“Climate Change Denialism is Now Official US Policy”
On Thursday, February 12, 2026, the Trump administration made one of the most consequential moves on climate policy in U.S. history: EPA finalized a rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse-gas “Endangerment Finding” as it applies to motor vehicles and engines—and eliminated federal greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles and engines (model years 2012–2027 and beyond).
The White House framed it as a consumer-affordability and anti-red-tape action—Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it the “largest deregulatory action,” with EPA claiming $1.3 trillion in savings. Climate change activists decried it as a brazen and willfully foolish attempt to gut the legal foundation of federal climate regulation, and an unlawful, science-denying giveaway to polluters that will worsen pollution and public-health harms.
But even before the ink dries, the likely practical consequence—apart from untold damage to the atmosphere— is already coming into focus: a long legal war and a messy regulatory landscape where states—especially California and allied states—try to fill the vacuum while automakers and suppliers brace for uncertainty.
What EPA actually did
EPA’s final rule does two headline things:
Rescinds the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” for greenhouse gases as a prerequisite for regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and engines under Clean Air Act §202(a). EPA’s position is blunt: without that finding, EPA lacks statutory authority under §202(a) to set GHG standards for new vehicles.
Eliminates federal GHG standards for vehicles/engines for model years 2012–2027 and beyond, per EPA’s announcement. EPA also highlighted the removal of related compliance architecture, including items like off-cycle credits and the start-stop credit regime it singled out in public messaging.
This isn’t a narrow adjustment of target numbers. It’s an attack on the legal foundation that made federal vehicle climate regulation possible in the first place—as radical as the RFK public-health rewrite where the point isn’t reform, it’s demolition—scrapping the scientific predicate so the entire regulatory structure can’t stand.
Why this move matters even beyond tailpipes
The Endangerment Finding has functioned for more than a decade as the keystone supporting federal greenhouse-gas regulation across multiple sectors. That’s why the administration’s opponents are treating this not as “an emissions rollback,” but as a direct attempt to defang the Clean Air Act’s climate reach—and why litigation is essentially guaranteed.
EPA itself previewed the legal posture: the agency explicitly tied its reasoning to recent Supreme Court administrative-law decisions, signaling it expects the fight to be decided as much by doctrine as by science.
The administration’s argument: costs, choice, and “unachievable” rules
In making the announcement, Trump framed it as follows:
This rollback will reduce compliance costs (EPA’s claim: $1.3 trillion).
It will reduce the cost of vehicles for consumers (Trump cited a several-thousand-dollar figure in public remarks, as reported).
Prior rules were “unachievable” given market demand for EVs, as some industry-adjacent coverage and statements have echoed.
That’s the sales pitch: less federal constraint, more consumer choice, lower prices.
The predictable consequence: regulatory fragmentation
Here’s the part that matters for industry planning and for the politics of what comes next: vacuum creates leverage.
Legal experts and major outlets are converging on the same forecast: if federal standards are removed (or tied up in court), the U.S. moves toward a patchwork where manufacturers face:
State-by-state regulatory fights
Multi-year litigation
Conflicting timelines and compliance expectations, especially for companies selling nationwide and globally
Reuters put it plainly: without a consistent federal policy, companies may have to navigate differing state and regional emissions rules, and lawsuits are likely.
Reactions: fury on the left, cheers on the right, and a lot of nervousness
California and climate-state coalitions: lawsuit posture, immediately
California is already positioned as the spear tip—CalMatters reported the state is preparing to sue and exploring how to press its own standards in the vacuum.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken the fight international, calling the rollback a “Code Red” for climate leadership and emphasizing that California intends to keep driving policy and investment regardless of Washington.
A coalition response from the U.S. Climate Alliance (co-chaired by Newsom and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers) also slammed EPA’s move.
Environmental and public-health advocates: “this is the legal foundation”
Environmental groups and climate policy organizations framed the decision as a direct assault on the basis for climate regulation—less a regulatory tweak than a structural dismantling.
Automakers and business: mixed public posture, shared private problem—uncertainty
Industry reaction is split in a way that tells you where the real pressure points are:
Some corners of the car-and-aftermarket world openly celebrated the rollback as a win against what they call federal and state “EV mandates.”
But Reuters noted that some major automakers have historically preferred keeping the Endangerment Finding—not because they love regulation, but because a single federal baseline offers predictability and reduces the risk of a fifty-state compliance maze.
International-facing companies are also signaling continuity: Volkswagen, for example, said its transformation commitments remain unchanged—because global markets, investors, and foreign regulations don’t pause when Washington changes course.
This is the under-discussed point: even in a deregulatory moment, multinational manufacturers still live inside European, Asian, and investor-driven expectations. Federal rollback does not repeal global competition.
What happens next
Three tracks begin immediately:
Court fights (states + environmental groups vs. EPA), likely seeking to stay the rule and attack the agency’s legal logic.
State regulatory acceleration, with California and aligned states attempting to preserve aggressive emissions trajectories by any available pathway.
