said, in his first lengthy piece on AI in three years. “I believe that as AI and robots improve, we’ll set aside certain things for only people to do. “I’ve started calling this domain human reserved. I like the phrase human reserved because it makes me think of nature reserves – places where we could put buildings and roads, but we choose not to because the loss would be too great.” He cited examples including the health professionals who cared for his father, who died of Alzheimer’s disease six years ago. “Something in the care they gave my dad was irreplaceably human, no robot could or should have done it,” he said. “Imagine a robot giving you the awful news that you have an incurable disease. There’s no technical reason why it couldn’t. Yet it shouldn’t.” Wednesday’s essay is one of Gates’s first major public interventions since he became embroiled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. An external review commissioned by the Gates Foundation found last month that there had been [about 30 meetings](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/21/bill-gates-foundation-jeffrey-epstein-review) between Epstein and foundation leaders and staff – including Gates – between 2011 and 2014. Gates, who has not been accused of involvement in Epstein’s crimes, remains the chair of his $89bn (£65bn) charitable foundation and previously said he regretted “every minute” he spent with the sex offender. Gates warns in his essay that governments are not prepared for the scale of the impact of AI. “The highest priority is a monumental task: creating a domestic and international framework for dealing with AI,” he wrote. “After the attacks of 9/11 the US government went through its biggest reorganisation since World War II for the purpose of improving just one function, national security. “AI will require much, much more. It will affect national security as well as employment, education, taxation, energy, elections, air and water, public health, the financial system, law enforcement, transportation, public lands and IT systems. “It is fair to wonder whether the world’s institutions are up to the task of designing and implementing this new architecture.” [skip past newsletter promotion](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/26/bill-gates-human-reserved-jobs-ai-takeover#EmailSignup-skip-link-12) Free newsletter | Every weekday Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning  after newsletter promotion Gates also said that as part of a global effort “some cooperation between the US and China will be required”. His staff are working to set up a meeting with China’s president, Xi Jinping, in November to discuss global efforts to mitigate the growing risks posed by AI. Gates last met Xi three years ago, when he became the first foreign entrepreneur the Chinese president had hosted since the global Covid pandemic. The tech billionaire also expressed concern in his essay about the impact of AI on education. “Ironically, the same tool that will allow people to learn more than ever could also lead to many people learning less,” he wrote. “One [preliminary survey](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6) suggested that heavier AI use was associated with less critical thinking. The effect was stronger for young people.”