Lauren Boebert got the treatment this week. The Republican Congresswoman from Colorado is one of the most outspoken pro-Trump figures on Capitol Hill, her sometimes outlandish positions earning her a solid following among the MAGA base.
But when she was summoned to the White House on Wednesday, it was not for praise. It was to exert extraordinary pressure on her to change her vote on an issue that has grown increasingly sensitive for President Trump, the Epstein files.
According to reporting by CNN and others, Boebert was brought into the Situation Room, the most secure chamber in the White House, where military operations are overseen and national security matters discussed. Members of Congress, especially backbenchers, are rarely, if ever, admitted.
No one in Washington punditry this week could recall any precedent for a single House member being brought into the Situation Room for a briefing.
And what a briefing it appears to have been.
On the other side of the table sat Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Todd Blanche, Bondi's deputy and formerly Donald Trump’s personal lawyer during the Stormy Daniels case.
Blanche had also been entrusted with an extraordinary mission earlier this summer: to interview Ghislaine Maxwell in prison to determine what she might say about Donald Trump's relationship with her late partner in crime, Jeffrey Epstein.
This week, Maxwell was reported to be receiving favourable treatment in the low-security facility where she was transferred following that interview, a prison some have dubbed "Club Fed". She is also reported to be preparing a request for President Trump to commute her sentence.
It was an unusually heavyweight delegation of Trump administration figures. Their mission: to persuade Boebert to remove her name from a discharge petition forcing a House vote on a bill to compel the release of the Epstein files.
A race against time
The White House intervention came as part of a frantic, last-minute effort to stop a parliamentary move months in the making. Boebert and three other Republicans had crossed the aisle to support the petition, joining Democrats in demanding publication of the files.
The pressure intensified because this race had a clear deadline.
Just over 50 days ago, Democrat Adelita Grijalva won a by-election to replace her late father as Representative for Arizona’s 8th District. Once sworn in, she would become the 218th signature, the "magic number" that would compel the Speaker of the House to bring the motion to the floor.
Speaker Mike Johnson, leading the Republican majority, had delayed her swearing-in on the grounds that the House was not in session. He had sent members home on 19 September and refused to recall them during the 43-day government shutdown.
That changed on Wednesday. The shutdown ended, members returned, and Representative Grijalva was finally sworn in.
The first thing she did was sign the discharge petition. Her signature brought the total to 218-214 Democrats and four Republicans, including Lauren Boebert.
If any one of those four Republicans withdrew, the petition would collapse.
Why the other Republicans would not budge
There was little point in asking Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky to reverse course. He co-sponsored the measure with Democrat Ro Khanna, a rare bipartisan initiative in today’s Congress.
Massie has repeatedly clashed with the Trump administration, particularly on fiscal issues. The President has already endorsed a primary challenger against him. With nothing to lose politically, and potentially something to gain, Massie has positioned himself firmly on the side of the Epstein victims.
He spoke passionately on their behalf at a press conference on the steps of Congress in early September, where eight survivors recounted their stories. Another such event is planned next week.
The first woman to speak publicly about Epstein was Virginia Giuffre, and she re-entered the news this week after her name appeared in a 2011 email Epstein sent to Ghislaine Maxwell.
The email was one of three released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the Epstein files and the government’s handling of them.
The emails came from the Epstein estate, not the government, and appear to form part of a trove that included Epstein’s handmade "Birthday Book".
Democrats redacted Giuffre’s name, but within hours, Republican members, staffers and the White House had named her. Republicans then released 20,000 emails from the latest tranche.
Giuffre died by suicide in April. Her memoir, Nobody’s Girl, was published posthumously last month. In it, she states she never witnessed inappropriate behaviour by Donald Trump, something she had also testified to in a 2016 court case.
The White House response
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said of the released emails: "These emails prove absolutely nothing, other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong. And what President Trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach and so was Jeffrey Epstein.
"Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out, because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep."
She continued: "And this email you refer to… 'Virginia Giuffre.’ And it was CBS’s own reporting that recently wrote that Ms Giuffre maintained… that there was nothing inappropriate she ever witnessed… So I think it's a question worth asking the Democrat Party… why they chose to redact that name of a victim who has already publicly made statements… and is unfortunately no longer with us."
When asked why the administration simply did not release all files in the interest of transparency, she replied: "This administration has done more with respect to transparency… than any administration, ever…. This is truly a manufactured hoax by the Democrat Party… And it is not a coincidence that the Democrats leaked these emails… ahead of Republicans reopening the government.
"This is another distraction campaign… and it's why I'm being asked questions about Epstein instead of the government reopening."