Corporate planning under uncertainty, where automakers hedge: continue EV/efficiency investments for global competitiveness, while lobbying hard for a stable U.S. framework—one way or another.
The administration can call this “deregulation.” The near-term reality looks more like regulatory relocation: from Washington rulemaking to state capitols and federal courtrooms.
Measles cases across Europe and Central Asia declined by 75 per cent in 2025 compared to 2024, according to preliminary data released on Wednesday by the World Health Organization (WHO), which warned of remaining outbreak risks.
“While cases have reduced, the conditions that led to the resurgence of this deadly disease in recent years remain and must be addressed,” said Regina De Dominicis, the UN Children Fund (UNICEF) regional director for Europe and Central Asia.
Fifty-three countries in Europe and Central Asia reported 33,998 measles cases in 2025, down from 127,412 in 2024.
The overall decreasing trend in cases reflects both outbreak response measures and the gradual decline in the number of people susceptible to measles infection as the virus made its way through under-vaccinated communities, according to UN agencies.
Tackling deadly misinformation
However, many cases could have been prevented with higher routine vaccination coverage at community level and more timely response to outbreaks, UN agencies said.
“Until all children are reached with vaccination, and hesitancy fuelled by the spread of misinformation is addressed, children will remain at risk of death or serious illness from measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases,” she warned
Documents show USAID funds redirected for Vought’s security detail
USAID will cease to exist in September after Trump ordered it shuttered
WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) – The White House budget office is using millions of dollars from the former U.S. foreign aid agency to pay for the security detail of Russell Vought, President Donald Trump’s budget chief and an architect of the government overhaul that has cut thousands of federal jobs, according to three documents seen by Reuters.
The White House Office of Management and Budget, which Vought leads, is allocating $15 million of what remains of USAID operating expenses to cover the costs of his protection by the U.S. Marshals Service through the end of 2026, the documents showed.
Reminder:
What You Should Know About Russ Vought, Trump’s Shadow President
Vought is the architect of Trump’s broader plan to fire civil servants, freeze government programs and dismantle entire agencies. Here are some key things to know about the D.C. insider who wants to take a hatchet to the federal government.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
On the second day of the federal government shutdown, President Donald Trump shared an AI-generated video set to the classic song “(Don’t Fear) The Reaper” by Blue Öyster Cult. The star of that video, which quickly went viral, was Russell Vought, the president’s top budget adviser. More than that, Vought is the architect of Trump’s broader plan to fire civil servants, freeze government programs and dismantle entire agencies, and he’s a big reason the second Trump administration has been more effective at accomplishing its goals than the first. In the video shared by Trump, Vought appeared as the scythe-wielding Grim Reaper of Washington, D.C.
Vought’s title is director of the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB directorship is one of the most powerful jobs in Washington, and Vought has used his position to wage a quiet war to change the shape of the entire U.S. government. In Vought’s hands, OMB has acted as a choke point for the funding that Congress approves and agencies rely on to run the government. While he tends to operate behind the scenes as much as possible, his influence in Trump’s second administration is so pronounced that people have described him as akin to a shadow president.
Here are some of the key things you should know about Vought. Read ProPublica’s full investigation here. (Vought declined to be interviewed for the article. A spokesperson for him at OMB would not comment on the record in response to a detailed list of questions.)
2019
In 2019, after the Trump White House pressured Ukraine’s government to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, it asked Vought, then acting director, to freeze $214 million in congressionally approved security assistance for Ukraine. He obliged.
This impoundment, later deemed illegal by the Government Accountability Office, would trigger congressional investigations and, ultimately, Trump’s first impeachment. During that process, Vought refused to cooperate with investigators, calling the probe a “sham process that is designed to relitigate the last election.”
After the attempt to freeze the Ukraine funds ultimately failed, Vought and Mark Paoletta, an attorney and close ally of Vought’s, spent the years between Trump’s presidencies developing a legal argument that not only are such impoundments legal, but there is a long history of presidents using the power. (Legal experts have disputed Vought’s version of that history.)
2021
In 2021, Vought launched the Center for Renewing America, a think tank devoted to keeping the MAGA movement alive and preparing for a second Trump presidency. According to previously unreported recordings obtained by ProPublica, Vought accepted an assignment from Trump to come up with a way for conservatives to counter Black Lives Matter. He popularized the concept of “woke and weaponized” government — a phrase embraced by GOP politicians and activists to disparagingly label policies, people and even agencies that didn’t fit with the MAGA agenda.
“If you’re watching television and the words ‘woke and weaponized’ come out of a politician’s mouth, you can know that this is coming … from the strategies we’re putting out,” Vought boasted in a recording obtained by ProPublica.
When Vought’s think tank released a federal budget blueprint in 2022, calling for $9 trillion in cuts over 10 years, the word “woke” appeared 77 times across its 103 pages.
2025
Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and the world’s wealthiest person, may have grabbed the headlines as his Department of Government Efficiency took a chainsaw to budgets and staffing. But court records, interviews and other accounts from people close to Vought show that DOGE’s efforts were guided, more than previously known, by the OMB director.
