The Press is Dead, Long Live the King
On the release of Epstein files
Author’s Note: This work is only possible with the support of readers like you! If you’ve enjoyed reading, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
Last week, the Justice Department released a batch of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It’s been a while, so here’s a reminder: Epstein was an American financier and convicted child sex offender. Unsurprisingly, he was also something of a con artist—a teacher without a college degree who pivoted to finance and climbed the social ladder until he had ties to everyone from Prince Andrew to Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. He died by suicide in 2019 while in custody.
The file release was highly anticipated. Conspiracies have surrounded Epstein for as long as he’s been infamous, and there’s nothing the modern American public loves more than salacious details on deranged humans who have caused irreparable harm. Trump’s administration, which is going to great lengths to brand itself as the “Most Transparent Administration in History,” has been promising this release—along with other “top-secret” disclosures—since the beginning of Trump’s term.
So, did the White House release the files? Technically, yes. They invited a group of fifteen social media influencers to a private meeting and handed them binders. Within hours, disappointment spread across social media. News outlets across the country headlined the letdown, criticizing the so-called bombshell release for containing little, if any, new or groundbreaking information. In fact, most of the files had already been circulating online.
Dozens of headlines dissected the file release all weekend. And they all missed the lede.
The real story isn’t that the files weren’t new. It’s that the White House handpicked 15 MAGA-loyal “journalists”—social media personalities—as the only people to receive them.
The "Journalists" Handpicked by Trump
Among them was Jessica Reed Kraus of House in Habit—a mommy blogger turned lifestyle influencer turned professional gossiper who, a few years ago, rebranded herself as an "independent journalist." Under her brand, Kraus frequently covers high-profile stories using anonymous sources—sources that not only can’t be verified but, on at least one prominent occasion, were proven to be fabricated to some degree, à la Stephen Glass.
Other MAGA influencers present were Rogan O'Handley (DC Draino), Liz Wheeler (@officiallizwheeler), and Chad Prather (@watchchad)—all personalities who aren’t just fans of Trump but who actively push incendiary rhetoric against liberals and progressive ideologies.
Trump didn’t just release the files. He curated the audience. The decision to distribute them exclusively to this group of influencers—while bypassing reputable journalists—fits into a larger, more concerning pattern.
A Systematic Dismantling of the Free Press
It’s easy to forget or minimize the importance of a free press. Not the appearance of a free press—actual free press. A free press is not just important to democracy; it is a foundational pillar of it. Without the fourth estate, the public cannot be informed to hold their representatives accountable. An uninformed public is a weak public, easily led into submission.
This is why dismantling the press is one of the first moves authoritarian leaders make. In Cuba, only state-controlled press outlets are allowed. In Chile, when Pinochet deposed Allende on September 11, 1973, the first thing he did was shut down the press. He knew that if the public could be informed, they would be prepared to resist.
And now, in the U.S., Trump’s administration has taken another step in this direction.
Also last week, the White House announced it will take control of which news organizations and reporters are allowed into the presidential press pool. This follows a ruling that allowed them to ban the Associated Press for continuing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by the internationally recognized name rather than the administration’s preferred term.
Per White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt:
“The White House press team in this administration will determine who gets to enjoy the very privileged and limited access in spaces such as Air Force One and the Oval Office.”
Previously, the White House Correspondents' Association—an independent organization—oversaw the press pool. Stripping them of that role is a blatant threat to news agencies and journalists. And Trump hasn’t exactly hidden his hostility toward the press, famously calling the media “the enemy of the people” during his first term for their criticism of him.
The message is clear: Be nice to me. Don’t criticize me. Don’t hold me accountable.
The Illusion of Transparency
Influencer journalists like Kraus are independent in the sense that they are not employed by a larger organization, but they are not politically unbiased nor compelled to truthful reporting regardless of the facts. Their loyalty is obvious—and rewarded.
In an article about her trip to the White House for the Epstein file release, Kraus wrote:
But is it transparency when you start blocking reputable journalists and organizations simply because you don’t like their coverage? Traditional journalists—flawed as they may be—adhere to industry standards, follow ethical guidelines, and have editorial oversight. A well-informed public requires access to news sources from varied political perspectives to form educated opinions; without that balance, reporting becomes propaganda. Influencers, on the other hand, are free agents with no accountability, no journalistic training, and no superiors to answer to. They publish what they want, when they want, with no obligation to accuracy.
Kraus is a prime example. Her transition into “independent journalism” has been riddled with anonymous sources, incorrect and harmful reporting, and strategic omissions.
