Trump, Epstein, and the Asymmetric Blackmail Operation — A National Security Frame
- john raymond
- Jul 25
- 4 min read
Now that the Epstein list is front and center in the national conversation, it is time—well past time, in fact—to reframe what this entire affair means from a national security standpoint. Let us state clearly and unequivocally: this is not a detour around the suffering. The abuse inflicted on the victims—many of them children, not just “young women”—was monstrous. I have written at length elsewhere about the scale of this evil, the systemic exploitation, and the psychological silencing that followed. The pain is real. The crimes are real. And justice, for the most part, has not been done.
But this article is not about revisiting the abuse from a moral perspective. This article is about power—and how that abuse was used not merely for gratification but as leverage. What we are looking at is not merely a sordid ring of overindulged billionaires with no moral compass. We are looking at a tool of statecraft—a grotesque, immoral, but horrifyingly effective intelligence operation.
And the most important question we must ask is: which state?
Blackmail as Statecraft
Any thinking person who has studied intelligence history knows that honey traps are nothing new. Sexual entrapment has long been a favored tactic of intelligence agencies from the KGB to the CIA to Mossad. It’s effective. It’s deniable. And it sticks. Blackmail of the kind we see in the Epstein files is not just incidental to statecraft in the modern age—it is increasingly central.
The pattern suggests premeditation, scale, and impunity. This was not a few compromised individuals. This was a pipeline: scouts, handlers, transport logistics, offshore accounts, luxury properties, and state protection. This was infrastructure. Someone funded and protected it.
So, again: who?
The Convenient Scapegoat: Mossad
It is easy—too easy—to point to Mossad. The Epstein circle had members with dual citizenship. Maxwell’s father had Israeli intelligence ties. There are financial and political threads that trace back to pro-Israel lobbying in the U.S. And AIPAC’s immense influence on American foreign policy makes the leap feel natural for many.
But we must resist the convenient answer. The ease with which this Mossad theory is pushed is, in fact, one of the reasons to doubt it. Asymmetric warfare always involves narrative shaping—framing the opposition, seeding plausible misdirections, and encouraging the public to fixate on the wrong culprit while the real perpetrators operate in the shadows.
Ask yourself: Who benefits from the Mossad theory taking hold?
Russia: The True Beneficiary
Let’s follow the Raymond Method: in asymmetric warfare, work backward from the benefit. What does the Mossad narrative accomplish? It muddies American-Israeli trust. It fuels antisemitic conspiracy tropes. It distracts from deeper threats to national security. But most of all, it protects Russia.
Russia is the only foreign power in modern American history that has successfully installed a loyal asset into the Oval Office—twice. Russia is the only state actor that consistently benefits from Trump’s actions: his undermining of NATO, his subversion of Ukraine support, his willingness to blackmail allies like Israel, and his constant sabotage of internal U.S. cohesion.
Trump is the link that explains it all.
Trump: The Senior Partner
Here is the pivot. If Trump is Russia’s asset—and by now that is beyond reasonable dispute—then what if Epstein wasn’t the mastermind of the blackmail operation at all?
What if Trump was?
Consider this: Trump met Epstein early in his criminal evolution. We have no credible reports of Epstein’s trafficking empire prior to his association with Trump. But Trump’s documented associations with mobsters, corrupt financiers, and foreign intelligence go back decades—and so does his relationship with Russian state interests.
What if Epstein was not the spider, but the web spinner’s tool?
Trump had the money. Trump had the Rolodex. Trump had the impunity. He also had something Epstein lacked: state cover from a hostile foreign power. The kind of state power that could erase footage, pressure prosecutors, and neutralize media investigation. The kind of power that could turn one compromised man into a globe-spanning trap.
Epstein’s Death and the Chain of Command
Who dies when the operation unravels? Not Trump. Not the clients. Not the protectors. Epstein dies. Maxwell is sidelined. And the evidence—surveillance footage, logs, case files—either disappears or is sealed indefinitely.
You don’t eliminate your boss. You eliminate your subordinate.
And Trump not only survives—he thrives. He becomes president. Twice. He leverages his proximity to Epstein to rewrite the narrative, cast himself as distant, and threaten retaliation against those who dig too deep. He floats pardons for Maxwell. He threatens journalists. He attacks judges.
And through it all, he remains in lockstep with Putin’s interests.
The National Security Implications
If this theory holds even partial truth, we are not looking at mere scandal. We are looking at active compromise of the U.S. executive branch by a hostile intelligence operation—an operation that used sexual blackmail as its central tool.
This isn’t just about old crimes. This is about a sitting president who is not only protecting the apparatus of blackmail, but who may have helped build it. Who may have coordinated its targets. Who may have directed its use against allies and adversaries alike, not to protect the United States, but to serve the interests of a regime in Moscow.
Final Thought
Until we stop dismissing this as “conspiracy theory” and start asking strategic questions about intelligence structures, motive, and survivorship, we may miss the truth entirely.
This is not about sex. It’s not even just about crime.
It’s about asymmetric war waged not with tanks or missiles, but with shame, secrecy, and leverage. And Trump may not just be the beneficiary of this operation—he may have been its commander.
And that would make this not merely a scandal of the century.
It would make it an act of war.
Comments