“I can’t imagine that the DOGE team knew to target all these little parts of the government without Russ pointing them there,” a former OMB branch chief told ProPublica.
In May, an official with Citizens for Renewing America, a group founded by Vought, credited Vought with steering DOGE’s cuts. “DOGE is underneath the OMB,” the official said, according to a video of her remarks. “Honestly, a lot of what Elon began pinpointing … was at the direction of Russ.”
An administration official who has worked with Vought and Musk told ProPublica that DOGE showed Vought that it was possible to ignore legal challenges and take dramatic action. “He has the benefit of Elon softening everyone up,” the official said. “Elon terrified the shit out of people. He broke the status quo.”
OCT 1 shutdown was an opportunity:
Vought has frozen $26 billion in federal funding for infrastructure and clean energy projects in blue states in the days after the federal government shut down on Oct. 1. The government has also followed through on Vought’s earlier threat to fire a massive number of civil servants if the shutdown were not averted.
“We work for the president of the United States,” a senior agency official who regularly deals with the OMB told ProPublica. But right now, he added, “it feels like we work for Russ Vought. He has centralized decision-making power to an extent that he is the commander in chief.”
Grim Reaper achievements by cutting USAID (1 percent of US budget):
Recent estimates suggest that cuts to USAID funding have resulted in over 762,000 deaths, including more than 500,000 children, due to reduced support for global health programs. Projections indicate that if these cuts continue, more than 14 million additional deaths could occur by 2030. University of California University of Minnesota
The US acting alone has reached the limits of its power and may already have lost its role as global leader, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, warned Donald Trump at the opening of the Munich Security Conference.
Merz also disclosed he had held initial talks with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, over the possibility of joining France’s nuclear umbrella, underlining his call for Europe to develop a stronger self-standing security strategy.
=============
Merz drew most applause from an audience brimming with hostility toward US unilateralism when he directly criticised the current American administration, saying: “The culture war of the Maga movement is not ours. Freedom of speech ends here with us when that speech is directed against human dignity and the basic law. We do not believe in tariffs and protectionism, but in free trade. We stand by climate agreements and the World Health Organization.”
“In the age of great powers, our freedom is no longer a given. It is threatened,” he said, adding that “firmness and willpower will be needed to assert this freedom”. Challenging Trump’s unilateral style, Merz added: “Autocracies may have followers, democracies have partners and allies.”
≈==========
Describing the Munich conference as a seismograph for the state of US-European relations, he said the Ukraine war “had forced Europe to return from a vacation from world history. Together we have entered an era that is once again marked by power and big-power politics.”
Emails reveal a convicted sex trafficker brokering meetings between Trump’s biggest tech backer and Russian state officials — while Thiel shaped the incoming government
On October 3, 2016, Jeffrey Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff sent him a scheduling email. Subject line: “Churkin? Thiel?”
“Do you wish me to coordinate with Churkin and Thiel appointments for tomorrow?”
Vitaly Churkin was Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations. Peter Thiel was Donald Trump’s most prominent Silicon Valley backer — Palantir co-founder, Facebook board member, RNC keynote speaker, $1.25 million Trump donor. The email does not state whether Churkin and Thiel were meeting each other or meeting Epstein separately. But it places both names on Epstein’s calendar within the same 24-hour window, five weeks before Election Day.
The Department of Justice emails spanning 2013 to 2016 expose what can be called the Epstein-Thiel node: a pattern in which a convicted sex trafficker brokered introductions between one of America’s most powerful tech billionaires and Russian state-linked figures — while investing $40 million in Thiel’s venture fund through a shell company that moved over a billion dollars in suspicious transactions, including transfers to sanctioned Russian banks.
Reid Hoffman, who introduced Thiel to Epstein — describing him as “mostly fun, very interesting guy, you may find him perverse” — hosted a dinner at Baumé in Palo Alto on August 2, 2015. The guest list: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein called the evening “wild.” He and Musk had exchanged at least 16 emails in 2012-2013, including plans to visit Epstein’s island and a SpaceX tour where Epstein arrived with “3 girls” whose passports were sent to Musk in advance. After the dinner, Epstein’s assistant emailed Zuckerberg’s chief of staff with Epstein’s contact details — per “Mark’s request.”
What follows is an evidentiary map: who Epstein was introducing to Thiel, how he described them, and what money was moving through his structures while those introductions were happening.
I. The FSB graduate: Sergey Belyakov
The earliest Thiel-Epstein emails center on a man whose biography reads like a Russian intelligence career track.
Sergey Belyakov was born in Moscow in 1973, enrolled in the FSB Academy in 1993, and graduated in 1998. His career was rapid: adviser to aluminum oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s Basic Element by 28, deputy minister of economic development by 39, chairman of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum Foundation by 41, adviser at the Russian Direct Investment Fund — headed by Putin envoy Kirill Dmitriev — by 42. The Deripaska connection matters: this is the same oligarch to whom Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort owed millions and through whose network internal Trump polling data ultimately reached Russian intelligence.
