After intense public pressure and criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum, President Trump has called for a federal judge to release grand jury testimony related to the disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sexually trafficking children.

The Department of Justice has also formally asked the federal court judge who was assigned to the Epstein case to unseal the testimony. In a motion filed Friday to the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote: “Given the public interest in the investigative work conducted by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation into Epstein, the Department of Justice moves the Court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts in United States v. Epstein, subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information.”

On Saturday morning, Trump posted about the request on his Truth Social account, writing : “I have asked the Justice Department to release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to Court Approval. With that being said, and even if the Court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!”

However, Trump continues to distance himself from Epstein, and denies that he had any involvement in the allegations against the disgraced financier, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal child sex trafficking charges. (Epstein’s death was ruled a suicide . Ghislaine Maxwell, who helped run the trafficking ring that ensnared young teenagers, was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022.)

This past week, Trump lashed out at both Democrats and members of his own party interested in the Epstein materials, calling them “stupid” and “foolish” in comments he made at the White House. On Wednesday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account: “Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bull*****’ hook, line, and sinker.”

New York State Sex Offender Registry / AP / AP FILE – This March 28, 2017, file photo, provided by the New York State Sex Offender Registry shows Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein’s imprisonment and death have spurred a number of conspiracy theories, including one amplified by several prominent individuals who serve in the Trump administration that his death is evidence that the government is actually run by a “deep state” determined to undermine the president.

Much of the public pressure to release materials related to Epstein has come from both media influencers and rank-and-file Trump supporters, many of whom have been intensely interested in such conspiracy theories, and some of whom have publicly aired their disappointment that Trump had seemed to renege on campaign-era assurances that he wanted to see the files released.

On Friday, President Trump filed a federal lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, accusing the news outlet of defaming him in a report published Thursday that said Trump had written a birthday card to Epstein in 2003 that included sexually suggestive language and a lewd drawing. The president maintains that he did not draw or write any of these materials.

The suit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, alleges that the Journal “falsely claimed that he [Trump] authored, drew, and signed a card to wish the late–and utterly disgraced–Jeffrey Epstein a happy fiftieth birthday.”

The suit asks for at least $10 billion in damages and also names the Journal’s parent company, NewsCorp (which also includes Fox News); NewsCorp chief executive Robert Thomson; and Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, the two Journal reporters who wrote the story.

Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike have been calling for the release of files on the Epstein case. On Thursday, AP reported that House Speaker Mike Johnson said , “All the credible evidence should come out.” On Tuesday, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced a discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing the complete Epstein files. “We all deserve to know what’s in the Epstein files, who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes,” Massie wrote in a post on X.

On Weekend Edition Saturday , Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also called for all files related to Epstein to be released. “We need full transparency,” Khanna said. “We need the interview memos to see which rich and powerful men were involved with Jeffrey Epstein. We need to see the emails, the texts. We need to of course protect victim identity. But the president promised this when he campaigned. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, promised this.”

Khanna said that the need for transparency with the Epstein documents goes far beyond the particulars of this case. “It goes to the heart of trust in the government,” Khanna said. “It goes to the heart of whether our government is granting impunity to the rich and the powerful who may have abused, assaulted, abandoned young girls, or whether we’re going to stand up for children and stand up for truth. And many people view it as an issue of whether our government in Washington has been corrupted.”

Earlier this month, the DOJ released a two-page memo saying that after an “exhaustive review,” it and the FBI found no evidence that Epstein kept a “client list” of people involved in the alleged sex trafficking, or that Epstein blackmailed prominent and powerful associates. The DOJ memo contradicted past statements made by Bondi.

Copyright 2025 NPR

Police are investigating a man’s death after he was pulled into a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine earlier this week.

The 61-year-old man was wearing a “large metallic chain” when he entered an MRI room on Wednesday at Nassau Open MRI in Westbury, N.Y., while a scan was in progress, the Nassau County Police Department said.

