In a recent interview, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino went on record declaring that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. However, instead of disabusing the public of conspiracy theories, they reignited institutional distrust within their own base. 

Patel and Bongino, who many view as two of MAGA’s most recognizable fighters, speaking in unison with the institutions they once attacked, raise suspicions. The backlash was immediate, emotional, and telling. 

Public Sentiment of Disbelief  

MIG Reports data shows: 

• 67% of online discussion express disbelief that Epstein killed himself 
• 33% accept the official suicide narrative 

These sentiments reflect broken expectations. Voters who once celebrated Patel and Bongino as disruptors now accuse them of becoming part of the problem. They criticize AG Bondi’s failure to deliver on the Epstein files and the lack of credible transparency coming from administration figures. 

 Why the Public Doesn’t Believe Them 

For many Americans, the facts remain suspicious: nonfunctioning cameras, sleeping guards, and Epstein’s extensive ties to political elites. People don’t believe all of these coincidences line up perfectly. They say these circumstances are more likely signals of a cover-up. 

For MAGA voters, the flip-flop from formerly outspoken critics of the deep state is infuriating. Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and podcaster who railed against institutional rot, now declares Epstein’s death a closed case. Patel, once a scourge of Russiagate fabrication, echoes the same line. This pivot, without explanation or evidence beyond “we saw the file,” has ignited accusations of betrayal.  

Public mockery is also strategic. Patel’s on-screen demeanor—described as “wide-eyed,” “like a terrified wombat,” or “just realized that fart was solid”—attempts to delegitimize his authority. The caricature is symbolic of public skepticism toward his role as FBI director. 

Why a Minority Still Believes Them 

Despite a majority uproar, 33% of discussions accept the official conclusion. Most cite trust in the process, saying Bongino and Patel, who reviewed the full FBI file, have reason to say what they’re saying. Others just want closure. A definitive word on Epstein’s death, even if unpalatable, allows them to move on from years of speculation. 

A smaller segment sees their statements as necessary institutional discipline. Now in formal roles, Patel and Bongino must lead agencies, not podcasts. That shift, they argue, requires less noise and more certainty. 

 Cabinet Fallout and the Reform Illusion 

The Epstein official line bleeds into a broader disillusionment with the Trump-aligned government-in-waiting. Bongino and Patel are Cabinet players now. Their transition to positions of bureaucratic power in the FBI has become a litmus test. Can outsiders retain credibility once inside the system? 

For many anti-establishment voters, the answer is no. This group believes Trump 2.0 appointments were meant to signal reform. Instead, for many, they signal assimilation. Voters see silence on Russiagate prosecutions, no high-profile arrests, and ongoing secrecy around Epstein files. The gap between rhetoric and results is growing wide. 

Calls for transparency persist, but the frustration may stretch beyond positive hope. Voters wanted arrests and files declassified—but many are losing faith any of those will come. Now, voters want MAGA officials to deliver or step aside. 

A Breach That Won’t Heal Easily 

Currently, there is a growing divide between the populist movement and the institutional machine some believe can be co-opted. Patel and Bongino were supposed to bring accountability to the government. But many now view them as defending it. 

The suicide claim is beyond credulity for many who have been suspicious of Epstein’s death for years. The MAGA base is beginning to fear surrender to the deep state on cases like this. This perception has consequences for MAGA figures. If Trump 2.0 officials are seen as indistinguishable from the swamp they pledged to drain, the movement's trust will fracture further. 

Former FBI Director James Comey posted and then deleted an image of shell art in the sand which depicted “8647.” The post, which many interpreted as an implied threat against President Trump, were immediately outraged.

This controversial event exacerbates the fault lines of political symbolism, institutional trust, and the public's demand accountability. Many believe the implied symbolism of “8647” is a call for assassinating the 47th president. In response, Trump’s FBI Director Kash Patel announced he’s looking into the incident in coordination with the Secret Service.

Just James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered.

This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!! pic.twitter.com/4LUK6crHAT

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 15, 2025

Public Sentiment

MIG Reports data shows public response to Comey’s post and Patel’s announcement breaks down as follows:

• 45% demand Comey’s immediate arrest and prosecution
• 35% support a formal investigation without prejudging intent
• 20% are skeptical, viewing the probe as overreach or overreaction

These metrics emerge from online discussion in the 24-hour period following the viral post and Patel’s follow-up statement.

Interpreting The “8647” Code

For many on the right, “86” is universally understood as slang for eliminate, and “47” unmistakably refers to Trump, the 47th president. The outrage hinges on the fact that Comey—a career law enforcement official and former FBI Director—cannot credibly plead ignorance about the implications of using such coded language in public.

This is not merely about symbolic ambiguity. It comes against the backdrop of two assassination attempts on Trump and years of incitement normalized through double standards. While Comey defenders argue “86” does not necessarily imply violence, many say Trump and Comey’s histories add sinister layers to the symbol.

Roughly 60% of the total commentary discusses Comey's post as a direct threat, calling for law enforcement action. Elected officials, legal commentators, and former intelligence insiders echo the concern. Others, particularly on the left, dismiss the post as innocuous or turned accusations against MAGA, deepening the public divide.

