Prince William’s Earthshot Prize is facing scrutiny after its founding partner was linked to Jeffrey Epstein in the latest Department of Justice files release. However, one expert says it’s “a bit of a stretch” to suggest the Prince of Wales received funding for his charity through any connection to Epstein.
Although William is the face of Earthshot Prize — which is a global environmental prize that is awarded to five winners each year for their contributions towards environmentalism — he recruited partners before launching the organization in 2020.
One of those partners is DP World, and their CEO, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, was named in the latest batch of Epstein files.
William has not been named or implemented in the Epstein files. Representatives for Buckingham Palace and Earthshot Prize did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Prince William’s Earthshot Prize has been dragged into the Jeffrey Epstein files.(Getty Images)
On Wednesday, William’s Earthshot Prize was reported to the Charity Commission by the anti-monarchy group Republic. In a press release, the organization clearly shared an email Epstein wrote Sulayem while serving his prison sentence in Palm Beach, Florida in April 2009.
Epstein emailed Sulayem: “Where are you? are you ok , I loved the torture video.”
Prince William spoke with Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Group Chairman and CEO of DP World during The Earthshot Prize Innovation Showcase in Dubai in 2022.(Chris Jackson – Pool/Getty Images)
Ian Pelham Turner, a royals expert, told Fox News Digital that he believes the Republic is using Sulayem’s ties to Epstein to dissolve the royal family entirely.
“I think it is a bit of a stretch though to suggest the Epstein debacle that Sultan Ahmed donated money through this connection. The money has now been donated to the prizewinning recipients in a proper manner and so I feel Republic is seeking any mud to stick to the Royal family to maximize their strategy that the Royal family should be a thing of the past and dissolved,” Turner said.
He added, “How will William handle this with the Charity commissioners simply by producing evidence to the contrary.”
Jeffrey Epstein allegedly sent Sulayem a disturbing email in April 2009.(David McGlynn)
Republic shared that DP World donated a minimum of $1.3 million to William’s charity. “The seriousness of this matter requires a full and comprehensive investigation,” Republic wrote in their release.
Republic’s CEO Graham Smith issued a statement in the release, clearly stating that “William has lots of questions to answer about what he knew about Andrew and Epstein.”
“And now he must explain his relationship with Sulayem,” his statement continued.
“In the context of this widening scandal, we need answers.”
— Graham Smith, Republic’s CEO
“It is not credible to believe the Foreign Office, security services or other advisors were not aware of Sulayem’s character and would have been able to advise accordingly. These files have been in the hands of U.S. authorities for years. It’s not believable that such intelligence would not have been shared. Earthshot has a duty to do due diligence, to ask questions about donors and where money is coming from. Did they do that here? If so, did William overrule their better judgment?” Smith said.
Group Chairman and CEO of DP World Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem has been named in the Esptein files release.(Riccardo Savi/Getty Images for Concordia Summit)
He concluded with: “In the context of this widening scandal, we need answers.”
Hilary Fordwich, British royals expert, pointed out to Fox News Digital that William and his wife Kate Middleton have already shared that they “have been deeply concerned by the continuing revelations.” A spokesperson for the couple shared a statement with the BBC on Monday after the recent revelations in the Epstein files.
“Their thoughts remain focused on the victims,” the spokesperson concluded.
Prince Andrew has previously been tied to Epstein.(Chris Jackson)
“This is a clear indication of Prince William’s leadership skills, getting out in front of this issue, doing what is right, which is to be focusing on the plight of victims,” Fordwich concluded.
The public statement came amid renewed scrutiny surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince and Duke of York who was stripped of his royal titles by King Charles III in October, and his relationship with Epstein.
Kate Middleton and Prince William “have been deeply concerned by the continuing revelations” in the Epstein files, according to a spokesperson.(Alberto Pezzali – WPA Pool/Getty Images)
One of the nation’s largest school photography companies is facing canceled photo shoots and district-wide investigations amid unsubstantiated online rumors suggesting that children’s photos could have been accessed by a person named in the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Several school districts announced this week that they have launched investigations into the popular company Lifetouch due to its former, indirect ownership by billionaire businessman Leon Black, who was an associate and friend of the late child sex offender.
“At this time, no evidence has been presented indicating misconduct involving Lifetouch’s operations within our schools or any compromise of student information. Nevertheless, we believe it is appropriate to review the matter carefully and transparently,” Clifton Public Schools, one of New Jersey’s largest school districts, wrote in a letter to parents on Wednesday.
Several school districts have said they will investigate Lifetouch over the former owner of its parent company, while one school said it was canceling its school photos altogether.
Guillermo Spelucin via Getty Images
A charter school in Arizona also told parents Tuesday that it was canceling its picture days scheduled for later this week “out of an abundance of caution.”
“While we do not have any information indicating a direct impact on our school or our students, our highest responsibility is always the safety, security, and trust of our families,” the Prescott Valley Charter School said in an announcement to parents.
In California, the Alisal Union School District in Salinas called the rumors “disturbing” and an issue that “deserves immediate attention” in a letter acknowledging parents’ concerns and questions on Wednesday.
“The District takes parents’ concerns very seriously and we stand ready to address questions and receive comments from parents, about this and any other issue,” wrote the district’s superintendent.
The rumors narrow in on Black, who until 2021 served as CEO and chairman of Apollo Global Management. The private equity firm owns Lifetouch through its 2019 purchase of the company Shutterfly, which purchased Lifetouch in 2018. The deal to acquire Lifetouch didn’t officially close until September 2019, however, which was a month after Epstein’s death.
Leon Black, seen in 2015, stepped down as Apollo Global Management’s chief executive officer in 2021 following an investigation into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Black’s past link to Lifetouch has led people to raise concerns online, without supporting evidence, that he may have consequently benefited from inappropriate access to Lifetouch’s photos. Some have also accused Lifetouch of being nefariously listed in the Epstein files. Though the company’s name does appear in the files, it’s in a 2019 bank statement that belonged to a person involved in the Epstein death investigation.
Lifetouch, addressing parents’ concerns in a statement this week, said Black never had access to student images and affirmed that it is committed to safeguarding every student’s privacy while following all applicable federal, state and local data privacy laws. A company spokesperson repeated that the “claims are completely false” when reached for comment Thursday.
“When Lifetouch photographers take your student’s picture, that image is safeguarded for families and schools, only, with no exceptions,” said the spokesperson.
In a separate statement posted online, Lifetouch CEO Ken Murphy acknowledged Black’s former ties to Apollo Global Management but stressed that “no past or present member of Apollo’s Board of Directors or Apollo’s investors have ever had access to student images, for any purpose.”
Student photos are only shared for the purposes of school records and for their purchase by parents or guardians. Lifetouch also does not, and has never, provided images to any third party, he said, while noting the company’s compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
“Additionally, as part of our decades long relationship with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Lifetouch prints SmileSafe cards free of charge for each student we photograph that families can use with law enforcement if a child goes missing,” the company said.
Megan Montanez, who said her daughter had her photograph taken by Lifetouch with the Clifton School District, told HuffPost Thursday that she remains unconvinced that proper safeguards are in place to protect all children.
“It’s not a stretch to assume that just because you don’t have a direct role in something that you don’t have access to other functions, especially as someone in a leadership position,” she said in an online message. “I think we as parents aren’t angry enough.”
Montanez said she’d like to see schools use local photographers and for school officials to be more transparent about how they select the companies they hire. If Lifetouch had been properly vetted, she said, they would have known earlier about Black’s connection with the company.
“The fact that this was public information in 2021 and in 2025 they used a company that had leadership with established financial ties with Epstein is gross oversight,” she said. “It’s our job as adults, [the] community, to come together and protect our kids, especially as more information comes out about all the things that the DOJ is attempting to cover up.”
Attempts to reach Black for comment were not immediately successful. A spokesperson for Apollo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Attorney General’s disrespect for opponents is matched by her gushing praise for Trump, however off topic; for Bondi, who has been reported to be on thin ice with the President, there is no ignoring the audience of one. “The Dow is over fifty thousand right now, the S. & P. at almost seven thousand, and the Nasdaq smashing records, Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming,” Bondi said on Wednesday. “That’s what we should be talking about.” At another point, Bondi insisted that her questioners should apologize to Trump for having impeached him twice during his first term. “You-all should be apologizing,” she said. “You sit here, and you attack the President, and I am not going to have it.”
Wednesday’s hearing, like so much else in Washington these days, was consumed by questions about Epstein—in this case the Justice Department’s handling of the release of the files and its treatment of Epstein’s victims. The Administration has been criticized both for redacting too much information in the documents and for exposing victims’ identities. (The department has removed thousands of documents in response to victims’ complaints.) Lawmakers had invited a dozen victims and their family members to attend the hearing, and they were wearing white shirts with blacked-out text and the message “The truth is—Epstein survivors are still waiting.” Democrats did not refrain from introducing them like so many useful props.
Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington, asked the survivors to stand and raise their hands if they had not been able to meet with the Justice Department. Their hands went up. Jayapal asked Bondi, “Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their information?” Bondi invoked Garland, and then, not surprisingly, demurred. “I’m not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics,” Bondi said, waving her hand dismissively. Jayapal, along with a number of other legislators, had viewed the unredacted Epstein files. Photographers at the hearing captured shots which appeared to show that the Attorney General had a document with Jayapal’s search history. Jayapal later described such surveillance as “totally inappropriate.”
As a political matter, the demands for the full release of the Epstein files, which were a rallying cry for Republicans during the 2024 election season, have now become an even more effective cudgel for Democrats. Bondi botched her handling of the matter from the outset, by claiming that she had an Epstein “client list,” releasing little to nothing, and announcing that the investigation was complete. Even after the congressionally mandated release of a searchable database of millions of documents, questions remain about whether the Justice Department is continuing to protect Trump or other friends of Epstein’s by imposing unwarranted redactions or failing to pursue avenues of inquiry.
But Democrats’ focus on Epstein also distracts attention from the deeper problems of the department under Bondi—ones that go to the core of its mission and that threaten its ability to operate even after Trump leaves office. Most alarming is Trump and Bondi’s overt weaponization of the department to pursue Trump’s political enemies. In September, 2025, Trump used a Truth Social post to demand that she bring charges against James Comey, Letitia James, and the California senator Adam Schiff, insisting, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.” Shortly after, Bondi secured indictments of Comey and James—both of which were ultimately dismissed by a federal judge. As Raskin told Bondi in his opening remarks, “Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza and you deliver every time. . . . Nothing in American history comes close to this complete corruption of the justice function and contamination of federal law enforcement.”
Lawmakers, however, dealt with these and other instances of Justice Department overreach only glancingly. They did not mention the threatened indictments of the Federal Reserve’s Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook. They did not ask Bondi about the latest embarrassment for the department, which had occurred the day before the hearing, when a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia took the rare step of rejecting the proposed indictment of six members of Congress for reminding servicemembers that they do not have to obey unlawful orders. Lawmakers spent little time on the Justice Department’s refusal to investigate an ICE agent’s killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, or on the reported resignation of six federal prosecutors there after the office was tasked with investigating Good’s widow instead. Bondi was not asked directly about the department’s raid on the home of the Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, or about the F.B.I.’s seizure of voting records from the 2020 election in Georgia. According to Trump, Bondi instructed the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, to take the extraordinary step of going to the scene, but Bondi was not asked to confirm that. Also unaddressed: the evisceration of the department’s Civil Rights Division and the debilitating vacancies in U.S. Attorneys offices nationwide.
Pam Bondi snaps at Congressmen. Over the course of five hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi gave increasingly agitated responses to members’ questions about the Epstein files her department recently released.
She called ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D–Md.) a “washed-up loser lawyer” and Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) a “failed politician” with “Trump derangement syndrome.”
At the hearing, members pressed Bondi on a range of things related to Jeffrey Epstein and her department’s release of documents related to the dead, disgraced financier. In particular, representatives pressed Bondi on why material on Epstein’s associates was redacted, but the names, pictures, and other sensitive information of victims were not.
For the most part, Bondi did not give direct answers, preferring instead insults and odd nonsequiturs about how the stock market was at record heights.
The Reason Roundup Newsletter by Liz Wolfe Liz and Reason help you make sense of the day’s news every morning.
On the one hand, one can understand some of Bondi’s frustrations. Committee hearings like yesterday’s are largely political theater.
A lot of Democrats’ “questions” were really just partisan grandstanding, like when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–Wash.) asked Epstein victims in the audience to stand so that Bondi could apologize to them for failing to redact their names.
Bondi wasn’t wrong when she said several times that Democrats did not care that much about Epstein when Joe Biden was president and Merrick Garland was attorney general.
Still, even when Democrats asked more measured, substantive questions, like when Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.) pressed Bondi on whether some of Epstein’s emails suggested that there were still coconspirators left to prosecute, the attorney general still resorted to evasions and insults.
A problem of one’s own making. Generally, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for Bondi at all. The debacle over the Epstein files is one of her own making.
It was Bondi who seemed to say in an interview that she had Epstein’s (probably mythical) client list sitting on her desk waiting to be released, before walking it back. It was Bondi who made a big show of giving right-wing influencers binders labeled “Epstein files” filled with redacted or already public documents.
That game of promising more transparency on Epstein while offering none has spectacularly backfired. In the end, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in a near-unanimous vote. When asked follow-up questions about those files, Bondi broke down.
Even in the face of partisan, showy committee questions, it would be nice to have an attorney general who was modestly professional and interested in transparency.
Scenes from D.C.:The latest war of religion has broken out on X about whether America’s youth is becoming more Christian and, more specifically, more Catholic.
Researcher and former pastor Ryan Burge says not really. Per Burge, 2023’s surge in Catholicism was an outlier. Every year since then has shown a steady, stagnant percentage of Catholic Zoomers.
There is no surge of Catholicism among Gen Z.
The 2023 Cooperative Election Study showed a surge in Catholic numbers.
I’d really encourage everyone to listen to Burge’s recent appearance on Ross Douthat’s podcast, where he breaks down America’s religiosity in more detail.
But a stagnating church is not the case in Washington, D.C., says Robert Schmad in response to Burge’s post.
We have a lot of data points confirming there is no national mass Catholic conversion among American youths.
Staffers in DC, however, certainly think it’s happening. That’s because – among them specifically – there absolutely is an ongoing conversion movement.
My own anecdotal experience matches Schmad’s take. My 150-year-old D.C. parish has welcomed record numbers of converts in recent years. Long-time parishioners tell me that Mass attendance has exploded.
Perhaps that’s just more evidence of Catholic decline: A shrinking number of faithful are concentrating in fewer, more vibrant parishes.
Or maybe not. The next Great Awakening has to start somewhere. Perhaps centralized nodes of intense religiosity are what’s necessary to revive true religion in America.
Newly released documents show the FBI’s scramble to explain last year why it released a screen recording with a missing minute from the night Jeffrey Epstein died, instead of the original footage.
The discrepancy fueled conspiracy theories about a cover-up after then-Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino promised the agency would release the original surveillance footage from Epstein’s Manhattan jail “so you don’t think there are any shenanigans.” The FBI has never offered a public explanation of how it ended up releasing a video with a gap in footage.
Last May, as a groundswell built demanding public scrutiny of the Justice Department’s records on Epstein, the agency ran into a problem: it had already destroyed its master copy of surveillance video from Epstein’s final hours in the Metropolitan Correctional Center.
An FBI agent sought and was granted in June 2024 authorization to destroy an evidence item labeled 1B60, describing it as an exhibit “no longer pertinent” to the case.
That item, according to a document among the Epstein files, was the master recording of “tapes containing the archive of [Manhattan Correctional Center] video images.” It had been stored in a Bronx warehouse.
In February 2025, an agent explained in a different document the justification for destroying the video.
“As this case was already closed and [redacted prosecutor’s name] concurred on 08/26/2024 with agency evidence handling procedures, authorization was granted to destroy Item 1B60,” the agent wrote. “Per FBI policy, if an evidence item remains undisposed, the investigative case file must remain open.”
But by mid-2025, the Justice Department needed the destroyed evidence reconstructed. That launched a complicated scramble to rebuild the video files, according to documents included among the millions released so far in what have become known as the Epstein files.
A “high-level overview” of the steps taken to do so was compiled in July by an FBI digital forensics and analytics section chief.
The effort involved obtaining another copy of the footage that remained stored across two files on a NiceVision digital video recorder, the system used in the jail. One of the video files started at 7:40 p.m. The other started at 12 a.m. and ended at 6:40 a.m. On May 21, 2025, an agent used a screen capture tool to re-record the footage from NiceVision.
But 62 seconds of footage couldn’t be captured, leaving a gap from 11:58 and 58 seconds, to 12:00.
Soon after the video was released in July, members of the public noticed it jumped from about 11:59 to midnight. Rather than explain that the footage had been pieced together from a copy, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the reason for the gap was that the prison recording system had a nightly reset resulting in a lost minute every night.
“There was a minute that was off that counter, and what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video,” Bondi said on July 8, noting that the system was old. “Every night is reset, so every night should have that same missing minute. So we’re looking for that video as well, to show it’s missing every night.”
It appears Bondi had accepted a speculative conclusion summarized by the section chief, that the system reset nightly, losing that minute. It’s a theory that appears to have been unverified.