The chain caused the man to be “drawn into the machine which resulted in a medical episode” and he died from his injuries the next day, police also said.

NPR reached out to Nassau Open MRI in Westbury for comment on Saturday but has not received a response.

An MRI scan can create a “strong, static magnetic field” that creates physical hazards, says the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates MRI safety. This can attract and “pull on” magnetic items such as cell phones, keys and oxygen tanks that can injure patients and medical professionals if they become projectiles, the agency says.

“Careful screening of people and objects entering the MR environment is critical to ensure nothing enters the magnet area that may become a projectile,” according to the FDA.

Copyright 2025 NPR

The Internet has gone into spasm over the past couple of days over an incident on Wednesday involving a couple caught cuddling on the Jumbotron at a Coldplay concert at Gillette stadium in Foxborough near Boston. Instead of leaning into their embrace when they realized they were on camera, the man and woman abruptly pulled apart. She turned her back on the camera. He ducked. The couple’s embarrassment was compounded by Coldplay frontman Chris Martin’s comment from the stage: “Either they’re having an affair or they’re very shy.”

The kiss cam clip went viral on social media, gaining millions of hits on X, TikTok, and Instagram. Sleuths soon identified the couple: He’s Andy Byron, the married CEO of New York-based software development company Astronomer; she’s Kristin Cabot, the company’s head of human resources.

Astronomer announced Friday it had put Byron on leave, replacing him with chief product officer Peter DeJoy. “Astronomer is committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding. Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability,” said the company in a statement on X, adding that its board of directors has initiated a formal investigation into the matter.

On Saturday, Byron resigned, according to a statement from Astronomer.

Meanwhile, the Internet became awash with responses, including fake statements from Byron and Coldplay , as well as countless memes such as one likening the couple to Muppets Fozzie Bear and Miss Piggy.

There have been IRL responses too. The Philadelphia Phillies made fun of the faux pas by screening a video during Friday night’s game on its Jumbotron of its fuzzy green mascot Phillie Phanatic in an embrace with a fuzzy green companion. People can even buy commemorative merch, such as a sweatshirt bearing the slogan – in caps – “I TOOK MY SIDEPIECE TO THE COLDPLAY CONCERT AND IT RUINED MY LIFE.”

Kiss cams: a mostly awkward history

The origins of Kiss cams are unclear . They likely originated in the 1980s with the advent of big video boards being installed at stadiums in California as a way to fill in the gaps in play in professional baseball games. They often elicit delight, such as when former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn shared a romantic moment before the cheering crowd at an Atlanta Braves game in 2015.

But it’s also true to say the wandering camera has also been the cause of scandal.

A major source of kiss cam controversy has been over the tendency of cams to focus on straight couples, as well as to demean or attack same-sex embraces.

In 2010, for example, the kiss cam at the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis, the former home of the St. Louis Rams, showed a kiss between two men wearing Arizona Cardinals jerseys, in an apparent homophobic jibe against the rival team.

And in 2015, the New York Mets changed their kiss cam policy after being criticized for promoting homophobia by rallying the crowd to make fun of two men appearing on the cam together.

More often though, kiss cam footage isn’t so much scandalous as awkward.

Take the time in 2012, when former president Barack Obama initially failed to respond to the cam while attending a men’s USA National Team vs. Brazil basketball game with his wife Michelle.

“As the crowd urged the couple to kiss, the president held his arm around the first lady and smiled, but didn’t kiss, prompting a wave of boos from the crowd,” reported CNN . “But fans didn’t leave entirely disappointed. Not long after the couple shied away from a PDA, reporters were brought back into the arena to watch as Obama and his wife re-appeared on the kiss cam, this time with the president going in for the smooch.”

Some celebrity couples prefer to avoid kiss cams altogether. Prince William shared this view with the BBC in 2012 while attending the Olympics in London with his wife Kate Middleton. “I was absolutely dreading they were going to come and show myself and my wife,” he said. “That would have been very embarrassing.”

