In an attempt to walk back his previous claim that President Donald Trump had been an FBI informant in the case against sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that Trump wants to see all the files released. This runs counter to many statements from Trump calling the files’ release “foolish” and that the files themselves are a “hoax.”

On Friday, video of Johnson telling CNN’s Manu Raju that Trump had been an FBI informant in the Epstein case went viral. Over the weekend, Johnson’s office released a statement clarifying that he meant Trump “was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator.”

Mike Johnson claims that his comments about Trump being an FBI informant to take down Epstein have been “common knowledge for a long time”

(This is a lie) pic.twitter.com/SRBV6SJwhR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 8, 2025

In a new video, Raju asks Johnson again about the claim. Though Johnson said he didn’t know if he “used the right terminology,” the fact that Trump was willing to assist prosecutors and had previously ejected Epstein from Mar-a-Lago was “common knowledge.” Raju asked if Trump had been “asked to wear a wire,” but Johnson said he had no knowledge of that, only that Trump “was helpful in trying to get Epstein for law enforcement.”

READ MORE: Trump Launches Bizarre Epstein Files ‘Scam’ Rant When Asked About Russiagate

“The President and I have talked about the Epstein evils many times. He’s disgusted by it as everybody else. He has long had a history of acknowledging that, and he has said repeatedly he wants everything to come out, all credible information, everything for the American public to decide,” Johnson added.

Despite Johnson’s statement, Trump has had varied reactions to the Epstein files. While many in his orbit said his administration would release the Epstein files in full during his 2024 campaign, Trump himself was less keen on the idea, according to Time. While Trump suggested he may release the files, he also warned of inaccuracies in the data.

In a June 2, 2004 appearance on Fox & Friends, Trump said, “I guess I would [declassify the Epstein files. I think that less so, because you don’t know—you don’t want to  affect people’s lives if there’s phony stuff in there, because there’s a lot of phony stuff in that whole world. But I think I would.”  A few months later, Trump told Lex Fridman that he’d “certainly take a look” at releasing the client list.

On the other hand, Vice President JD Vance, during the campaign told comedian and podcaster Theo Von, “Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.” FBI Director Kash Patel also repeatedly called for “ALL of it to be released” during the campaign. Former advisor Elon Musk called for Trump to beat former Vice President Kamala Harris, because if he won “that Epstein client list is going to become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome.”

Trump’s own son also demanded the release of the client list during the campaign.

“Everyone knows Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane and island a lot. Literally no one is at all surprised that he’s all over the release. What we want to know is ALL THE OTHER NAMES that the government has been hiding & running cover for. That will actually be revealing!” Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in January 2024.

But after Trump’s election, his administration released a portion of the Epstein files—though most of the files released had already been publicly available. Trump had also dismissed calls from fellow Republicans to release the rest of the files.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullsh*t,’ hook, line, and sinker,” he wrote on Truth Social this July.

Around the same time, he called Republicans still interested in the Epstein files “former supporters” who had been “duped by the Democrats.”

On Monday, Politico reported that the House Oversight Committee had received additional files from the Epstein estate. The committee is led by James Comer (R-Ky.). It is yet unclear what from these latest files will be released publicly and when.

Comer’s fellow Kentucky Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie, has been behind a push to compel the Department of Justice to release all information on Epstein publicly. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.) say they have the votes to force the DOJ to release the information.

Image via Reuters

Justice Sonia Sotomayor had harsh words for the Supreme Court in her dissent in a ruling allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to continue to arrest people based on profiling Latinos working low-wage jobs.

Monday morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an emergency decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. The case concerns “Operation At Large,” which deployed ICE agents in the Los Angeles area to car washes, bus stops, farms and other locations believed to be frequented by Latino people who may or may not be undocumented immigrants. On July 11, the Central District Court of California ruled that ICE had to stop Operation At Large until appeals in the case could be heard.

The Court’s ruling contained no official explanation for the ruling, however Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh said the law allowed ICE to “‘briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned . . . is an alien illegally in the United States.”

READ MORE: Loyalty Litmus Test? Trump Allies Quietly Prep SCOTUS Short List

Operation At Large, he said, represented “reasonable suspicion” to detain someone on the following factors: “(i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.”

He added that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but could be a “‘relevant factor,” and that if someone detained by ICE turned out to be a citizen, they would be “free to go after the brief encounter.”

Sotomayor disagreed that this is what was happening, citing what had happened to other citizens. Jason Gavidia worked at a Los Angeles tow yard that ICE stopped at. Agents repeatedly asked if he was a citizen. They then took his phone, pushed him against a metal fence, twisted his arm, and took away his identification, according to Sotomayor’s dissent.

“Other Operation At Large encounters have included even more force and even fewer questions. For example, agents pulled up in four unmarked cars to a bus stop in Pasadena; ‘the doors opened and men in masks with guns started running at’ three Latino men who were having their morning coffee, waiting to be picked up for work,” she wrote.

“In Glendale, nearly a dozen masked agents with guns ‘jumped out of . . . cars’ at a Home Depot, and began ‘chasing’ and ‘tackl[ing]’ Latino day laborers without ‘identify[ing] themselves as ICE or police, ask[ing] questions, or say[ing] anything else.’ In downtown Los Angeles, agents ‘jumped out of a van, rushed up to [a tamale vendor], surrounded him, and handled him violently,’ all ‘[w]ithout asking . . . any questions.'”

Sotomayor concluded that Operation At Large and the Court’s decision “all but declared that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

She also condemned the court for not issuing an explanation beyond the concurrence. She alleged that the Court had been eager to “circumvent the ordinary appellate process” when it comes to President Donald Trump and his administration.

“Some situations simply cry out for an explanation, such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that Operation At Large and the Court’s ruling clearly violates the Bill of Rights.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent,” she wrote.

Image via Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

READ MORE: Right Wing Lobbying Organization Pushing States to Shield Companies From Political Boycotts

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.