Epstein corresponded with Belyakov from at least 2013, pitching Russia as capable of “leapfrogging the global community by reinventing the financial system of the 21st century” through cryptocurrency. By 2014, Epstein held a Russian visa that specifically named Belyakov’s ministry as sponsor. That same year Belyakov wrote: “Our meeting was really interesting for me! I do not know many people like you, who can open new horizons and prospects.”
On June 30, 2015, Epstein introduced Belyakov to Thiel: “My very good friend that I’d organizing innovation conference in Moscow — will be in Palo Alto. Any interest??” He described Belyakov as “out of the finance ministry, young 40s. very organized and can get things done.” No mention of the FSB Academy. No mention of Deripaska.
On July 6, Thiel’s executive assistant coordinated a meeting in San Francisco. The cc line included Belyakov, Thiel, Epstein, and names in Cyrillic script. Within a week, Belyakov reported that meetings with “Thiel and Pritzker” were “very helpful” and he hoped to see both “in Moscow.”
The relationship between Epstein and Belyakov was operational, not social. When Epstein needed information on a Russian woman blackmailing a “powerful biznessman in New York,” Belyakov compiled a dossier within days, reported she was in the “sex and escort” business, and recommended cutting off her U.S. visa. The exchange ran both ways: Svetlana Pozhidaeva, a graduate of MGIMO — the Foreign Ministry academy that trains Russian diplomats and intelligence agents — obtained a U.S. visa through a Belyakov recommendation letter and embedded herself in Epstein’s operation, targeting the American AI and supercomputer network.
The St. Petersburg Economic Forum that Belyakov ran was a known hotspot for Russian escort operations and intelligence-gathering through honeytrap operations. Belyakov provided operational support for Epstein’s network of models, several of whom served dual roles as intelligence assets. In February 2016, he asked Epstein to arrange a meeting with Vincenzo Iozzo, described by FBI informants as Epstein’s “personal hacker.”
An FSB graduate performing intelligence favors, requesting access to cyber capabilities, and personally introduced to Peter Thiel — thirteen months before the election.
II. The Russian Ambassador: Vitaly Churkin
Belyakov was the intelligence channel. Churkin was the diplomatic one.
Churkin was not a private businessman whose FSB connections could be explained away. He was Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations — a senior Kremlin official. He was also involved in bringing Trump to Moscow in 1987. Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse sat a few blocks from the Russian consulate.
Groff’s October 3, 2016 email is the most striking artifact in the correspondence — not because it proves coordination between Thiel and the Kremlin, but because it normalizes proximity. “Churkin? Thiel?” reads like routine calendar housekeeping.
Churkin died suddenly on February 20, 2017 — one day before his 65th birthday — of an apparent heart attack in his Manhattan office. The same month Michael Flynn was fired for lying about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
After Churkin’s death, Epstein emailed Thiel: “My Russian ambassador friend died. Life is short, start with dessert.”
After Trump won, Belyakov emailed Epstein: “Congrats with your President.” Epstein replied: “fun.” Simultaneously, Belyakov’s RDIF boss Kirill Dmitriev texted an associate: “Putin won.”
PAID SUBSCRIBERS MAY ACCESS A DEEPER EXPLORATION BELOW:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Narativ with Zev Shalev to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
Goldman Sachs chief legal officer and general counsel Kathryn Ruemmler (pictured) has resigned from her position following the recent revelations over her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Ruemmler, who joined Goldman in 2020 and was promoted to GC a year later, has faced renewed scrutiny as the extent of her relationship with the convicted sex offender was brought to light in the latest release of the Epstein files.
Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem stepped down as CEO and chairman of Dubai-based logistics giant DP World after newly released U.S. Justice Department documents revealed explicit 2015 emails he sent to Jeffrey Epstein describing a sexual relationship with a young woman; the company announced that Yuvraj Narayan will serve as CEO and Essa Kazim as chairman as leadership changes take effect.
‘I Loved the Torture Video’: The Explicit Digital Trail of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and Jeffrey Epstein
With details emerging of visits to Little Saint James and unredacted sexual boasts, the DP World chief remains silent
The most shocking fallout involves the prominent Norwegian diplomat Mona Juul and her husband, Terje Rød-Larsen, both lauded as architects of the Oslo peace accords. The pair are now under investigation by Norway’s financial crimes squad, Økokrim, after it was reported that Epstein left the couple’s two children $10m in a will drawn up shortly before his death by suicide in 2019. Juul resigned from her post as ambassador to Jordan and Iraq on Sunday and is being probed on suspicion of gross corruption; her husband on suspicion of complicity in gross corruption.