Copyright 2025 NPR

SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:

We’re starting today’s show with a surprise twist in the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort. A large-scale prisoner swap happened Friday. It was coordinated among the U.S., El Salvador and Venezuela. It moved the 250 Venezuelans who had been deported from the U.S. to a massive prison in El Salvador back to Venezuela. In exchange, Venezuela released 10 U.S. nationals it had imprisoned. That raises important questions. What incentives do countries have to take migrants deported from the United States, and how effective has this tactic been for the U.S.?

Deporting migrants to third countries has become a key Trump administration strategy. Earlier this week, the U.S. sent several migrants to the Southern African nation of Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. In recent months, it sent deportees to South Sudan, and it’s considering adding Rwanda to the list. A former State Department lawyer named Chris Campanovo has insights into this. Chris, thanks for coming on the show.

CHRIS CAMPONOVO: Sure. Happy to be here, Sacha.

PFEIFFER: Part of your government work used to involve finding countries willing to take Guantanamo prisoners rounded up after 9/11 and later cleared for release, so you know what it takes to broker these kind of complex deals. Tell us how you see yesterday’s prisoner swap announcement connecting to President Trump’s deportation agenda.

CAMPONOVO: I think what we’ve seen is a policy which is based primarily in scaring migrants, I think. I think we’ve seen a policy which is based in deterrence primarily, to essentially show people that you come to America, you’re probably going to wind up back where you are fleeing or some third country which you’ve probably never heard of or could find on a map. This is a pretty drastic departure from several decades of U.S. policy, which is to – which has been only to return people once we’ve had – received diplomatic assurances that people would not be sent home where they could face persecution or torture or to third countries where they’d be subject to potential torture, persecution, et cetera.

PFEIFFER: In many of these cases, the U.S. government is sending deportees to places where they have no connection. Do you see common themes in the type of countries the Trump administration is sending many of these migrants to? – because these are notably not European nations, but much less stable African and Central American countries?

CAMPONOVO: Sure. I mean, I think what you see is, these are countries that aren’t generally on the radar. And I think what a lot of these countries are doing or we’ll see them wanting to do is seek favor with the United States and with the president. They’re looking for that photo op, potentially, an invitation to the Oval Office, which gives them more standing back home, enables them to show, hey, look, I’m friends with the president of the United States. So whatever the favor is they’re attempting to curry, that’s how I think some of these countries are trying to do it, is through accepting these deportees.

PFEIFFER: Tell us more about these favors or motivations because the president of El Salvador has said that the U.S. gave his country $6 million to take those deported Venezuelans off the U.S.’s hands. How much is this simply about money, do you think?

CAMPONOVO: Well, I think part of it certainly is about money. We’ve heard about El Salvador. We don’t know what the deals looked like in some of these other countries. But I think that’s certainly going to be part of it. Again, I think this is a departure from previous practice, which was essentially to seek assurance on the basis of a relationship, on the basis of comedy (ph) with some of these countries.

PFEIFFER: When you were working for the State Department and negotiating deals to take back refugees or migrants who couldn’t go back to their own countries so you had to find another country, did you ever pay those countries to take them?

CAMPONOVO: We did not. That was not part of our – part of the negotiations.

PFEIFFER: There was a released Guantanamo detainee who ended up being sent to Belize. And as I recall, I think the U.S. helped pay for him to have a house and a car and a phone. Were there sometimes cases where you may not give the country cash, but you would help them support that person set up a life?

CAMPONOVO: Right, exactly. That was the case. There were times when we could provide support. I think those things are important, right? I mean, we’ve done that for decades with refugee resettlement in the United States is that…

PFEIFFER: You’ll pay for those things for them.

CAMPONOVO: We would pay for these things – right? – because the last thing you want is for somebody to come and have no support system, no structure, they don’t speak the language. Those people tend to get into trouble, and so, you know, you do that. But strictly a cash transaction – no, that was not something that was part of how we tried to negotiate these returns.

PFEIFFER: In Friday’s prisoner swap of the Venezuelan deportees, are we now seeing an emerging strategy of deportees as pawns or trading material?

