John Mearsheimer is one of the most influential political scientists today.Image: youtube.com/@ProfJohnMearsheimerTalks
John Mearsheimer, one of the world’s best-known political scientists, has published an analysis. The focus is on the Epstein files, Donald Trump and the question of whether internal corruption is becoming a global danger. We have summarized his most important theses in 9 points.
Dec 24, 2025, 8:52 p.mDecember 24, 2025, 8:59 p.m
Epstein Files as a national security problem
Mearsheimer does not classify the Epstein complex as a moral or legal isolated case. Rather, it is about state functionality. If leading political actors or economic elites are compromised, a state loses its strategic autonomy. Decisions would then no longer be made primarily in the national interest, but rather to protect the self-protection of individual power holders. For a superpower like the USA, this is a structural risk comparable to institutional state failure.
Amount of data indicates a systemic extent
Mearsheimer refers to internal emails from federal prosecutors that mention around 1.2 million secured files. From his point of view, this number is relevant because it hardly corresponds to a single perpetrator or an isolated crime. This amount of data is usually only created when information is systematically collected over years – for example about contacts, travel, payments and communication. Mearsheimer also assumes that this is only a fraction of the total data.
Epstein as a suspected blackmail system
In Mearsheimer’s assessment, Jeffrey Epstein was not just a lone perpetrator with access to power circles. Rather, he sees evidence of a structured system that specifically collected compromising material. Such networks have historically often been intertwined with secret services or political protection structures. The crucial point: Anyone who has access to this material can exert political pressure without exercising formal power.
Trump’s public behavior as a stress reaction
Mearsheimer does not interpret the nightly social media posts, attacks on the media and aggressive rhetoric as calculated communication, but rather as signs of personal threat perception. This means Donald Trump. From a comparative leadership analysis, such behavior is typical of actors who fear loss of control. This becomes particularly problematic when political power merges with the logic of personal immunity.
Attacks on the media as an attempt to control the narrative
Mearsheimer emphasizes that authoritarian systems do not rely primarily on lies, but on information monopolies. When Trump speaks publicly about revoking broadcasting licenses or verbally attacking media representatives like Stephen Colbert, it is not about criticizing the content. It’s about intimidating critical information channels before they can become relevant.
Ten identified accomplices, but no visible proceedings
What is particularly serious for Mearsheimer is the contradiction between internal judicial documents and public actions. Memos from the Southern District of New York are said to speak of at least ten identified co-conspirators. He interprets the fact that despite locating people, prepared memos and sometimes issued subpoenas, hardly any proceedings followed as a coincidence or incompetence, but as a targeted political intervention.
Criticism of the judiciary and key political figures
In this context, Mearsheimer mentions by name Kash Patel, who has publicly stated that there is no credible evidence of anyone else involved. Pam Bondi is also mentioned. For Mearsheimer, the discrepancy between internal files and public communication is a classic feature of institutional capture by political interests.
Geopolitical weakening of the USA
Mearsheimer argues that great powers see weakness as an invitation. If political elites are open to blackmail or are busy with internal power struggles, the deterrent effect is reduced. China and Russia would then perceive the USA not as a reliable actor, but as an unpredictable, internally paralyzed power. According to Mearsheimer, this increases the risk of escalations in geopolitical hotspots.
The most dangerous dynamic: distraction through external crises
His most drastic thesis concerns the behavior of weakened regimes. Historically, governments under strong internal pressure have repeatedly tried to force loyalty and redirect attention through foreign policy escalation. For Mearsheimer, this is not a speculative scenario but a recurring pattern of power politics. A political system that fears for its legitimacy becomes riskier, not more cautious.
(mke)