The National Interest Foundation Newsletter
Issue 320, February 6, 2026
Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we examine how the latest Epstein files release exposed a troubling array of global connections and foreign influence operations, look into Israel’s efforts to push U.S. President Trump to adopt its maximalist approach towards Iran, and explore the lawsuit brought forth by a coalition of civil rights groups against the U.S. State Department over a pause on visa processing for citizens from 75 countries.
Editor: Bassam Tarbush
Latest Epstein Files Release Exposes a Troubling Array of Global Connections and Foreign Influence Operations
The latest disclosure of approximately 3 million pages of documents from the Epstein files related to the deceased convicted sex offender has prompted resignations and investigations in multiple countries, raising questions about how Epstein was able to operate across borders for years. Some of the clearest immediate political fallout caused took place in Slovakia, where Miroslav Lajčák – a veteran diplomat, former foreign minister, and national security adviser to Prime Minister Robert Fico – resigned after documents revealed personal correspondence and social interactions with Epstein. The disclosures triggered public controversy and pressure from opposition parties, with the episode demonstrating how associations uncovered in the files have become politically untenable in certain contexts. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, renewed scrutiny surrounding Lord Peter Mandelson – a prominent Labour Party figure and former cabinet minister – resulted in his departure from the party. The files revived attention to Mandelson’s past relationship with Epstein, including financial connections that had not previously been fully explained. British political leaders and media outlets have called for greater clarity regarding his knowledge of Epstein’s activities and the extent of their relationship, as Mandelson’s resignation highlights the growing reputational cost attached to appearing in the released documents.
Similar repercussions have emerged in Scandinavia. In Sweden, the chair of the national UNHCR office resigned following revelations that she had visited Epstein’s private island after his earlier conviction. In Norway, reports of extensive email correspondence between Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Epstein prompted criticism from officials and journalists, with many observers wondering whether this could even have implications on the future of the Norwegian royal house and impact her ability to potentially assume the role of queen when her husband, the Crown Prince, ascends to the throne. Other figures have faced renewed pressure even if they have not formally stepped aside. In the United Kingdom, calls have intensified for Prince Andrew to cooperate fully with investigators as additional documents circulate. These demands reflect a broader insistence among journalists, advocacy groups, and members of the public that longstanding privilege should not shield individuals from justifiable scrutiny and consequences.
Beyond individual cases, analysts argue that the files reveal deeper structural concerns. The documents show how Epstein cultivated relationships across diplomacy, business, philanthropy, and academia, often positioning himself as a facilitator or intermediary. Correspondence involving figures in Europe and the Middle East suggests that his network functioned across borders and sectors. Various public commentators and former officials have also long maintained that Epstein’s network intersected with intelligence activities and foreign state influence operations. Figures including Tucker Carlson and Matt Gaetz have asserted that Epstein operated as an asset for Israeli intelligence services, specifically the Mossad. Both have frequently pointed to Epstein’s extensive documented ties with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who met with Epstein dozens of times and received millions in payments from an Epstein-linked foundation while working together on business and political projects, including ventures in the surveillance industry. Furthermore, declassified FBI documents have consisted of contentions that Epstein worked with Israeli intelligence and was a co-opted Mossad agent trained under Barak. Now, in documents uncovered as a part of the latest Epstein files release, one revealed how individuals involved in investigation believed that both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were “Mossad agents trying to blackmail leaders throughout the political and financial world.” Others have also cited Epstein’s knowledge of backchannel diplomacy regarding Israeli foreign dealings as evidence of his deep connections as well. All of this is highly concerning and raises serious questions about Epstein working on behalf of foreign entities, with revelations depicting his involvement in a system whereby blackmail, surveillance, and the compromising of individuals was used to entrench power relations, exert influence over policy and business dealings, and protect a network of elites.
Transparency advocates and civil society groups argue that resignations and public apologies, while symbolically important, do not address the alarming questions raised by the files. They contend that meaningful accountability would require comprehensive investigations into how Epstein gained access to senior officials and the manner in which public power was exercised improperly. Without such efforts, critics warn that institutional trust will continue to erode. So far, in several European countries, associations with Epstein have resulted in swift consequences, including resignations and official inquiries. In the United States, however, despite renewed attention and calls from advocacy organizations, there has been no comparable wave of political departures directly linked to the document releases. This disparity has become a subject of debate among scholars and policy analysts. As additional materials continue to surface, the long-term implications of the Epstein files remain uncertain. What is clear is that the disclosures have exposed foreign corruption facilitated by Epstein and weaknesses in how power, access, and responsibility are monitored across borders. Whether governments and institutions respond with deeper reforms or allow the moment to pass will shape public confidence in leadership and accountability for years to come.