“The Video Specialist theorized the NiceVision systems at this time required time to write files and caused a real time delay in what is recorded resulting in a gap of time not recorded right before midnight,” the section chief wrote. “The Video Specialist was unable to test the accuracy of his theory.”
Experts told CBS News in July that the time delay theory was implausible. None of the security system specialists CBS News spoke with had heard of a system that had that issue.
The Justice Department has not replied to questions about the video files.
An FBI specialist tried to merge the screen recordings using the video editing software Adobe Premiere, but “Adobe Premiere did not work with the video file format the screen capture was created in,” the section chief wrote.
The specialist then used software called Fast Forward Moving Picture Expert Group “to convert the files to a format capable to ingest into Adobe Premiere.”
That stage led to one more apparent discrepancy discovered last year by Wired, which “found that one of the source clips was approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds longer than the segment included in the final video, indicating that footage appears to have been trimmed before release.”
The Wired analysis was correct. The section chief called it “standard practice” when doing a screen capture to include “padding” to the end, extra recording time that can be pared back.
“When the screen recording was brought into Adobe Premiere the padding was trimmed,” the section chief wrote. Wired pointed out that the first video file used in the screen capture was the one with “padding.” It ended at 11:58:58, “which suggests the two (clips) would overlap.”
The section chief explained “the aspect ratio of the file was also corrected to create a more natural appearance.”
The full footage, including the missing minute, was made public by Congress in September. It showed that nothing notable or unusual appeared on the recording during that minute.
Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland, arrives at the Ctrl + Rights Youth Summit at The Intiman Theater Feb. 10, 2026, in Stockholm, Sweden.(Michael Campanella/Getty Images)
“Now that I have read about the horrific crimes he subjected young women to, I’m so grateful that I’ve had nothing to do with him since those few occasions in my 20s.
“My thoughts go out to all the victims, and I hope there is justice in this.”
The Swedish royal added that she met Epstein at a social event and a film screening.
WATCH: PRINCE ANDREW, JEFFREY EPSTEIN HAD ‘MONEY AND SEX’ IN COMMON: AUTHOR
“Thank goodness it was just that,” she said.
Royal commentator Amanda Matta told Fox News Digital that when a senior member of the royal family publicly addresses Epstein head-on, it’s no small thing. It’s a bold move that puts accountability and public trust front and center.
“Princess Sofia’s decision to address this directly is significant because she didn’t necessarily have to,” Matta explained.
Ahead of her appearance at the Ctrl + Rights Youth Summit, Princess Sofia of Sweden broke her silence about late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.(Michael Campanella/Getty Images)
“She’s seen as a possible victim, not an intimate associate or someone who maintained contact with Epstein after his conviction. Other royals with closer Epstein ties have, so far, relied on official palace statements or chosen to stay silent,” Matta added.
“Sofia’s inclusion in the files underscores how large and enticing Epstein’s social circle was in the early 2000s, even to young women.
Princess Sofia of Sweden attends the Nobel Prize Banquet 2022 at Stockholm City Hall Dec. 10, 2022.(Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)
“She is absolutely right to remark ‘thank goodness’ that her ties to him did not go beyond a few brushes at public events. For that reason, this story is unlikely to be damaging to her public image in the long run. By speaking now, she’s also prevented further speculation from taking off.”
Princess Sofia, Duchess of Varmland, during the Ctrl + Rights Youth Summit at The Intiman Theater Feb. 10, 2026, in Stockholm. (Michael Campanella/Getty Images)
The princess broke her silence about a week and a half after the Department of Justice (DOJ) released more than 3 million records connected to the late financier, including his personal emails.
The latest batch included three photos of Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on all fours over an unidentified woman lying on the ground on her back. The woman is fully clothed, and her face is blacked out.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was featured in three new photos from the recent Epstein files drop.(Department of Justice)
In December, the Royal Court of Sweden acknowledged that Princess Sofia met Epstein “on a few occasions” after newly surfaced emails appeared to link the royal to the late convicted sex offender.
The Swedish Royal Court addressed a recent report about Princess Sofia of Sweden, telling Fox News Digital she met Jeffrey Epstein “on a few occasions about 20 years ago.” It stressed that the meetings took place in social settings, and she never received help from the late convicted sex offender. (Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)
The former model and reality TV starlet met the disgraced financier through her mentor, Swedish businesswoman Barbro Ehnbom, in 2005, according to emails published by the Swedish outlet Dagens Nyheter and cited by People.
“The recent media reporting regarding Princess Sofia has given rise to speculation about the princess and her alleged relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” a spokesperson for the Royal Court of Sweden told Fox News Digital in a statement.
Sofia Hellqvist, future princess, and friend Sivan Mor attend a St. Patrick’s Day party March 17, 2008, in New York City. (Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)
“The Royal Court has responded to questions from Dagens Nyheter about whether the Princess in her 20s was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were both indicted on federal sex trafficking charges from Epstein’s years of abuse of underage girls. (Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)
“The Royal Court notes the significant media interest in this matter,” the spokesperson shared.
“At the same time, it is important that the reporting remains focused on what is relevant. No one can be expected to remember every person they have encountered throughout their life; however, Princess Sofia recalls meeting Epstein on a few occasions about 20 years ago.
This undated photo shows ex-Prince Andrew of Britain and Jeffrey Epstein at Ascot in the U.K.(Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)
“We wish to clarify that these meetings took place in social settings, such as at a restaurant and a movie premiere,” the statement continued. “Reports that the princess received help from Epstein with acting lessons or with a visa to the United States are incorrect.
Jeffrey Epstein was connected to several prominent people, including politicians, actors and academics. (Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images)
“The princess has never been dependent on him in any way, nor has she had any contact with him for the past 20 years,” the statement concluded.
Ehnbom reportedly wrote in a December 2005 email, “This is Sofia, an aspiring actress who just arrived in New York. She’s the girl I told you about before I left, who I thought you might like to meet. Maybe we can visit before you go on holiday?” The message included a photo.
Epstein reportedly replied, “I’m in the Caribbean. Does she want to come for a couple of days? I’ll send a ticket.”
A building stands on top of a hill on Little Saint James island, which was owned by fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, circa 2019. (Marco Bello/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
It’s believed that Epstein was inviting Sofia to Little Saint James, his privately owned island, where he was accused of sex trafficking minors.
The Swedish Royal Court told the outlet that Sofia was “introduced to the person in question on a few occasions around 2005.” Officials also noted that Sofia did not accept the invitation to join Epstein in the Caribbean.
The outlet also published a 2006 email from Epstein’s assistant to Ehnbom that said, “Jeffrey wonders what really happened with Camilla. Did you tell her she has a ticket to New York anytime she wants?”
Sofia Hellqvist, left, was an aspiring actress, model and reality TV personality before she became a member of the Swedish royal family. (Djamilla Rosa Cochran/WireImage/Getty Images)
“I think he means Sofia, the little beautiful dark-haired girl who had her friend Camilla with her,” Ehnbom reportedly replied. It was noted that Epstein offered both women spots at an acting school, but there were issues with their visas.
Fox News Digital reached out to Ehnbom for comment.
In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges of procuring a minor for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. More than a decade later, in 2019, he was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges involving minors. He died that year at age 66 while awaiting trial.
Sofia Hellqvist, who later became Princess Sofia, was bullied by tabloids for her past work as a model.(FameFlynet/Backgrid)
“In the mid-2000s, Sofia was an aspiring actress and model trying to establish herself in New York,” Matta previously told Fox News Digital.
“Unfortunately, Jeffrey Epstein’s social web touched nearly every corner of that world. Being introduced to him at that time doesn’t mean she was complicit in, or even aware of, what would later come to light about his crimes. If anything, young women like Sofia may well have been the ones being groomed, not the other way around.”
Jeffrey Epstein was found dead behind bars in 2019.(Rick Friedman/Rick Friedman Photography/Corbis via Getty Images)
“The kind of straightforward response we saw from Sweden is very characteristic of the Scandinavian monarchies,” Matta said.
Princess Sofia and Prince Carl Philip of Sweden share four children.(Iwi Onodera/WireImage/Getty Images)
“They tend to favor calm, pragmatic damage control over the defensive or drawn-out approach we often see from the British royals. I doubt Sofia will face any formal repercussions unless more details emerge that shed light on actual misconduct, given how long ago this took place and how firmly she’s distanced herself from it.”
Royal commentator Amanda Matta told Fox News Digital Princess Sofia has remained dedicated to the crown.(Ragnar Singsaas/Getty Images)
As a model, Sofia famously posed topless with a boa constrictor for the Swedish men’s magazine Slitz. She went on to appear in the reality TV show “Paradise Hotel” in 2005.
Prince Carl Philip is the only son of Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia.(Mark Cuthbert/Julian Parker/UK Press via Getty Images)
According to multiple reports, Sofia met Prince Carl Philip, 46, the only son of King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, at a Swedish nightclub through mutual friends in 2009. Their relationship became public in 2010.