==========
And a trove of emails spanning years suggests that ThorbjørnJagland, a former prime minister, foreign minister, Nobel peace prize chair and secretary-general of the Council of Europe may have accepted luxury holidays to Epstein’s Palm Beach resort and his private Caribbean island, sought personal loans and engaged in sexual banter with Epstein. Police at Norway’s economic crimes unit are investigating Jagland on suspicion of aggravated corruption. Jagland has denied wrongdoing and through lawyers says he is “confident of the outcome” of the investigation.
While Juul and Rød-Larsen have said through lawyers that they believe they will be cleared by the investigation, a vignette from 2017 illuminates the spectacular nature of the fall from grace of the pre-eminent power couple in Norwegian diplomatic circles over the past 40 years.
In April of that year, the play Osloopened on Broadway. It was a smash hit, and won a Tony award before transferring to the National Theatre in London; it was subsequently turned into a feature film. Oslo was a dramatisedsequel to the carefully crafted public nimbus surrounding Juul and Rød-Larsen. The husband and wife team made their careers in the 1990s by brokering secret negotiations between Israel and the PLO. The Norwegian commentariat had united in uncritical celebration of the resulting 1993 and 1995 Oslo accords, and of Rød-Larsen and Juul in particular. There were official hagiographies and honorary awards.
Later, there was controversy: in violation of Norwegian archival laws, the couple was accused of placing their Oslo archives at a safe distance from critical Norwegian researchers in closed Israeli archives.
But Rød-Larsen and Juul were depicted in the play as the Oslo accords’ chief protagonists, the heroic drivers of an extraordinary diplomatic achievement. The New York Times called the play a “colossus”.
At a special performance in New York in May 2017, Rød-Larsen personally came on stage on behalf of the IPI, which had sponsored the evening. In the audience was a guest of honour. The guest was Epstein, whom Rød-Larsen had brought in as a benefactor without the knowledge of the IPI’s board. Epstein’s money, we now know from the newly released emails, had paid for the event. Rød-Larsen would later describe Epstein in private texts as his “best friend”, “a great guy” and “deserving to be an angel”.
Three years later, Rød-Larsen resigned as the peace organisation’s CEOover revelations of a loan from Epstein.
Rød-Larsen is now suspected of having used his influence to help procure visas for Russian models to serve as “interns” at his publicly funded peace institute. One of them claims she was later among Epstein’s sexual abuse victims.
Bewilderingly for an erstwhile social democrat, Rød-Larsen, the emails suggest, may have made personal introductions to friends in the international power elite for Steve Bannon.
Note: Trump has a soft spot for Norwegians. He has said, since 2018:
Trump asked why there could not be some people from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, adding, “send us some nice people, do you mind?”
This is a reprise of reported comments by Trump in 2018 at that Oval Office meeting in which he had allegedly asked why there could not be more immigrants from Norway.
Oslo Accords figure deeply linked to Epstein network
Then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, then US president Bill Clinton, and then PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, at the White House in September 1993
Rabin was assassinated 2 years later:
Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister of Israel, was assassinated on 4 November 1995 at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv.
Arafat’s mysterious death:
Yasser Arafat’s death on November 11, 2004
Wikipedia
Then there is a Los Angeles Talent Agency owner, Casey Wasserman and Ghislaine Maxwell, who he has known for ‘over 20 years’.
What to Know About Casey Wasserman, the CEO Named in the Epstein Files and Dropped by Clients Including Chappell Roan
Emails from Ghislaine Maxwell to Wasserman Media Group CEO Casey Wasserman surfaced in a batch of Epstein files released on Jan. 30
Prominent Hollywood and sports talent agent Casey Wasserman was named in the Epstein files released in January 2026
The documents included flirty emails between the talent agency CEO and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell
Though Wasserman denied having a relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the news prompted multiple of his clients to leave his agency
One of the 3 million Epstein files that the Department of Justice released in January 2026 included email exchanges between convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and longtime Hollywood talent agent Casey Wasserman.
Following the news, multiple of his high-profile clients — including Chappell Roan and Beach Bunny — announced that they were leaving his agency.
“I hold my teams to the highest standards and have a duty to protect them as well,” the “Pink Pony Club” singer wrote on her Instagram Stories on Feb. 9. “No artist, agent or employee should ever be expected to defend or overlook actions that conflict so deeply with our own moral values.”
Though the DOJ hasn’t accused Wasserman of any wrongdoing, one of the emails in question included an offer for a massage from Maxwell. She was arrested in 2020 for her connection to the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019. Maxwell was later sentenced to 20 years in prison for felony sex trafficking charges.
The emails between Maxwell and Wasserman had a flirtatious tone, with the agent writing in one, “So, what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?”
He told The New York Timesin a statement on Feb. 5 that he “deeply” regretted the correspondence and noted that it happened over 20 years ago, “long before her horrific crimes came to light.” Wasserman also claimed to have no relationship with Epstein.
So who is Casey Wasserman? Here’s everything to know about the Hollywood talent agency CEO and his connection to Jeffrey Epstein.
Wasserman is from a prominent Hollywood family
Wasserman is the grandson of Lew Wasserman, the former CEO of the Music Corporation of America (MCA). Remembered as one of the most important behind-the-scenes names in Hollywood for decades, Lew and his wife, Edie, were responsible for helping stars like Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin skyrocket to fame, per Variety.