Director Patel’s Response

Many see FBI Director Kash Patel’s public announcement that the FBI is cooperating with the Secret Service as a rare instance of proactive institutional response. It lands well among those who see a justice system rife with selective enforcement. His supporters applaud him for necessary and long-overdue counterattacks against deep state impunity.

We are aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump. We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.

— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) May 15, 2025

Yet Patel himself remains a divisive figure. While his defenders see him as one of the few willing to challenge entrenched intelligence networks, 70% of commentary referencing Patel expresses some kind of disapproval. There are concerns about Cabinet-level competence, past foreign consulting work, and perceived media unseriousness.

Only 10% of over sentiments express outright support for Patel as a credible institutional leader. The disconnect between his policy instincts and his public reputation is typical among MAGA figures, even for portions of the pro-Trump base.

Free Speech or Incitement?

Those who support investigating Comey argue that no American—especially a former FBI Director—should be allowed to post coded threats without scrutiny. Critics caution against criminalizing ambiguous speech.

The First Amendment defense has some traction, particularly among civil libertarians and institutional moderates, but it is undermined by the fact that similar defenses are rarely extended to Trump or his allies when critics accuse them of incitement.

Many Americans say, if leaders ignore coded language like “8647,” the precedent invites escalation. But if it’s prosecuted too aggressively, the chilling effect on speech could be real. But voters don’t care to parse the distinction. They want clarity and consequences.

Institutional Credibility and Double Standards

The backlash against Comey comes against a backdrop of years of perceived double standards—from Hillary Clinton’s emails to the Steele dossier to January 6 charges to the press suppressing Hunter Biden’s laptop story. For many, this moment is about cumulative grievances with a justice system that protects its own and punishes dissent.

Many view Director Patel’s announcement as an institutional correction—proof that some remnants of justice still exist. His critics say it’s political theater, but the broader takeaway is that the public no longer trusts institutions to apply laws evenly.

The corporate press has long prided itself as the gatekeeper of democratic norms. But in the last few years, their “sacred airwaves” have curdled into guardianship of a failing elitist establishment. Jake Tapper’s latest book “Original Sin” and an unconvincing media pivot toward acknowledging Biden’s cognitive decline leave Americans scoffing.

Voters see the media for its efforts to save face after the unequivocal tarnishing of a president they once protected. Legacy outlets are now attempting to rewrite the narrative, deflecting from their continued chronic bias in every story to isolating a “tragedy” after being caught out regarding Joe Biden.

The Narrative Shield

From 2021 through much of 2024, media institutions actively framed Biden as “sharp,” “seasoned,” and “empathetic.” These descriptors were used to dismiss real concerns about his declining mental acuity. White House staff stumbling to cover for public gaffes, verbal confusion, or disappearing from major events were treated as “bad optics” rather than serious red flags.

Critics who raised alarms early on were labeled conspiracy theorists or right-wing agitators. At no point did major outlets investigate claims about physical deterioration, wheelchair use, or near-constant teleprompter dependence. Americans are adamant that the press functioned as crisis managers, not reporters.

Admissions by the media only began after the 2024 election cycle ended—and even then, the recalibration has been more about preserving institutional reputations than informing the public.

Jake Tapper’s Book

Jake Tapper’s book “Original Sin” has become a lightning rod, not for what it reveals, but for what it confirms. The book details Biden’s performance in private settings, internal White House dysfunction, and staffers' quiet panic over his ability to finish his term. These admissions came long after conservative outlets and social media users documented similar evidence.

The public reaction has been scathing. Comments across platforms suggest 75-80% of voters believe media figures like Tapper knew all along and chose silence for political reasons. Only about 20-25% argue the press was deceived alongside the public.

In this environment, Americans view Tapper’s book as opportunistic narrative control. They say it’s damage control in hardback.

Public Sentiment and Media Collapse

The legacy press is moving from distrust among voters to mockery. The backlash against outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times stems from the belief they deliberately protected Biden to block Trump and steer public opinion. That belief is now widespread, including among Independents and some Democrats.

Social media posts in the past 72 hours show a common refrain: “They’re only telling the truth now because it’s safe.” This collapse of trust was already underway, but the Biden coverup accelerates it. His obvious decline, paired with the media’s refusal to cover it in real time, turns healthy skepticism into outright contempt.

Voters now see no meaningful distinction between Democratic messaging and media reporting.

Rewriting History, Redirecting Blame

The timing of these revelations is also a cause for incredulity. With Biden retired and unelectable, voters say the media is attempting to preempt accountability. By focusing on Biden’s health now, they hope to deflect attention from other previous and currently ongoing anti-Trump narratives.

Americans are discussions suspicions that the media actively shields other Democrats—especially potential 2028 candidates—from inherited blame or scrutiny. People also see Biden’s decline as symbolic of institutional rot. They say his administration, which was propped up by unseen decision-makers, along with the media’s complicity, suggests institutions cannot self-correct.

Alternative Media and the Realignment

Obliterated trust in legacy media outlets has created fertile ground for alternative platforms—Substack writers, independent podcasts, and decentralized media hubs. The audience for these outlets is growing both out of ideological alignment and necessity. Americans want information, not curated narratives.

In 2025, legacy media still clings to the idea that trust is a branding problem. However, Americans are making it clear this is a performance problem. When people feel lied to, they don’t ask for better PR—they leave.