Prince Carl Philip and his wife Princess Sofia after their marriage ceremony June 13, 2015, in Stockholm, Sweden.(Gisela Schober/Getty Images)
The couple married in 2015 and launched the Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia Foundation, which raises awareness about the harmful effects of online bullying and hate speech.
Matta told Fox News Digital Sofia has dedicated herself to royal duties since joining the Swedish royal family.
Princess Sofia and Prince Carl Philip attend Sweden’s National Day June 6, 2024, in Stockholm.(Michael Campanella/Getty Images)
“The Scandinavian monarchies tend to operate with greater transparency than some of their European counterparts, and Sofia’s past before her marriage has always been a part of her story,” said Matta.
“If anything, the fact that she addressed this perceived link to Epstein head-on may reinforce positive perceptions of her.”
Stephanie Nolasco covers entertainment at Foxnews.com.
PARIS — France’s former Culture Minister Jack Lang has resigned as head of a Paris cultural center over alleged past financial links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that prompted a tax investigation.
He is the highest-profile figure in France impacted by the release of Epstein files on Jan. 30 by the U.S. Department of Justice. He is known for his role as a culture minister under Socialist President Franois Mitterrand in the 1980s and 1990s.
Lang, 86, was summoned to appear at the French Foreign Ministry, which oversees the Arab World Institute, on Sunday, but he submitted his resignation.
He “is very sad and deeply hurt to be leaving a position he loves,” his lawyer Laurent Merlet said Sunday on RTL radio. “He put the interests of the Arab World Institute first,” Merlet said, adding that his client denied the allegations and called them inaccurate.
The Foreign Ministry confirmed his resignation Saturday evening.
The financial prosecutors’ office said it had opened an investigation into Lang and his daughter, Caroline, over alleged “aggravated tax fraud laundering.”
French investigative news website Mediapart reported last week on alleged financial and business ties between the Lang family and Jeffrey Epstein through an offshore company based in the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean Sea.
Jack Lang’s name was mentioned more than 600 times in the Epstein files, showing intermittent correspondence between 2012 and 2019. His daughter was also in the released files.
Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has “taken note” of Lang’s resignation and began the process to look for his successor, the foreign ministry said.
Lang headed the Arab World Institute since 2013.
The video in the player above is from a previous report.
Fallout over Epstein files directly threatening Prime Minister Keir Starmer – CBS News
Watch CBS News
The political fallout in Britain following the latest Epstein documents release became so intense that on Saturday, there were growing calls for the U.K.’s prime minister to step down.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said he had “limited interactions” with Jeffrey Epstein, but documents show they were in business together as recently as 2014.
Epstein and Lutnick’s signatures appear on neighboring pages in the contract, with Epstein signing for his Southern Trust Company, Inc. and Lutnick for a limited liability company called CVAFH I. The documents list nine shareholders in total.
Signatures of Howard Lutnick and Jeffrey Epstein appear on pages in a 2012 contract for Adfin.
Released by Department of Justice
Lutnick, the former chairman of the financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald who at one point lived next door to Epstein, told the New York Post in October that he and his wife Allison had cut ties with Epstein in 2005, deciding after taking a tour of Epstein’s New York townhouse, “I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.”
However, it appears Epstein and Lutnick continued to maintain contact and emails show they arranged calls and planned to have drinks in 2011.
The following year, the couple and their four children planned a visit to Epstein’s island, Little St. James, emails show. Lutnick was invited for lunch on Dec. 24, 2012, and later, Epstein’s assistant wrote on behalf of Epstein, “it was nice seeing you.”
Their Adfin deal was signed four days later.
A source close to Lutnick told CBS News “Cantor [Fitzgerald] was a small minority investor in Adfin. At the time of doing the deal, as a minority investor, Mr. Lutnick would not have any knowledge of who the other investors were.”
Eleven days after that, on Jan. 8, 2013, Epstein had his assistant forward Lutnick a document related to casino legislation in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein had his island and a variety of business dealings. A spokesperson for Lutnick says he ignored the document sent to him.
A spokesperson for the Commerce Department said, “This is nothing more than a failing attempt by the legacy media to distract from the administration’s accomplishments including securing trillions of dollars in investment, delivering historic trade deals and fighting for the American worker.”
“Secretary Lutnick had limited interactions with Mr. Epstein in the presence of his wife and has never been accused of wrongdoing,” the spokesperson said.
Correspondence relating to Adfin continued until at least 2014 when one of the shareholders, David Mitchell, wrote to Epstein regarding additional fundraising involving Cantor Ventures, a venture capital subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald. Lutnick had been president and CEO of Cantor since 1991 and was elevated to chairman in 1996.
Also in 1996, Epstein sold a property located at 11 East 71st St. in New York to an entity called Comet Trust, which two years later sold the property to Lutnick. It became his primary residence, next door to Epstein’s New York City mansion.
By the time Epstein and Lutnick agreed to buy stakes in Adfin, it had been more than four years since Epstein agreed to enter a guilty plea to Florida state charges of procuring a child for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute. The case brought forth allegations of far broader sex trafficking and victimization of girls, but it wasn’t until 2019 that Epstein was charged with federal felonies including trafficking. He died in jail in the weeks after his arrest.
In the wake of the release of the Epstein files, Lutnick has been one of a broad international network of powerful Epstein associates who distanced themselves from the financier, only to be asked now to clarify relationships with him that appear to be closer or lengthier than they previously acknowledged.
Epstein appears to have been aware of the public relations challenge he posed to people close to him. Emails show in 2017 he agreed to donate $50,000 to a dinner in honor of Lutnick.
“hope pr is ok,” Epstein wrote to billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, an organizer of the dinner. Epstein declined to take a table awarded to donors of that level, writing that Lutnick could fill the seats.
Their relationship continued into the next year, 2018, when Lutnick emailed Epstein apparently complaining about an expansion plan for their neighboring Frick Collection art museum.
Lutnick warned Epstein that the renovation might “block your sunlight and views.”
“You should put in a letter. I’m sending a lawyer. Don’t ignore this,” Lutnick wrote to Epstein.
Thousands of social media accounts shared an image of a man with long gray hair and a beard, wearing sunglasses and flanked by two men.
Their guess about who it is? Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019.
“Israel faked his death,” read one Feb. 5 X post with 5 million views. “Epstein is still alive and walking the streets of Tel Aviv.”
“Someone who looks like Jeffrey Epstein was JUST SPOTTED walking in Tel Aviv, Israel,” read another Feb. 5 X post with 5.5 million views. “Could this really be him? It’s literally him.”
This doesn’t prove Epstein is alive. The image was generated with artificial intelligence.
(Screenshot from X)
Many of the posts shared a cropped version of the image, but the original shows the logo of Gemini, Google’s AI chatbot. A reverse image search showed the image was posted Feb. 1 to a Reddit forum titled “hardaiimages.” The forum’s “About” page invites users to “post your funny, hard AI images here.”
The Reddit user who posted it confirmed in a comment it was made with Gemini. “You can see the Gemini logo at the bottom right of each picture. I didn’t think it would become so viral,” the Feb. 6 comment read.
Other details in the image show it’s fake. The road signs in the background show Hebrew text and its English translation, but the translation is inaccurate. The signs also don’t match a real place in Tel Aviv; a street named “Haangus Ev.” does not show up in Google Maps.
(Image from Reddit; red rectangle shows nonsensical road signs, red circle shows Gemini logo)
This image doesn’t show Epstein, alive, in Tel Aviv. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
Bethany Cosentino, the frontwoman of L.A. band Best Coast, has called on Casey Wasserman — the founder and CEO of her agency, Wasserman Music — to step down over his appearance in the Epstein files.
In an open letter posted to Instagram on Thursday night, Cosentino — who has been represented by Wasserman since its expansion into music in 2021 — pointed out Wasserman’s 2003 correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was found guilty of child sex trafficking in connection to Epstein and sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022.
“As an artist represented by Wasserman, I did not consent to having my name or my career tied to someone with this kind of association to exploitation,” she wrote. “Staying quiet isn’t something I can do in good conscience — especially in a moment when men in power are so often protected, excused, or allowed to move on without consequence. Pretending this isn’t a big deal is not an option for me.”
Wasserman’s emails to Maxwell were flirtatious in nature — with one email asking, “So, what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?” — but did not point to any wrongdoing. After the emails came to light earlier this week, Wasserman — who is also the chairman of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics committee — issued an apology.
“I deeply regret my correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell which took place over two decades ago, long before her horrific crimes came to light,” Wasserman said. “I never had a personal or business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As is well documented, I went on a humanitarian trip as part of a delegation with the Clinton Foundation in 2002 on the Epstein plane. I am terribly sorry for having any association with either of them.”