Israel’s Efforts to Push U.S. President Trump to Adopt Its Maximalist Approach Towards Iran
With the threat of a potential military attack against Iran looming, analysts have sought to draw attention to the factors behind President Trump’s shifting goals and demands towards Iran in the time since the U.S. bombing campaign against several Iranian nuclear facilities back in June of 2025. For many, it is clear that the Israeli government has been actively and aggressively pushing the Trump administration to adopt a confrontational maximalist approach in an attempt to steer the U.S. away from possible diplomatic solutions and instead towards dangerous military actions aimed at complete disarmament, zero compromise, and regime change. This has led observers to lament that doing so and the serious threat of a military confrontation with Iran is something which detrimentally risks entangling the United States into a protracted and wide-scale conflict that could destabilize the Middle East and endanger the lives of American troops in the region. As such, experts are advocating for diplomacy as the sole means of averting yet another potential regional crisis – one which would undoubtedly be harmful to the United States’ best interests.
The shifting Trump approach has become apparent, with recent reports highlighting Israel’s efforts to push the United States to demand what has been labeled as the “three no’s” policy regarding Iran. These consist of the maximalist demands that Iran agree to have no nuclear program, no ballistic missile program, and no support for regional proxy groups – things that Israeli officials have long desired in an effort to stoke conflict with Iran given Tehran’s rejection of these as infringements on its sovereignty. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was deemed to have discussed the “three no’s” policy with his American counterparts this week, specifically in meetings with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff whereby Netanyahu relayed the demands to American negotiators ahead of the plan for renewed U.S. nuclear talks with Iran. These have been referred to as “poison pill” demands which Israel has pressured Washington to adopt given that they are designed to make any diplomatic agreement with Iran impossible, thereby prompting a military confrontation. The Trump adoption of the stance related to the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile program in particular has been shown to be an Israeli demand, with Israeli state broadcasters themselves shedding light on how military officials view this as a core component of their military strategy. Those seeking to instigate conflict with Iran have also tried to put forward the argument that the Iranian government is in a vulnerable position and should be attacked. However, as impartial experts have pointed out, this idea that the government is close to being toppled has been voiced many times before and has been used by hawkish figures as a tool to try to promote their desire for a direct military confrontation that is certain to have disastrous ramifications.
One can also see the changed Trump approach by looking back at what unfolded during the U.S. bombing campaign in June of 2025. When this was carried out against Iranian nuclear facilities last year, President Trump insisted that the attacks inflicted major damage which obliterated Iran’s nuclear program – despite this being contradicted by independent U.S. intelligence reports concluding that the damage caused was instead superficial. The Trump administration’s anger at the assessment which countered its narrative even prompted the firing of the then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, whose agency had remarked that the U.S. attacks had set back Iran’s nuclear program by “only a few months.” Following this, the Trump administration was understandably criticized, with the dismissal being characterized as a dangerous attempt to politicize and undermine the impartial U.S. intelligence community. Furthermore, this and what has transpired since raises questions as to why Trump would still be seeking to target Iran over its nuclear program if his insistence on its obliteration is to be believed, unless of course – as observers have alluded to – there is a clear “moving of the goalposts” that advocates of another attack are manipulating to try to justify the purported need for this.
Concerns regarding the Trump administration’s adoption of Israel’s maximalist demands towards Iran elicits unease as to the troubling manner in which U.S. actions and policies are being increasingly shaped by outside priorities that are ultimately detrimental to the best interests of the United States. Military escalations with Iran would likely entangle the United States in a wide-scale conflict and harm U.S. alliances. This is why regional U.S. allies like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and others have been seeking to prevent escalation due to fears of the destabilization that would stem from an expansive and protracted conflict. As such, the increased U.S. military presence in the region has many on edge, with several countries refusing to allow the use of their airspace or bases to carry out attacks against Iran. The United States’ European allies oppose any form of direct military confrontation as well – which could create diplomatic rifts if the U.S. decides to strike Iran. Additionally, external military intervention from the United States is more likely to prompt internal repression inside Iran rather than weaken the government. Beyond these considerations, war results in widespread loss of life, civilian displacement, the destruction of infrastructure, and economic hardship – all of which precipitate long-term instability. Thus, observers are emphasizing the importance of diplomatic engagement in order to instead deescalate tensions and prevent a potentially widespread and catastrophic regional war.