In the same article, she described her interaction with Trump:
“He could not have been more complimentary. He was sure to praise our views in comparison to legacy media, which he speaks of in past tense, as if they’ve all died.”
The press is dead. Long live the king.
(Of course, I, too, am complimentary of those who love me. My fan base—which consists mostly of my parents, husband, and toddler—receives nothing but praise from me. Generally, I’m inclined to be kind to those who only say good things about me.)
The Epstein-Maxwell Connection
Kraus’s involvement in this story is murkier than she lets on. Her rise to “journalistic” fame was propelled by her coverage of Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial. Maxwell, a socialite who became involved with Epstein in the 1990s, was convicted for recruiting and grooming girls and women for Epstein and his associates. Officially, Maxwell, too, is a sex offender.
Throughout Maxwell’s trial and imprisonment, Kraus’s coverage grew increasingly sympathetic. As she began covering the campaign trail and positioning herself closer to Trump’s political orbit, her framing of Maxwell shifted. By summer 2023, she had shifted from reporting on Maxwell’s crimes to painting her as a savvy survivalist, publishing fluff pieces about her life behind bars. Quoting yet another anonymous source, she wrote:
“My source… says [Maxwell] is well-liked and friendly… I’m told she… is a great teacher (all of her classes have waitlists) and helpful in the library where she works daily recommending books and assisting inmates in their legal struggles while preparing for her own appeal.”
Then, in 2024, during the height of her presidential campaign coverage, Kraus published an audio recording allegedly featuring Epstein’s former cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione. In this audio, Tartaglione conveniently reframes Maxwell as a victim—
“…caught in Epstein’s insidious web of power, blackmail, and manipulation.”
Even more conveniently, Tartaglione also claims that Epstein himself admitted Trump had distanced himself from him. According to Tartaglione, Epstein said Trump threw him out of a party for fraternizing with a young woman—implying that Trump had recognized Epstein as a predator and cut ties with him. The implication was clear: Trump, unlike others in Epstein’s circle, had rejected him, a narrative that conveniently bolstered Trump’s image just as Kraus was embedding herself deeper in his media ecosystem.
After releasing this conveniently pro-Trump narrative, Tartaglione disappeared from public view. Although Kraus promised additional audio from their conversation, she has failed to produce it.
Kraus’s political entanglements don’t stop there. She has publicly sought invitations to high-level political events and has ties to Fighting4OneAmerica, an RFK Jr. Super PAC. Notably, the organization’s board included Daphne Barak—a close friend of Maxwell. Kraus herself was publicly listed as Director of Social Media on the PAC’s website, even as she insisted she had no political affiliations. Her name was later quietly removed.
Kraus’s story is just one piece of a much larger puzzle—one where truth is malleable, narratives are shaped to serve political power, and media access is granted only to those who play by the rules of loyalty.
The Bigger Picture
In the end, this story isn’t just about Epstein and Maxwell, or Kraus, or even Trump. It’s about us—the citizens of this country—and the narratives we accept, the sources we trust, and the standards we’re willing to abandon. It’s about whether we still believe in the core principles of democracy or if we’ve become too disillusioned to fight for them.
For nearly a decade, Trump has systematically attacked the structures that uphold democracy, like the free press. That isn’t a partisan opinion—it’s an observable fact. If you believe the system is broken, you might celebrate these attacks. If you believe our structures—imperfect as they are—are essential to a functioning democracy, you should be alarmed.
Because if those structures collapse, the consequences won’t be theoretical.
We will all pay the price.
And I fear it will be too high a price.
This article wouldn’t be possible without the relentless work of the redditors over at r/HouseonFire, who remain committed to holding Kraus accountable and exposing misinformation.
Hey, it’s good to see you here! Let’s connect on socials (well, I’m really only on Instagram). This newsletter is fully supported by readers. Your subscription of any level is a boon. Thank you! If you find yourself frequently enjoying these essays and want to be a part of building the community, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
You can also support me by liking posts or leaving a comment—this makes a huge impact on the algorithm and helps others find me! And as always, if you share a post or quote, please tag me so I can see it <3.
Recent Posts
About Simple Love
Tackling the tough conversations on politics, faith, and relationships. Expect musings and essays from a writer navigating hard topics with simple sincerity.
Unpacking of complicated topics (from a journalist’s perspective)
Essays offering reflections on marriage, parenting, faith and beyond
Roundups of my favorites
A sprinkling of book nerdiness, cultural commentary, and other random thoughts
It’s pretty insane how moves moves like these that he is making aren’t alarming more people!