However, Cosentino said that this is not enough. “Regret without accountability is just damage control — an attempt to move on while the rest of us are expected to sit with the discomfort of our careers being publicly tied to him,” she wrote. “Artists are tired of swallowing scandals like this. We are tired of learning, over and over, that men who control access, resources, money and so-called safety in our industry are given endless grace. We are tired of being asked to treat proximity to something horrific as an unfortunate situation we should simply move past — especially when the person involved still holds all the power. And we are tired of watching harm minimized or brushed off as ‘a long time ago,’ while the impact of that harm is still very real, especially for women and survivors of sexual assault.”
Cosentino said that she has asked to remove her and Best Coast’s name from the Wasserman Music website and demanded for him to step down and for the business to change its name. Representatives for Wasserman and Wasserman Music did not immediately respond to Variety‘s request for comment on Cosentino’s letter.
“I’m speaking out because pretending this is normal isn’t normal,” she continued. “Because people in power can’t keep skating by. And because the artists keeping the lights on at Wasserman deserve support, not to be ignored while men in power are protected. It is important for us as artists to remember: these people work for us, not the other way around.”
L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who is on the 2028 Olympics committee, has also called for Wasserman to resign from his position as chairman. “Having him represent us on the world stage distracts focus from our athletes and the enormous effort needed to prepare for 2028,” she told the L.A. Times.
Newly released Department of Justice documents show that investigators reviewing surveillance footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein’s death observed an orange-colored shape moving up a staircase toward the isolated, locked tier where his cell was located at approximately 10:39 p.m. on Aug. 9, 2019.
That entry in an observation log of the video from the Metropolitan Correctional Center appears to suggest something previously unreported by authorities: “A flash of orange looks to be going up the L Tier stairs — could possibly be an inmate escorted up to that Tier.”
It also appears, according to an FBI memorandum, that reviews by investigators led to disparate conclusions by the FBI and those examining the same video from the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General.
The FBI log describes the fuzzy image as “possibly an inmate.”
FBI analysis of video footage describes a fuzzy orange image on the stairs leading to Epstein’s cell tier as “possibly an inmate.”
Document released by Department of Justice
The inspector general logs it as an officer carrying orange “linen or bedding,” noting it in their final report as “an unidentified [corrections officer].”
The DOJ Office of Inspector General’s analysis of video footage describes a fuzzy orange image on the stairs leading to Epstein’s cell tier as: “it is possible someone is carrying inmate linen or bedding up the stairs.”
Document released by Department of Justice
The final report by the Inspector General stated: “At approximately 10:39 p.m., an unidentified CO appeared to walk up the L Tier stairway, and then reappeared within view of the camera at 10:41 p.m.”
Official reports state that Epstein died by suicide some time before 6:30 a.m., when his body was discovered by a corrections officer delivering his breakfast. No official time of death was ever determined. In recent months, there have been questions about the work of investigators probing the circumstances of his death.
In an in-depth analysis of surveillance video from the jail, CBS News previously reported on the figure on the stairs and consulted independent video analysts who said the movement was more consistent with an inmate — or someone wearing an orange prison uniform — than a corrections officer.
The new records raise more questions about activity near Epstein’s tier late that evening. Official reviews of Epstein’s death make no mention of the figure in orange, and later pronouncements from authorities including the attorney general at the time, Bill Barr, were that no one entered Epstein’s housing tier the night of his death. Last summer in an interview on “Fox & Friends,” then-deputy FBI director Dan Bongino said, “There’s video clear as day, he’s the only person in there and the only person coming out. You can see it.”
Prison employees interviewed by CBS News said escorting an inmate at that hour would have been highly unusual. The identification of the individual could have been crucial to reconstructing the events, given that the sighting occurred within the estimated window of Epstein’s possible time of death.
The staircase leading to his cell tier was captured by the only camera known to have been recording that night, positioned in a way that partially obscured the approach to Epstein’s tier. Government investigators relied heavily on that footage in reconstructing the timeline of events. But because of the camera angle, it was not possible to rule out whether someone could have climbed the stairs and entered the tier without being clearly visible. CBS News’ analysis of that video found additional contradictions between what the video showed and official statements.
This image from the video — zoomed in and highlighted by CBS News – shows a partial view of something orange on the stairs leading to Jeffrey Epstein’s cell tier.
U.S. Bureau of Prisons
Inside the SHU
Thousands of pages released last week as part of a broader Justice Department disclosure of Epstein-related files, totaling more than 3 million documents, provide additional detail about the hours between the evening of Aug. 9, when Epstein was last seen alive on camera, and the discovery of his body the following morning.
Records and interviews describe a largely quiet night inside the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, where Epstein was being held. Several inmates told investigators they were using drugs inside their cells, including marijuana and K2, a synthetic substance that multiple witnesses said was common on the tier.
Among those interviewed were the two corrections officers assigned to the unit that night, Tova Noel and Ghitto Bonhomme, a materials handler who had not previously been publicly identified. Documents show Bonhomme was interviewed twice in September 2019 in sessions conducted in lieu of a grand jury subpoena.
According to Noel’s account, Bonhomme had been working multiple consecutive shifts and slept while on duty for a period between approximately 10 p.m. and midnight.
Investigators also questioned Noel about an unexplained change in the recorded number of inmates in the SHU, which appeared to drop from 73 to 72 sometime between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. Noel said she was “probably” mistaken about the discrepancy and told investigators she had no memory of a count changing.
Neither officer was specifically asked about the orange-colored figure noted in the video observation log. Bonhomme told investigators he did not remember the period between 10 p.m. and midnight and said he had no recollection of anyone walking up the stairs toward Epstein’s tier at around 10:30 p.m. He added that a jail employee entering a tier alone would have violated policy.
A separate internal presentation included in the document release described a corrections officer, believed by investigators to be Noel, carrying linen or inmate clothing up to the tier. The 2023 inspector general report did not identify Noel as the figure seen in the footage. In her interview, Noel told investigators distributing linen was not part of her duties. “I never gave out linen. Ever,” she said. “Because that’s done on the shift prior.”
An early morning discovery
Bonhomme ended his shift at midnight and was replaced by another corrections officer named Michael Thomas, who would discover Epstein’s body hours later. Noel continued on for a second consecutive 8-hour shift.
Thomas and Noel failed to complete inmate counts at 3 a.m., and 5 a.m. as well as mandatory 30-minute wellness checks of Epstein. Investigators speculated the officers may have fallen asleep.
Thomas and Noel were later charged with falsifying records certifying the inmate counts had been completed. Federal prosecutors eventually dropped the charges in exchange for cooperation agreements that included interviews. A transcript of Thomas’ interview, conducted two years after Epstein’s death and released in the recent document disclosure, shows significant gaps in his recollection of the morning Epstein was found.
Thomas told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cell shortly after 6:30 a.m. on Aug.10 and that he “ripped” Epstein down from the hanging position.
Investigators asked what happened to the noose.
“I don’t recall taking the noose off. I really don’t,” he replied. “I don’t recall taking the thing from around his neck.”
Noel, who remained standing at the cell entrance, told investigators she saw Thomas lower Epstein to the floor but did not see a noose around his neck.
The noose Epstein allegedly used has never been definitively identified. According to the inspector general’s report, a noose collected at the scene was later determined not to be the ligature used in Epstein’s death.
Thomas also described Epstein as shirtless when he found him. Evidence records indicate a shirt believed to have been cut from Epstein’s body was later returned from the hospital in a bag of personal belongings.
Evidence records indicate a shirt believed to have been cut from Epstein’s body was later returned from the hospital in a bag of personal belongings.
Released by Department of Justice
The new documents also show that New York City’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner reviewed the jail surveillance footage six days after Epstein’s death as part of its investigation and concluded the video was too blurry to identify any individuals. Hours later, the office publicly ruled Epstein’s death a suicide. The medical examiner did not provide an estimate of how long Epstein may have been dead before his body was discovered. CBS News had previously reported on the office’s unorthodox handling of the crime scene.
Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist retained by Epstein’s brother, previously told CBS News Epstein had likely been dead for several hours before he was found but because the body had been moved, determining the time of death was impossible.
Bonhomme declined to comment when contacted by CBS News. Noel’s attorney told CBS News, “Ms. Noel will not be making any statements [or] attempts to clarify any aspect of this situation.” Previous attempts to reach Michael Thomas on the phone, through his attorney and at his home, have been unsuccessful.
On Wednesday, Variety published the headline: “J.K. Rowling Denies Inviting Jeffrey Epstein to ‘Harry Potter & The Cursed Child’ Broadway Opening, DOJ Docs Show He Was Turned Away at Door.” One wonders why the editors decided they needed the first part of that, which is accusatory in tone—even though the second part acquits her!