Coalition of Civil Rights Groups Sue the State Department Over a Pause on Visa Processing for Citizens from 75 Countries
In recent weeks, the Trump administration announced a new immigration policy that places an indefinite pause on visa processing for nationals from 75 countries. The move, which applies primarily to employment-based and family-based immigration, has prompted immediate legal challenges from a coalition of civil rights groups and immigration advocates who argue that the policy represents a sharp departure from longstanding U.S. immigration practices. The ban itself has been framed by the current administration as a measure to prevent future dependence on public assistance, but legal experts have outlined that it is complicated just how far the federal government can go in restricting entry based on factors such as economic risk and national origin.
This new ban – which went into effect on January 21st – is part of a collection of efforts to tighten U.S. entry standards for foreign nationals. Previous bans have restricted entry based on security and vetting concerns, but this latest policy has indefinitely paused the issuance of visas for nationals from 75 different countries. A handful of non-profits and legal organizations claim that the new ban affects employment and family-based visas, seemingly not impacting student or tourist visas. The basis for the Trump administration to halt applications is to limit the number of individuals who are likely to become a “public charge,” which under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is defined as an immigrant who is expected to depend on government assistance like Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The INA was enacted in 1952 and has since been amended over the years, though it does not include the United States government’s definition of public charge. In fact, the factors used to determine whether an applicant is likely to become dependent on the government is based on considerations such as age, health, family status, assets, resources, and education. In addition to these factors, the Trump administration now wants to determine eligibility based on nationality, geography, and English-proficiency as well. The lawsuit addresses this fact accordingly stating that “the law has never deemed a person inadmissible merely because they may one day need public benefits.” Some have also pointed out that immigrants are usually only eligible for cash welfare after they have obtained their green card for at least five years. Thus, they do not receive benefits right away, unless they are victims of human trafficking, asylum seekers, or refugees, in which cases, they may be eligible for assistance sooner.
Furthermore, the coalition of organizations filing the lawsuit raise concerns over issues like the blanket bans’ indefinite timeline, the lack of explanation for abandoning the original case-by-case framework, and conflict with the INA’s prohibition on nationality-level discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. Around 85% of the populations impacted are non-European, and therefore a significant level of unease exists about the ban’s disproportionate effect on people from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. Those who oppose the ban also fear it creates a space for generalized assumptions about immigrant groups, turning nationality into a determining factor for admissibility into the United States.
On the other hand, supporters of the policy argue that the administration is acting within its authority to regulate immigration in a way that prioritizes economic self-sufficiency and reduces strain on public resources. They say that the public charge framework has long been part of U.S. immigration law and that updating how risk is assessed is a reasonable response to current economic pressures – including rising healthcare costs and limited social service capacity at both the state and federal levels. From this perspective, expanding the criteria used in visa decisions is not seen as discrimination, but instead as an effort to modernize screening standards.
Administration officials and policymakers have also noted that nationality and geography are already factored into immigration decisions in indirect ways, such as through country-specific caps, security assessments, and regional instability evaluations. They argue that formalizing these considerations provides consistency, rather than leaving decisions solely to discretionary judgment. Some proponents also state that evaluating English proficiency and education levels is intended to measure an applicant’s ability to integrate into the workforce and avoid long-term economic hardship, not to exclude individuals based on identity or origin.
Others defending the ban point to past instances where similar sized large-scale migration coincided with under-resourced public systems, putting forth the contention that preventive restrictions are preferable to reactive measures in the future. They frame the policy as temporary and adjustable, seeking to assure that the administration will still retain the ability to revise or lift restrictions as conditions change. Those in this camp try to therefore label the pause on visa issuance as a tool for reassessment as opposed to any form of permanent exclusion.
Still, even among those who accept the administration’s stated goals, there is debate over whether such a sweeping, nationality-based approach is the most effective or lawful means of achieving them. Legal critics worry that these general bans risk undermining the individualized assessment model that has historically guided U.S. immigration decisions. Thus, the ongoing legal challenge will ultimately test how far executive authority can extend in redefining admissibility standards, especially regarding protections against discrimination. As the case moves forward, the outcome may shape not only the future of this policy, but the direction of U.S. immigration law as well.
