This morning, a remarkable vibe-shift data point out of Marist College: Their latest poll gives Democrats a whopping 14-point lead among registered voters on the national generic ballot, 55–41, up from a 48–48 split in their poll last year. The pollster notes that it’s the first time in more than three years that Democrats have had any notable generic-ballot advantage in their poll. Happy Wednesday.

‘The Epstein Class’

by William Kristol

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

It was only a week ago that newly sworn in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) provided the final signature needed on the discharge petition to force a vote on The Epstein Files Transparency Act. Yesterday, the House approved the act by a vote of 427–1. About three hours later, the Senate deemed it passed by unanimous consent. The legislation will be transmitted to the White House today. President Trump has said he will sign the bill into law.

This act requires that the Justice Department make public within thirty days all the unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession related to any of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity, plea agreements, and investigatory proceedings. It specifies that “no record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

The authors of the legislation tried to make sure any exceptions were narrowly drawn. The attorney general can only withhold or redact information from personal or medical files—the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy—or information that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, “provided such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” The law requires that all redactions must be accompanied by a written justification in the Federal Register.

Obviously, there is no guarantee that Donald Trump’s attorney general will carry out these legislative instructions in good faith. Pam Bondi could try to turn tight and reasonable exceptions into wide open loopholes. Her boss, the president, has already ordered up an investigation of Democrats tied to Epstein—and she quickly said she’d comply. Could that be a predicate for withholding documents?

But would she even bother to cite that investigation? There are, after all, no assurances that the attorney general won’t try to simply withhold documents and information without telling us she’s done so.

And so “distrust and verify” should be the motto going forward. Congress, the media, the survivors—everyone committed to having the truth come out—needs to be prepared to keep the pressure on throughout, and to scream from the rooftops if there seems to be evasion or stonewalling.

But here’s a wild suggestion: Donald Trump’s attorney general should do the right thing. Especially since no less august a figure than the Speaker of the House reminded us yesterday that as “[President Trump] has said himself, he has nothing to hide.”

Donald Trump said it himself! It must be true!

Yet for a guy who has nothing to hide, Donald Trump seems strangely perturbed about recent developments. In the Oval Office yesterday, he lashed out at a reporter who asked about the legislation, saying, “You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter.” He added, “As far as the Epstein files, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.”

The record suggests this is—how to put it?—a lie.

Trump had a lot to do with Jeffrey Epstein. He had a lot to do with the review of the Epstein files in the first months of his second term. He was briefed on the fact that his name appears in those files. He opposed the legislation requiring the release of the files. He has chosen throughout not to release the files. He has denounced the whole issue as “a hoax.”

We’ll see what Donald Trump’s attorney general releases. And if we don’t see documents and files—if the administration goes into a true cover-up in the face of the legislation the president will have signed—I think we’ll be able to see that, too.

So, as I wrote Monday, we’re only at the end of the beginning of the Trump administration’s Epstein drama.

And I think we’re also only at the end of the beginning of a broader reckoning about the meaning of the Epstein saga. That meaning goes beyond the involvement of Donald Trump. As Ro Khanna, the Democratic congressman who took the lead on the discharge petition, told the New York Times yesterday:

I was going to places like Johnstown, Pa., and I was going to places like Warren, Ohio. When I was there, the issue would come up about “the Epstein class”—that’s what they called it. They said, well, are you on the side of the forgotten Americans or on the side of the Epstein class?

“Are you on the side of the forgotten Americans or on the side of the Epstein class?”

That seems to me a powerful challenge and a fair question.

And while politics today is unpredictable—as the twists and t