Luckily for Rowling, the new information, made available as part of the federal government’s mandatory Epstein files disclosure—3 million more pages became available last Friday—knocks down this particular smear campaign. But here’s my question: What if Epstein, a schemer and a charlatan whose entire shtick was worming his way into the company of rich and famous people for the purposes of manipulating and/or blackmailing them, had somehow snuck into the show?
If the response to this latest batch of Epstein files is any indication, Rowling would have been referred to as one of those notable names brought down by the Epstein files—guilty, by insinuation, of complicity in the most infamous sexual predator’s appalling crimes. Rowling, of course, is already persona non grata among progressives, owing to her views on transgender issues, which are perfectly mainstream but toxically unpopular amongst the left. But that’s the problem: The Epstein files have become an exercise in ax-grinding among partisan actors and knee-jerk critics of people who found themselves in Epstein’s orbit—wealthy entrepreneurs, academics, the chattering class, etc.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby’s on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
This is not to excuse the appalling judgment of those who consciously and deliberately continued to court Epstein’s favor even after the full extent of his depravity was well-known. Such figures include Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky, Steve Bannon, and Stacey Plaskett. Bannon and Plaskett, in particular, sought Epstein’s political counsel right up until the end of his life. Chomsky gave Epstein advice on beating the charges against him. Gates is accused of despicable behavior, which he denies.
The best thing that can be said about the release of the Epstein files is that it sheds light on the incredibly poor discernment of several individuals who are influential in public policy. This is useful information that the public has a right to know.
But the release of the Epstein files has also meant that millions of documents containing thinly-sourced accusations, misleading information, and outright falsehoods are now flooding social media, giving a veneer of confirmation to rumors, gossip, and lies. This is very much by design, since Congress—by a vote of 427–1 in the House—opted to disclose everything, including transcripts of investigations, and reports that were never deemed truthful.
For example, the latest batch of docs prompted Keith Edwards, a Democratic strategist, to post on X the claim that Epstein is the one who introduced President Donald Trump to Melania is now “confirmed.”
The claim is not confirmed. Just because someone said this, and an investigator made note of it, does not mean it’s true. On the contrary, Donald and Melania have both denied that it’s true, and The Daily Beast was previously forced to retract the claim because the official timeline of events contradicts it.
So here we have a clear case of bad-faith political actors weaponizing the Epstein files to tarnish their political enemies, even though the new documents don’t prove anything about Trump. Indeed, for partisan figures who have been obsessed with the notion that the Epstein files would demonstrate Trump’s complicity in Epstein’s sex crimes, the most stunning revelation should be that there’s no evidence of this whatsoever. There’s also no evidence that the Clintons were involved in an international cabal of pedophiles.
No one’s priors are being reconsidered, however. On the contrary, those who were interested in the Epstein files mostly because they wanted evidence that their political enemies were child rapists are now mostly claiming that such proof is still being withheld. Much like people who believe the moon-landing was fake and the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them.
Initially, this category included many of the MAGA faithful, who earnestly believed they were about to unmask a global pedophile ring involving the Clintons. More recently, the Epstein files disclosure became a Democratic crusade, as it dawned on liberals that Trump had been friends with Epstein, too, and perhaps complicit in his crimes. Again, there’s nothing to incriminate Trump, and there’s nothing to incriminate the Clintons. Rep. James Comer (R–Ky.) won’t take no for an answer, of course. He has successfully pressured the Clintons to testify before Congress about Epstein.
It’s worth repeating that the real villain of the Epstein files is Epstein himself, a vicious sexual predator who abused underage girls. He is likely not the only one, and there are other individuals in Epstein’s orbit who reached settlements with accusers.
But the Epstein files do not contain a great deal of new evidence of sex crimes among Epstein’s friends, associates, and acquaintances. Yet everyone whose name appears in the Epstein files is now being treated like an exposed sex criminal. This includes hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, who appears in a photo alongside three young people, possibly on Epstein’s island. On X, high-follower accounts cited the photo as evidence that Dubin had sexually assaulted those children, who were probably procured for him by Epstein.
Except that’s not the case at all. Those are Dubin’s own kids!
That’s Glenn Dubin. Those are his own kids. This whole thing is becoming an insane moral panic along the lines of the Satanic child abuse panic, recovered memory, campus rape hysteria, and all of that.
Epstein was a predator, and people who kept in contact with him showed… https://t.co/1mFpPA8UXL
This is a witch hunt mentality; in fact, it’s reminiscent of the public panic over sexual misconduct on college campuses throughout the 2010s, in which junk statistics and one-sided journalism helped advance an utterly false notion that elite universities were a “hunting ground” for young women. The idea that scores of rapists hunted college women, lured them into attics, and attacked them during depraved rituals was the thrust of the infamous Rolling Stone hoax story, which was subsequently debunked.
Moreover, the release of the files may be setting a dangerous precedent. It is incredibly unusual for the federal government to unseal investigative records, which contain reports that lack corroboration. This is an unusual case, and there’s certainly an argument to be made that public confidence in the justice system requires disclosure here. But I can’t help but consider the statement by Rep. Clay Higgins (R–La.), the lone no vote on Epstein disclosure.
“If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” he wrote.
(We haven’t taped either yet. Stay tuned later this week!)
Freed Up, in case you are wondering, is my brand new show with Christian Britschgi, Reason‘s resident salmon-wrangler and housing reporter. Unlike Reason‘s other video products, we are not actively trying to make you any smarter or better informed about the news—though we expect, as a side effect of watching, you may accrue information about Star Wars, Chinese history, Pokemon, working out, and/or the Catholic Church.
Considers this our desperate attempt to capitalize on the success of all those two dudes hanging out podcasts. And we are inviting you to join us!
Two casting controversies took social media by storm this week, and they are both movies I’d like to see. First, conservatives were mad about Lupita Nyong’o, a black woman, portraying Helen of Troy in Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey. (Elon Musk quipped that Nolan had lost his integrity.) It should be noted that this casting rumor isn’t even confirmed; all we know for sure is that Nyong’o will appear in the movie. Second, some liberals were irate that Jacob Elordi is portraying Heathcliff in the new Wuthering Heights movie. In the source material, author Emily Brontë describes Heathcliff as “dark-skinned,” whereas Elordi is fair-skinned. This is rather silly, though. For Bronte, a woman of Victorian England, “dark-skinned” could have meant anything from African or Indian to Spanish or Italian. (Elordi is of Spanish descent, for the record.) Moreover, though Heathcliff is definitely lowborn and an outcast owing to his origins—and that affects his temperament and the manner in which he is treated by the other characters—his specific racial identity is not particularly important to the story.
This is insane. Heathcliff is not a “person of color” in the modern sense. He is described as a “dark skinned gipsy,” and what that means is ambiguous. For Emily Bronte, Spanish people would have been dark-skinned. (The collective white identity did not exist until recently.)… https://t.co/DNSC71MuYA
As for Helen of Troy, in Greek mythology, she emerged from an egg after her father, Zeus, mated with a swan. It’s essential to depict her as very beautiful, but she does not need to be a fair-skinned white woman like Diane Kruger, who played her in the 2004 Troy movie. (That movie was pretty great, in my opinion, and I definitely liked Kruger as Helen!) Kruger isn’t Greek; neither is Matt Damon, who’s portraying Odysseus this time around—but no one is mad about that. It’s just Nyong’o generating the anger.