CAMPONOVO: Well, I think so, and that’s a little scary, right? I mean, we’ve got – we don’t really know the individual situations of these Venezuelans. I mean, they fled Venezuela for a reason. Some were economic migrants, but some may also be political migrants – right? – who are fleeing persecution. And so now we’re in a situation where, OK, well, if you, El Salvador, will take these Venezuelans and we can get American hostages back, we’re not really worried about whether you give them back so long as we can achieve our objectives. And that’s a little worrying because what it does is it throws by the wayside, you know, international obligations of the United States, which are not to return people where they have a credible fear of being persecuted.

PFEIFFER: The ACLU says these third-country deportations are illegal and has sued to stop them. In your view, are they illegal?

CAMPONOVO: Yes, I would say that they are. They violate international obligations of the United States, which – we’ve made the Refugee Convention, as well as the Convention against Torture. So – because there is a credible threat that people who are returned to their countries of origin could be subjected to persecution for reasons that are outlawed under the Refugee Convention, as well as the Convention against Torture.

PFEIFFER: The U.S. is not the only country to ship migrants to unstable, faraway places. Britain controversially tried to do it in Rwanda. Australia has been criticized for sending asylum seekers to Pacific Island Nations. Is what the U.S. doing – does it seem different to you for any reason?

CAMPONOVO: I think it’s different. You know, in Britain, there were – there was a lot of – there was a – quite a bit of an uproar over the Rwanda plan in Australia. But it was part of a policy. I think in Britain, there were a certain amount of protections that were tried to be put in place. Now I think it just feels like it’s random. It feels like we’re just going to send him anywhere we possibly can. It feels like the only policy is just one of, let’s just scare people without any sense of morality or sense of sense of law.

PFEIFFER: Chris Campanovo is a former State Department lawyer. Chris, thanks for talking with us about this.

CAMPONOVO: Thanks, Sacha. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

A surprise twist in the Trump administration’s use of third country deportations

SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:

We’re starting today’s show with a surprise twist in the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort. A large-scale prisoner swap happened Friday. It was coordinated among the U.S., El Salvador and Venezuela. It moved the 250 Venezuelans who had been deported from the U.S. to a massive prison in El Salvador back to Venezuela. In exchange, Venezuela released 10 U.S. nationals it had imprisoned. That raises important questions. What incentives do countries have to take migrants deported from the United States, and how effective has this tactic been for the U.S.?

Deporting migrants to third countries has become a key Trump administration strategy. Earlier this week, the U.S. sent several migrants to the Southern African nation of Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. In recent months, it sent deportees to South Sudan, and it’s considering adding Rwanda to the list. A former State Department lawyer named Chris Campanovo has insights into this. Chris, thanks for coming on the show.

CHRIS CAMPONOVO: Sure. Happy to be here, Sacha.

PFEIFFER: Part of your government work used to involve finding countries willing to take Guantanamo prisoners rounded up after 9/11 and later cleared for release, so you know what it takes to broker these kind of complex deals. Tell us how you see yesterday’s prisoner swap announcement connecting to President Trump’s deportation agenda.

CAMPONOVO: I think what we’ve seen is a policy which is based primarily in scaring migrants, I think. I think we’ve seen a policy which is based in deterrence primarily, to essentially show people that you come to America, you’re probably going to wind up back where you are fleeing or some third country which you’ve probably never heard of or could find on a map. This is a pretty drastic departure from several decades of U.S. policy, which is to – which has been only to return people once we’ve had – received diplomatic assurances that people would not be sent home where they could face persecution or torture or to third countries where they’d be subject to potential torture, persecution, et cetera.

PFEIFFER: In many of these cases, the U.S. government is sending deportees to places where they have no connection. Do you see common themes in the type of countries the Trump administration is sending many of these migrants to? – because these are notably not European nations, but much less stable African and Central American countries?

