Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is making a sudden push for an FBI probe into Jeffrey Epstein’s files after years of ignoring the controversy.
Fox News reported that the New York Democrat is waving the national security flag, demanding a counterintelligence assessment to check if foreign hackers could snatch unreleased documents. But is this about protecting America or just poking at President Donald Trump?
Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor July 29, 2025, urged the FBI to evaluate risks of foreign adversaries accessing Epstein’s files through cyberattacks.
He claimed these documents could give nations like Russia or China leverage over Trump or other officials if not made public. This call came amid a broader accusation of an Epstein “cover-up” by Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Schumer’s timing is curious, aligning with a recent cyberattack on federal agencies. On July 24, 2025, Chinese hackers breached the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services via Microsoft SharePoint. He cited this as proof of vulnerability, but it feels like a convenient hook to amplify his demands.
“Trump promised he’d release the Epstein files while campaigning, yet he hasn’t,” Schumer told reporters. This jab ignores Trump’s explanation that releasing sensitive grand jury materials could harm victims. It’s a selective outrage, painting Trump as secretive while dodging the legal complexities.
Schumer also slammed Johnson for dodging a House vote on a resolution to release the files. Johnson ended the legislative session early on July 24, 2025, calling the resolution—pushed by Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—“reckless” for ignoring federal rules. Schumer’s “Epstein recess” quip is catchy but glosses over Johnson’s point about protecting credible information.
“Speaker Johnson shut down Congress to avoid the topic,” Schumer said. He argued this fuels public distrust, but isn’t it Schumer’s fearmongering about foreign leverage that stokes confusion? The resolution’s bipartisan support suggests some agreement, yet Schumer frames it as a GOP cover-up.
Trump, questioned during a July 28, 2025, meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, clarified his Epstein history.
“I threw him out of Mar-a-Lago for stealing employees,” Trump said, emphasizing he never visited Epstein’s Caribbean island. This counters Schumer’s insinuations, though it’s unlikely to quiet the critics.
“I never went to the island, unlike Bill Clinton, supposedly 28 times,” Trump added. The former president’s deflection to Clinton and others like Larry Summers is classic Trump—shifting focus while denying involvement. But it doesn’t address Schumer’s core concern about unreleased files.
Schumer’s rhetoric about national security risks is bold but speculative. “What if the Epstein files end up in Russia or China’s hands?” he asked.
Without evidence of specific threats, this feels like a stretch to pressure Trump into releasing documents that may not even contain bombshells.
“Unless the files are fully released, could adversaries blackmail the president?” Schumer continued.
This hypothetical leans heavily on “what ifs,” not facts, and seems designed to spook the public. It’s a clever way to dress up a transparency demand as a security crisis.
The Chinese cyberattack Schumer referenced is real, but tying it to Epstein’s files is tenuous. “This was confirmed as Chinese actors,” he said, urging prevention. Yet, no evidence suggests Epstein’s files were targeted, making the connection more rhetorical than substantive.
Schumer’s call for FBI mitigation strategies sounds reasonable on paper. He wants the bureau to publicly show it’s countering threats. But demanding public disclosure of security measures could itself tip off adversaries—ironic for someone preaching national security.
Johnson’s stance, aligning with Trump, prioritizes releasing “all credible evidence” while shielding victims’ identities.
This contrasts with Schumer’s push for full disclosure, which could expose sensitive grand jury materials. The tension here is real: transparency versus legal and ethical boundaries.
Trump’s Mar-a-Lago expulsion of Epstein, if true, shows he distanced himself years ago. “I wouldn’t talk to him because he did something inappropriate,” Trump said. Schumer’s failure to acknowledge this context undermines his narrative of Trump hiding something sinister.