Wasserman has run his late grandparents’ charity, the Wasserman Foundation, since Lew’s death in 2002 and Edie’s in 2011.
Casey Wasserman visits southern Israel ahead of Los Angeles Olympics
During his visit to southern Israel, Casey Wasserman, Jewish-American businessman and chairman of the LA Olympic Organizing Committee, meets survivors of the 10/7 massacre and underscores his support for Israel amid ongoing challenges.
Homeland security is increasing the use of undercover techniques to infiltrate and interact with social media users in order to collect intelligence and target individuals, documents leaked to me reveal.
The new program, called “masked engagement,” allows homeland security officers to assume false identities and interact with users—friending them, joining closed groups, and gaining access to otherwise private postings, photographs, friend lists and more.
A senior Department of Homeland Security official tells me that over 6,500 field agents and intelligence operatives can use the new tool, a significant increase explicitly linked to more intense monitoring of American citizens.
More and more people are using Signal:
Signal is widely praised for its strong privacy features, including end-to-end encryption for messages and calls, making it a top choice for secure communication. Users appreciate its ease of use and commitment to user privacy, although some note a smaller user base can make connecting with others more challenging. g2.com cyberinsider.com
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images; Brendan SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images
A judge has dismissed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy captain and astronaut who incurred the Pentagon chief’s ire when he reminded active-duty service members that they do not have to execute unlawful orders.
Judge Richard Leon, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote on Thursday that Hegseth’s efforts to demote Kelly and relieve him of veterans benefits had “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”
“Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces. Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military,” wrote Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. “This Court will not be the first to do so!”
“After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’ To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” the judge wrote.
Hegseth moved to strip the senator of some of his military retirement benefits and rank after Kelly — alongside other members of Congress who are veterans — encouraged members of the military to honor their oath and “refuse illegal orders,” amid the Trump administration’s bombing of boats in the Caribbean late last year.
Kelly countersued Hegseth in January, writing in a statement on X that his “rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head — all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder.”
“If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn’t get it. I will fight this with everything I’ve got — not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government,” Kelly added.
All in all, Judge Leon seems to agree, and used some decidedly colorful language when putting it to paper. The judge called the Defense Department’s case against Kelly a pile of “Horsefeathers!” and “anemic!”
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.”
MS Note: This is a strangely intriguing thing that I noticed a few times previously in polls in states other than Minnesota, but didn’t comment on. Now, seeing it in Minnesota, I think it’s worth pondering what it means.
…. in the same poll, an “overwhelming majority” of Minnesotans still want local police to cooperate with immigration authorities to deport people “in some or all cases” when those individuals are in law-enforcement custody.
But Minnesotans still support custody-based cooperation: “An overwhelming majority” want local police to cooperate with immigration authorities to deport people in “some or all cases.”
These are not random details. Together they suggest something precise: Minnesota’s electorate may be trying to “route” enforcement into a narrower, less socially explosive channel—custody-based processing—while rejecting the broader operational posture and public tactics associated with the crackdown.
The hidden lever is the phrase “some or all cases”
The strongest caution flag in the Minnesota “cooperation” result is also the most obvious: “some or all cases” is a wide doorway.
If you’re looking for real common ground, you have to ask what voters think they’re endorsing when they hear cooperate.
For one voter, “some cases” means: violent felonies, post-conviction, with clear due process, with a simple handoff at release.
For another voter, it means: anyone booked into a jail for anything, including minor offenses, including people never convicted of a crime, including detainers that extend custody.
Both voters can answer “yes” to cooperation, while imagining totally different policy outcomes.
This is why the “custody carve-out” is meaningful—but also why it’s politically dangerous. It creates room for coalitions, but also room for bait-and-switch.
Looking more deeply….
To test whether this “custody carve-out” is real common ground (and not just a polling mirage), let’s separate three different questions that most public debates mash together:
1) Communication vs transfer vs detention
“Cooperation” can mean at least three distinct policy behaviors:
Communication: notifying ICE that someone is in custody, sharing basic information, responding to inquiries
Transfer at the moment of release: letting ICE take custody when the local jail would otherwise release the person
Extended detention: honoring a detainer request by holding someone beyond what local charges would justify
Those three are not interchangeable in civil liberties terms. They also tend to poll differently once spelled out. The Minnesota write-up doesn’t break the concept into these parts; it’s bundled in a broad phrase.
A genuine “custody carve-out” consensus likely exists at the first two steps (communication and transfer at release), while support becomes much shakier as you move into extended detention.
2) “In custody” is not “in the street”
The poll’s anti-ICE sentiment is tied to tactics that feel like public disorder: masks, “war zone” visuals, fear among citizens, and anxiety that enforcement is not staying within advertised limits.
That helps explain how the same voter can say:
“This has gone too far,” and also
“If someone is already in custody, don’t obstruct basic cooperation.”