CAMPONOVO: Sure. I mean, I think what you see is, these are countries that aren’t generally on the radar. And I think what a lot of these countries are doing or we’ll see them wanting to do is seek favor with the United States and with the president. They’re looking for that photo op, potentially, an invitation to the Oval Office, which gives them more standing back home, enables them to show, hey, look, I’m friends with the president of the United States. So whatever the favor is they’re attempting to curry, that’s how I think some of these countries are trying to do it, is through accepting these deportees.

PFEIFFER: Tell us more about these favors or motivations because the president of El Salvador has said that the U.S. gave his country $6 million to take those deported Venezuelans off the U.S.’s hands. How much is this simply about money, do you think?

CAMPONOVO: Well, I think part of it certainly is about money. We’ve heard about El Salvador. We don’t know what the deals looked like in some of these other countries. But I think that’s certainly going to be part of it. Again, I think this is a departure from previous practice, which was essentially to seek assurance on the basis of a relationship, on the basis of comedy (ph) with some of these countries.

PFEIFFER: When you were working for the State Department and negotiating deals to take back refugees or migrants who couldn’t go back to their own countries so you had to find another country, did you ever pay those countries to take them?

CAMPONOVO: We did not. That was not part of our – part of the negotiations.

PFEIFFER: There was a released Guantanamo detainee who ended up being sent to Belize. And as I recall, I think the U.S. helped pay for him to have a house and a car and a phone. Were there sometimes cases where you may not give the country cash, but you would help them support that person set up a life?

CAMPONOVO: Right, exactly. That was the case. There were times when we could provide support. I think those things are important, right? I mean, we’ve done that for decades with refugee resettlement in the United States is that…

PFEIFFER: You’ll pay for those things for them.

CAMPONOVO: We would pay for these things – right? – because the last thing you want is for somebody to come and have no support system, no structure, they don’t speak the language. Those people tend to get into trouble, and so, you know, you do that. But strictly a cash transaction – no, that was not something that was part of how we tried to negotiate these returns.

PFEIFFER: In Friday’s prisoner swap of the Venezuelan deportees, are we now seeing an emerging strategy of deportees as pawns or trading material?

CAMPONOVO: Well, I think so, and that’s a little scary, right? I mean, we’ve got – we don’t really know the individual situations of these Venezuelans. I mean, they fled Venezuela for a reason. Some were economic migrants, but some may also be political migrants – right? – who are fleeing persecution. And so now we’re in a situation where, OK, well, if you, El Salvador, will take these Venezuelans and we can get American hostages back, we’re not really worried about whether you give them back so long as we can achieve our objectives. And that’s a little worrying because what it does is it throws by the wayside, you know, international obligations of the United States, which are not to return people where they have a credible fear of being persecuted.

PFEIFFER: The ACLU says these third-country deportations are illegal and has sued to stop them. In your view, are they illegal?

CAMPONOVO: Yes, I would say that they are. They violate international obligations of the United States, which – we’ve made the Refugee Convention, as well as the Convention against Torture. So – because there is a credible threat that people who are returned to their countries of origin could be subjected to persecution for reasons that are outlawed under the Refugee Convention, as well as the Convention against Torture.

PFEIFFER: The U.S. is not the only country to ship migrants to unstable, faraway places. Britain controversially tried to do it in Rwanda. Australia has been criticized for sending asylum seekers to Pacific Island Nations. Is what the U.S. doing – does it seem different to you for any reason?

CAMPONOVO: I think it’s different. You know, in Britain, there were – there was a lot of – there was a – quite a bit of an uproar over the Rwanda plan in Australia. But it was part of a policy. I think in Britain, there were a certain amount of protections that were tried to be put in place. Now I think it just feels like it’s random. It feels like we’re just going to send him anywhere we possibly can. It feels like the only policy is just one of, let’s just scare people without any sense of morality or sense of sense of law.

PFEIFFER: Chris Campanovo is a former State Department lawyer. Chris, thanks for talking with us about this.

CAMPONOVO: Thanks, Sacha.

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.