The Justice Department failed to black out identifying information about many of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and redacted the details of individuals who may have aided the convicted sex offender, prompting an outcry from survivors who accuse DOJ of botching the release of more than 3 million documents last week.A CNN review of the Epstein documents identified several examples of people whose identities were blacked out possibly helping to connect him with women, including redacted co-conspirators in a much-anticipated draft indictment of Epstein from the 2000s.A redacted individual wrote in one 2015 email to Epstein: “And this one is (i think) totally your girl.”In another 2014 email in the files, a person wrote to Epstein: “Thank you for a fun night… Your littlest girl was a little naughty.” But the name of the individual who wrote that message is redacted.The Department of Justice on Friday released what it said was the last of the Epstein files that it was required to disclose by law, but the documents have prompted widespread outcry about a continued lack of transparency and justice for Epstein’s many survivors.Epstein survivors are up in arms about the mishandled redactions, including blacked out statements that victims made to the FBI.A DOJ official said in a statement that any fully redacted names are of victims. “In many instances, as it has been well documented publicly, those who were originally victims became participants and co-conspirators,” the official said. “We did not redact any names of men, only female victims.”FBI and law enforcement names were also redacted, the DOJ official said.Meanwhile, the Justice Department has been scrambling to fix the improper disclosure of victim information.The Justice Department narrowly avoided a hearing in federal court on Wednesday by reaching an agreement late Tuesday with lawyers for some of the Epstein survivors, who had accused DOJ of releasing information about nearly 100 Epstein victims in the files.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged Monday that “mistakes were made” but argued that DOJ has moved expeditiously to correct any information unintentionally released.For Epstein survivors, the DOJ’s response is unacceptable.“To have pieces of my life be out there on display in that way, was really troublesome,” said Dani Bensky, who told CNN in a roundtable with Epstein survivors that her name, address and phone number were all initially in the files.“And I know that I’m public now, yes, it hurts me — but it really hurts our survivor sisters who are still ‘Jane Does’ even more,” she added.The furor over what is and isn’t included in the Epstein documents highlights how the department’s release of more than 3 million documents on Friday is hardly the end of the fight over the Epstein files — even as both Blanche and President Donald Trump have said they think it’s time to move on.Congress forced the disclosure of the Epstein documents after passing the Epstein Files Transparency Act last November over Trump’s initial objections. But the bipartisan group of lawmakers who pushed for the law’s passage say there are still millions of files that have not been released, which the DOJ argued fell within exceptions to the law not requiring their disclosure.Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who led the effort to release the files, have asked to view the unredacted files — and are still threatening Attorney General Pam Bondi with impeachment or contempt for failing to comply with the law if more are not disclosed.“The DOJ has protected the Epstein class with blanket redactions in some areas while failing to protect the identities of survivors in other areas,” Khanna said in a statement to CNN. “Congress cannot properly assess DOJ’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases without access to the complete record.”‘There’s no reason to redact it’The documents released on Friday include the names of numerous high-profile men who interacted with Epstein — who died by suicide in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges — a list that included Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Elon Musk and the former Prince Andrew, among many others. All have denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein and have never been charged by law enforcement with any crimes.But Epstein survivors say the files appear to shield those who specifically enabled the convicted sex offender’s abuse, as well as other men who may have been named in the survivors’ statements that were completely redacted.One Epstein survivor pointed to another FBI form contained in the files where full pages were blacked out.“It basically outlines everything that this person experienced and shared with the FBI. It was seven pages long and four of them looked like this,” Jess Michaels told CNN in an interview. “What happened to her and who did it is also redacted. So you cannot say in the same sentence: ‘There were no men, there was no list’ and redact this much of a statement. Because if there’s no men, then there’s no reason to redact it. There’s no other reason.”One of the most anticipated documents in the files was the controversial draft indictment from the Southern District of Florida from the 2000s, which would have charged Epstein, along with three others, who were described as having been “employed” by Epstein.The individuals are all described as having conspired to “persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution.” But their names are redacted.The files also include numerous email exchanges with Epstein that appear to describe the procurement of women.A redacted individual from a Paris modeling agency wrote in a 2013 email to Epstein: “New Brazilian just arrived, sexy and cute, 19yo .”The email appears in the files twice: In one version, the modeling agency’s name is redacted, but in another, the agency is not redacted from the sender’s email signature.In a 2018 email to Epstein, another redacted individual wrote: “I found at least 3 very good young poor.”“Meet this one,” the person continued. “Not the beauty queen but we both likes her a lot.”In a letter to Congress on Friday, the Justice Department detailed how it made redactions, saying it complied with the law by redacting victim information, child sex abuse materials and anything that would jeopardize an active investigation.DOJ also withheld 200,000 pages “covered by various privileges, including deliberative process privilege, the work-product doctrine, and attorney-client privilege,” according to the letter.At his press conference last Friday announcing the release of the files, Blanche said they did not contain information about evidence that would lead to the prosecution of any men who abused women.“I said this earlier, there’s this built-in assumption that somehow there’s this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about that we’re covering up or that we’re choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case,” Blanche said. “I don’t know whether there are men out there that abuse these women.”Scrambling to scrub filesIn the hours after Friday’s DOJ release, CNN reported that multiple survivors, including anonymous “Jane Doe” victims, were seeing their names and information throughout the documents that were published.Attorneys for some of the survivors sent a letter saying the DOJ’s failure to properly redact victims’ information had triggered an “unfolding emergency,” asking two federal judges in New York for an “immediate judicial intervention.”Sunday’s letter included testimony from various anonymous “Jane Doe” victims who described receiving death threats and harassment from the media since the publication of the files.“When DOJ believed it was ready to publish, it needed only to type each victim’s name into its own search function. Any resulting hit should have been redacted before publication. Had DOJ done that, the harm would have been avoided,” the lawyers wrote.DOJ said in a response filed to the judges that it had removed all documents that victims or their lawyers identified, and a Justice Department spokesperson had said it had 500 reviewers looking at the files “for this very reason.”“Mistakes were made by – you have really hard-working lawyers that worked for the past 60 days. Think about this though: you’re talking about pieces of paper that stack from the ground to two Eiffel Towers,” Blanche said Monday on Fox News. “The minute that a victim or their lawyer reached out to us since Friday, we immediately dealt with it and pulled it down.”Epstein’s survivors say the release of names, even if corrected, is yet another example of how the Justice Department failed them.“Publishing images of victims while shielding predators is just a failure of complete justice,” Epstein survivor Sharlene Rochard told CNN. “There’s this deep sense of betrayal when the systems meant to protect you becomes the one causing all of this harm.”
WASHINGTON —
The Justice Department failed to black out identifying information about many of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and redacted the details of individuals who may have aided the convicted sex offender, prompting an outcry from survivors who accuse DOJ of botching the release of more than 3 million documents last week.
A CNN review of the Epstein documents identified several examples of people whose identities were blacked out possibly helping to connect him with women, including redacted co-conspirators in a much-anticipated draft indictment of Epstein from the 2000s.
A redacted individual wrote in one 2015 email to Epstein: “And this one is (i think) totally your girl.”
In another 2014 email in the files, a person wrote to Epstein: “Thank you for a fun night… Your littlest girl was a little naughty.” But the name of the individual who wrote that message is redacted.
The Department of Justice on Friday released what it said was the last of the Epstein files that it was required to disclose by law, but the documents have prompted widespread outcry about a continued lack of transparency and justice for Epstein’s many survivors.
Epstein survivors are up in arms about the mishandled redactions, including blacked out statements that victims made to the FBI.
A DOJ official said in a statement that any fully redacted names are of victims. “In many instances, as it has been well documented publicly, those who were originally victims became participants and co-conspirators,” the official said. “We did not redact any names of men, only female victims.”
FBI and law enforcement names were also redacted, the DOJ official said.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has been scrambling to fix the improper disclosure of victim information.
The Justice Department narrowly avoided a hearing in federal court on Wednesday by reaching an agreement late Tuesday with lawyers for some of the Epstein survivors, who had accused DOJ of releasing information about nearly 100 Epstein victims in the files.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged Monday that “mistakes were made” but argued that DOJ has moved expeditiously to correct any information unintentionally released.
For Epstein survivors, the DOJ’s response is unacceptable.
“To have pieces of my life be out there on display in that way, was really troublesome,” said Dani Bensky, who told CNN in a roundtable with Epstein survivors that her name, address and phone number were all initially in the files.
“And I know that I’m public now, yes, it hurts me — but it really hurts our survivor sisters who are still ‘Jane Does’ even more,” she added.
The furor over what is and isn’t included in the Epstein documents highlights how the department’s release of more than 3 million documents on Friday is hardly the end of the fight over the Epstein files — even as both Blanche and President Donald Trump have said they think it’s time to move on.
Congress forced the disclosure of the Epstein documents after passing the Epstein Files Transparency Act last November over Trump’s initial objections. But the bipartisan group of lawmakers who pushed for the law’s passage say there are still millions of files that have not been released, which the DOJ argued fell within exceptions to the law not requiring their disclosure.
Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who led the effort to release the files, have asked to view the unredacted files — and are still threatening Attorney General Pam Bondi with impeachment or contempt for failing to comply with the law if more are not disclosed.
“The DOJ has protected the Epstein class with blanket redactions in some areas while failing to protect the identities of survivors in other areas,” Khanna said in a statement to CNN. “Congress cannot properly assess DOJ’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases without access to the complete record.”
‘There’s no reason to redact it’
The documents released on Friday include the names of numerous high-profile men who interacted with Epstein — who died by suicide in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges — a list that included Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Elon Musk and the former Prince Andrew, among many others. All have denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein and have never been charged by law enforcement with any crimes.
But Epstein survivors say the files appear to shield those who specifically enabled the convicted sex offender’s abuse, as well as other men who may have been named in the survivors’ statements that were completely redacted.
One Epstein survivor pointed to another FBI form contained in the files where full pages were blacked out.