Those two statements are not inconsistent. They are a demand for containment.
3) The legitimacy problem isn’t “enforcement,” it’s “methods + credibility”
This is the part that shows up clearly in the Minnesota write-up: majorities are worried not only about immigrants, but about spillover risk to citizens; they reject immunity; they disapprove of masks; and they’re skeptical of federal transparency.
That combination signals something deeper than partisanship: it’s a legitimacy crisis. And a legitimacy crisis tends to produce bounded consent—approval for narrow actions (custody handoffs) paired with rejection of broader authorities and tactics.
“Other states do too” isn’t just rhetoric
Minnesota isn’t unique here. Two different kinds of evidence support the idea that a custody-based cooperation lane has broader appeal:
National polling points in the same direction
A recent PBS News/NPR/Marist poll reports that about two-in-three Americans say ICE has “gone too far.”
Yet, the same polling ecosystem reporting on Minnesota has also highlighted majorities favoring state/local cooperation with federal authorities in enforcement contexts.
The pattern is consistent: skepticism of ICE as an institution and disapproval of its tactics can coexist with support for limited cooperation—especially when framed through public safety or custody settings.
Policy reality: the “jail-to-ICE” pipeline is already a dominant channel in several states
Texas is a useful reference point not because it’s politically similar to Minnesota, but because it shows how enforcement often functions in practice: the Texas Tribune reports that more than half of ICE arrests in Texas have come from local jails, and notes that Texas law requires local agencies to support cooperation—an approach it says is also adopted by other states such as Florida and Louisiana.
That’s the key: even where rhetoric differs wildly, the custody channel remains central to how immigration enforcement is operationalized.
The political implication: this is where the fight will move
If Minnesota’s “custody carve-out” is real, it creates a new battleground line that doesn’t map cleanly onto “pro-ICE” vs “anti-ICE.”
It becomes:
Stop the street-surge posture, masks, disorder, opacity, and mission creep
But don’t force local agencies into open defiance when someone is already in custody
That’s a coalition you can actually imagine holding. It includes people who dislike the crackdown, and people who support enforcement in principle but want it constrained to serious cases and controlled settings.
And it puts pressure on both sides:
The administration can’t treat “cooperate with ICE” as a blank check for tactics that majorities reject. Minnesota’s poll suggests the public is drawing lines, not handing over carte blanche.
Anti-ICE local leaders can’t assume that opposition to ICE automatically translates into support for full non-cooperation, especially in custody settings. The public may oppose the surge and still reject local “stonewalling” in jails.
He said his deportation machine would go after only the “worst of the worst.”
But according to newly leaked data from the Department of Homeland Security, less than 14 percent of the 400,000 immigrants arrested by ICE in the past year have either been charged with or convicted of violent crimes.
The vast majority of immigrants jailed by ICE have no criminal record at all. A few have previously been charged with or convicted of nonviolent offenses, such as overstaying their visas or permission to be in the country.
(In the past, alleged violations of U.S. immigration laws were normally adjudicated by Justice Department immigration judges in civil — not criminal — proceedings.)
A large proportion of the people ICE has arrested are now in jail — some 73,000 — and being held without bail. They’re in what the Department of Homeland Security calls “detention facilities.”
Many lack adequate medical attention.
A federal judge has ordered an external monitor to oversee California’s largest immigration detention center, California City Detention Facility, citing “shockingly deficient” medical care, including cases where detainees were denied medication for serious conditions.
A 2025 U.S. Senate investigation uncovered dozens of cases of medical neglect, with instances of detainees left without care for days and others being forced to compete for clean water.
Reports from early 2026 indicate that even children in family detention centers face poor conditions, including being returned to custody after hospitalization for severe illness without receiving necessary medication.
People held in detention facilities are deprived of the most basic means of communication to connect with their lawyers and the rest of the outside world, including phones, mail, and email. Some have been split off from the rest of their families, held hundreds if not thousands of miles away from their loved ones. Some of them are children.
Many are in the United States legally, awaiting determinations about their status as refugees fleeing violence or retribution in their home countries. Or they have green cards that would normally allow them to remain in the United States. Others have been in the United States for decades as law-abiding members of their communities.
They are hardly the “worst of the worst.” Most resemble our parents or grandparents or great-grandparents who came to the United States seeking better lives. We are a nation of immigrants. While this doesn’t excuse being here without documentation, it doesn’t justify the draconian and inhumane measures being utilized by the Trump regime.
These leaked data from the Department of Homeland Security have not received the news coverage they deserve.
Moreover, these data pertain only to ICE. They don’t include arrests by Border Patrol agents deployed by the Trump administration to places far away from the U.S.-Mexico border, such as Chicago and Minneapolis, where Border Patrol agents have undertaken aggressive and sweeping arrest operations, targeting day laborers at Home Depot parking lots and stopping people — including U.S. citizens — to question them about their immigration status.
This is a moral blight on America, a crime against humanity. As Americans, we are complicit.
Who is cooperating?