Her argument, that if Democrats believed the Epstein files contained something devastating to Trump, they would have released them while Biden was President, has been widely echoed in recent days.
Which raises the obvious question: If the files contain nothing damaging to Trump, why not release them?
The lack of transparency is increasingly generating suspicion, even anger, among Trump supporters who remember his campaign promises to release the files.
Political consequences
According to Politico, many Republicans are expected to vote in favour of releasing the files when the measure reaches the House floor next week. Democrats expect several dozen Republican votes.
Five Republican sources told Politico they expect more than 100 GOP members to support the release, around half the party.
Massie told CNN he believes the numbers will snowball.
"The deal for Republicans on this vote is that Trump will protect you if you vote the wrong way. In other words, if you vote to cover up for pedophiles, you’ve got cover in a Republican primary," he said.
"But… what are you going to do in 2028 and 2030… when someone says, ‘How can we trust you? You covered up for a pedophile back in 2025?’"
For many Republicans, appearing on the right side of public anger is increasingly important.
Marjorie Taylor Greene breaks ranks
One ally they have to thank for the political cover is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
A MAGA firebrand, she has spent months attacking her own party over cost-of-living issues and has loudly backed the Epstein survivors. At a September press conference she declared she would "name every damn one" of the alleged abusers if given the list.
Earlier this week, the President said Greene had "lost her way", mild compared to recent tensions between them.
But he also understood there was little point in pressuring her. She told Politico the party must show it stands with its base: "This is me wanting my party to do something… Not only is it the right thing to do… but if you want to win the midterms, this is what we need to be doing."
She added: "Releasing the Epstein files is the easiest thing in the world… support the victims… But to spend any effort trying to stop it… doesn’t make sense to me."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Friday showed that while nine-in-ten Republicans approve of Trump’s overall performance, only four-in-ten approve of his handling of the Epstein files.
Nancy Mace - ‘This is personal’
The final member of the so-called 'Gang of Four' is Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who is running for Governor next year.
Amid speculation that she was under pressure from the administration, she issued a lengthy post on X explaining that her stance on the Epstein files was deeply personal and non-negotiable.
She wrote: "The Epstein petition is deeply personal. When I was 14 I was molested… and sexually assaulted at 16… I dropped out of high school at 17 because I had nothing left to give.
"Two years ago I became a survivor of sexual and domestic violence once more… When I fled my home… I had nowhere to go… I was forced to move 4 separate times to keep me and my children safe.
"I found videos of unconscious women being sexually assaulted… I turned evidence over to law enforcement. To date NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED!
"I’ll never understand why God threw me gut punch after gut punch — but I’m stronger.
"As a survivor I will defend every last attack on President Trump to the death… I will NEVER abandon other survivors. Only in America… is this success story even possible."
She insisted the real story was the victims, not whether Trump was connected, and accused the media of using the issue for "clickbait". She denied being pressured by Trump.
The Gang of Four held their ground. Boebert resisted the most intense pressure. Grijalva was sworn in. The petition reached 218.
A vote now appears set for Tuesday.
If the bill passes the House it moves to the Senate. Should both chambers approve it, it then reaches the desk of the one person most reluctant to see it enacted, President Donald J. Trump.
He could veto it. But doing so would likely fuel the very conspiracy theories he insists are unfounded.
Only a two-thirds vote in both chambers could override such a veto, a steep challenge in today’s bitterly partisan climate.
On Friday afternoon, the President launched his own counter-initiative on Truth Social, calling for the FBI and Justice Department to investigate Democrats named in the latest email tranche.
He wrote: "Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein Hoax… I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi… to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many others…"
He added: "Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrats’ problem, not the Republicans’ problem! Ask Bill Clinton… Reid Hoffman… Larry Summers… don’t waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!"
What the emails actually show
Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, appears nine times in the searchable database of this week’s release (25 if counting other Hoffmans). Trump’s name appears 1,628 times, though many documents appear duplicated. Most mentions relate to press clippings on finance or politics, not travel or the island.
Ireland appears a handful of times, again mainly in financial reporting from the early 2010s. One direct email to Epstein from Maryland developer Gerald Barton referenced Donald Trump’s purchase of Doonbeg Golf Club, calling it "the best resort in Europe". Another email in 2016 referenced the same property.
Beyond three emails mentioning Trump "knowing about the girls", nothing in the tranche appears newly damaging to the President, at least nothing beyond what was previously known.
Which leaves observers asking the same question: Why not release everything?
The President’s new FBI directive allows the agency to say files cannot be released while part of an active investigation, delaying matters once again.
Why?