Does your state partner with ICE? Here’s who does, who doesn’t, who’s wavering
Krystal Nurse
Wed, February 4, 2026 at 9:49 PM GMT
5 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
Key takeawaysPowered by Yahoo Scout. Yahoo is using AI to generate key points from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Some law enforcement agencies are signing new contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite criticism from activists fearing racial profiling by agents.
See more
As scrutiny of how law enforcement agencies collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement increases, some are signing new contracts, seeing it as a public-safety tool. Still, activists criticized the program, fearing racial profiling by agents.
Public reaction to how local law enforcement interacts and works with ICE has become tense in some places as people point to the killings of 37-year-olds Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota. States like Maryland are having second thoughts about police enrolled in the program. Meanwhile, Texas has mandated that all sheriff’s offices with jails sign agreements, KXAN reported.
“The goal in signing this legislation is the goal that you and I have everyday, and that is to make our state more safe,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said in July when he signed the bill into law. The new requirement went into effect on Jan. 1, and the state has 291 agreements in place, just behind Florida’s record high of 341 contracts.
Yahoo
How and why?
Irishman held in ICE ‘concentration camp’ for five months despite valid work permit
Seamus Culleton has been in a Texas detention centre for more than four months
Seamus Culleton, originally from Co Kilkenny, has resided in the US for nearly two decades and is married to an American citizen.
He was apprehended by ICE agents in September 2025 while driving home from work, recalling how he first noticed a man in blue sunglasses before other agents appeared.
When asked if he had a green card, he said he did not, but that he was married to a US citizen, had a work permit and was due to receive his green card.
He was detained and initially put into a holding cell in Massachusetts before being taken to New York and then to the detention centre in El Paso, Texas. He claimed that ICE agents had tried to get him to sign deportation papers, which he said he “absolutely” did not.
Today Ro Khanna read some of the names uncovered from previously redactd files. This is from The Krassencast Substack:
Congressman Ro Khanna just read aloud the names of six powerful men that had previously been redacted from the Epstein Files, names the public was never supposed to hear.
These weren’t random redactions. These weren’t minor clerical omissions. These were deliberate, intentional black bars placed over identities that someone, somewhere, decided Americans did not deserve to see.
Here are the names that were read into the Congressional Record, please share everywhere:
Salvatore Nuara
Zurab Mikeladze
Leonic Leonov
Nicola Caputo
Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem
The obvious question is also the most important one:
Why were these men protected?
Reported:
Who is Salvatore Nuara? One of Six Men Revealed in Unredacted Epstein Files
Salvatore Nuara’s identity remains largely unknown after file disclosure
By Martin Toledo Published 11 February 2026, 4:27 AM GMT
So this one is a mystery, so too are the Philippine Team Epstein hired:
Jeffrey Epstein Secretly Hired a Philippine Team to Erase His Crimes From Google—Why Were They Never Named?
Emails show a Philippine team manipulated Google and Wikipedia for Epstein
By Martin Toledo Published 10 February 2026, 3:19 AM GMT
Documents from the United States Department of Justice reveal that Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender, hired a Philippine-based team in 2010 to manipulate online content about him. Email exchanges between Epstein and Al Seckel, who is married to Ghislaine Maxwell’s sister, show efforts to remove negative search results from Google and emphasise his philanthropic work.
The emails indicate that the team was tasked with suppressing searches such as ‘Jeffrey Epstein jail’ and ‘Jeffrey Epstein pedophile’. The operation also targeted Wikipedia pages and other websites to highlight Epstein’s involvement in science, philanthropy and his foundation. The identities of the individuals or firms involved remain undisclosed, leaving unanswered questions about who carried out the digital work.
House Assistant Minority Leader and Gabriela Women’s Party Rep. Sarah Jane Elago (Courtesy: Gabriela Women’s Party)Resize Text:
Estimated reading time: 1 minute and 31 seconds
The Makabayan Bloc on Wednesday filed House Resolution 762 to conduct an investigation into the alleged Philippine-based operations and connections of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
House Assistant Minority Leader Sarah Jane Elago of Gabriela Women’s Party filed the resolution to uncover the extent of reported activities involving individuals and entities in the Philippines allegedly engaged by Epstein and his associates, particularly in relation to digital reputation management and online operations following his conviction.
“Any indication that Philippine-based individuals or firms may have been used to shield or assist a known international sex offender demands serious scrutiny,” Elago said.
“The Philippines has long faced vulnerabilities in trafficking, online sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and other forms of gender-based violence. We cannot allow our labor force or institutions to be exploited in ways that may indirectly enable or conceal crimes against women and children,” she added.
According to reports cited in the resolution, email exchanges from the so-called “Epstein Files” allegedly indicate that a Philippines-based team was engaged to perform backend digital work and reputation management services aimed at improving Epstein’s online image.
These revelations raise concerns about possible regulatory gaps and the risk of the country being used as an operational hub for activities connected to transnational criminal networks.
borderslynn 
You must be logged in to post a comment.