“It basically outlines everything that this person experienced and shared with the FBI. It was seven pages long and four of them looked like this,” Jess Michaels told CNN in an interview. “What happened to her and who did it is also redacted. So you cannot say in the same sentence: ‘There were no men, there was no list’ and redact this much of a statement. Because if there’s no men, then there’s no reason to redact it. There’s no other reason.”
One of the most anticipated documents in the files was the controversial draft indictment from the Southern District of Florida from the 2000s, which would have charged Epstein, along with three others, who were described as having been “employed” by Epstein.
The individuals are all described as having conspired to “persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution.” But their names are redacted.
The files also include numerous email exchanges with Epstein that appear to describe the procurement of women.
A redacted individual from a Paris modeling agency wrote in a 2013 email to Epstein: “New Brazilian just arrived, sexy and cute, 19yo .”
The email appears in the files twice: In one version, the modeling agency’s name is redacted, but in another, the agency is not redacted from the sender’s email signature.
In a 2018 email to Epstein, another redacted individual wrote: “I found at least 3 very good young poor.”
“Meet this one,” the person continued. “Not the beauty queen but we both likes her a lot.”
In a letter to Congress on Friday, the Justice Department detailed how it made redactions, saying it complied with the law by redacting victim information, child sex abuse materials and anything that would jeopardize an active investigation.
DOJ also withheld 200,000 pages “covered by various privileges, including deliberative process privilege, the work-product doctrine, and attorney-client privilege,” according to the letter.
At his press conference last Friday announcing the release of the files, Blanche said they did not contain information about evidence that would lead to the prosecution of any men who abused women.
“I said this earlier, there’s this built-in assumption that somehow there’s this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about that we’re covering up or that we’re choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case,” Blanche said. “I don’t know whether there are men out there that abuse these women.”
Scrambling to scrub files
In the hours after Friday’s DOJ release, CNN reported that multiple survivors, including anonymous “Jane Doe” victims, were seeing their names and information throughout the documents that were published.
Attorneys for some of the survivors sent a letter saying the DOJ’s failure to properly redact victims’ information had triggered an “unfolding emergency,” asking two federal judges in New York for an “immediate judicial intervention.”
Sunday’s letter included testimony from various anonymous “Jane Doe” victims who described receiving death threats and harassment from the media since the publication of the files.
“When DOJ believed it was ready to publish, it needed only to type each victim’s name into its own search function. Any resulting hit should have been redacted before publication. Had DOJ done that, the harm would have been avoided,” the lawyers wrote.
DOJ said in a response filed to the judges that it had removed all documents that victims or their lawyers identified, and a Justice Department spokesperson had said it had 500 reviewers looking at the files “for this very reason.”
“Mistakes were made by – you have really hard-working lawyers that worked for the past 60 days. Think about this though: you’re talking about pieces of paper that stack from the ground to two Eiffel Towers,” Blanche said Monday on Fox News. “The minute that a victim or their lawyer reached out to us since Friday, we immediately dealt with it and pulled it down.”
Epstein’s survivors say the release of names, even if corrected, is yet another example of how the Justice Department failed them.
“Publishing images of victims while shielding predators is just a failure of complete justice,” Epstein survivor Sharlene Rochard told CNN. “There’s this deep sense of betrayal when the systems meant to protect you becomes the one causing all of this harm.”
A slew of notable individuals appear in the latest Justice Department release of Jeffrey Epstein files, and the documents reveal new details about Epstein’s ties to figures includingBill Gates, Elon Musk and former Prince Andrew.
The documents were released on Friday, more than 40 days after the Dec. 19 legal deadline for the Justice Department to release all files in line with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed and President Trump signed in November.
Earlier batches of files included emails and photos of prominent figures, including President Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Mick Jagger, Woody Allen, Larry Summers and others. They have not been accused of wrongdoing.
CBS News is still reviewing the documents independently and in collaboration with journalists from NBC, Versant and The Associated Press.
Here is a look at some of the notable figures who appear in the latest files:
Former Prince Andrew
The latest materials include photos of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was formerly known as Prince Andrew, on all fours over an unidentified woman on the floor. No context for the photos is provided, and it is unclear when and where they were taken.
In one of the photos, in which they are fully clothed, he is touching her abdomen. In another, he stares directly into the camera while crouching over her.
Images from an undated and redacted document released by the U.S. Department of Justice on Jan. 30, 2026, show Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, leaning over an unidentified person.
Justice Department/AP/CBS News
Andrew, the brother of King Charles and son of the late Queen Elizabeth, has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing, but he has been stripped of his royal titles and duties in the wake of the scandal.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Saturday suggested that Mountbatten-Windsor should tell U.S. investigators what he knows about Epstein’s activities.
“In terms of testifying, I’ve always said anybody who’s got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they’re asked to do that, because you can’t be victim-centered if you’re not prepared to do that,” Starmer said.
Mountbatten-Windsor has ignored a request from House Oversight Committee members for a “transcribed interview” about his “long-standing friendship” with Epstein.
CBS News has reached out to his representatives for comment.
Elon Musk
Emails exchanged between Elon Musk and Epstein more than a decade ago indicate they sometimes spent time around the holidays together in the Caribbean, and may have visited Epstein’s island at least once.
In a Nov. 25, 2012 email, Epstein asked Musk how many people he would be bringing for the helicopter ride to the island. Musk responded, “Probably just Talulah and me.” Talulah Riley was Musk’s wife at the time.
Musk then asked, “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?”
On Christmas Day, he sent another note, again asking about parties: “Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year, and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St. Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for.”
The next year, in a November 2013 email, Epstein asked Musk if he would come to the Caribbean for Christmas. He said Woody Allen was with him and that Musk “might enjoy” the trip.
“Yes,” Musk responded.
Although CBS News has not independently verified that Musk attended, the following year, in a September 2014 email, Epstein asked Musk if he would join for Christmas “again” in St. Barts.
“Don’t know,” Musk responded.
At the end of October, Epstein’s assistant, Lesley Groff, sent a schedule reminder to Epstein that noted Musk “is to go to the island on Dec. 6th,” although a subsequent email on Dec. 5, 2014, had a schedule note saying, “Reminder: Elon Musk to island Dec. 6 (is this still happening?)”
Musk wrote on X Saturday that he “had very little correspondence with Epstein and declined repeated invitations to go to his island or fly on his ‘Lolita Express,’ but was well aware that some email correspondence with him could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name.”
CBS News has reached out to Musk for comment.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
Former Wall Street executive and now Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and his family spent time on Epstein’s island, Little Saint James, in 2012, emails show.
Lutnick’s wife, Allison, planned a visit with their four children and another family around the end of that year and emailed with Lesley Groff, Epstein’s then assistant, to coordinate their travel.
Howard Lutnick was invited for lunch with Epstein on his island, and that appears to have taken place. On Dec. 24, 2012, a person whose name was redacted wrote to Lutnick on behalf of Epstein to tell him “it was nice seeing you.”
But Lutnick claimed in an interview last October with the New York Post that he and his wife had cut ties with Epstein in 2005, after taking a tour of his New York townhouse. They had moved in next door to Epstein.
Lutnick told the New York Post that Epstein had shown them his massage room and commented on the massages he received there. Lutnick said he and his wife quickly left, “and in the six to eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.”
A Commerce Department spokesperson, in a statement to CBS News, said that Lutnick “had limited interactions with Mr. Epstein in the presence of his wife and has never been accused of wrongdoing.”
New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch
In a 2013 email exchange between New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch and Epstein, the two men discussed multiple women.
In one email, Tisch asked for details about a “Ukrainian Girl” who had lunch with him after meeting at Epstein’s house. He called her a “very sweet girl.”
Epstein replied that the woman had “a 10 ass” and is a “character,” adding he would get “all info” on her.
Tisch responded that he was “curious to know about” the woman, and asked Epstein if she is a “pro or civilian?” prompting Epstein to reply that he doesn’t “like records of these conversations.”
Regarding a different woman, Tisch asked Epstein, “Is she fun?”
Epstein replied that the woman is “a civilian, but russian, and rarely tells the full truth, but fun.”
In a separate email, after it appears Tisch met with a woman, Epstein told Tisch that a “report” was “just in” from their encounter, and he told the Giants owner that “you did very well… she is a little freaked by the age difference but go slow…”
In another email from the same year, Tisch appeared to be emailing with a woman that Epstein had introduced him to, writing to her, “Jeffrey Epstein is very excited about you and I meeting each other… I like that idea… do you?”
Epstein then appeared to give him tips about the woman’s life, suggesting she was still in college and could not travel during the week to meet Tisch.
“Never heard back from her,” Tisch wrote to Epstein in a reply. “Oh well…”
Other emails show Tisch inviting Epstein to a Giants football game and Epstein inviting Tisch to his private island.
Tisch said in a statement to CBS News: “We had a brief association where we exchanged emails about adult women, and in addition, we discussed movies, philanthropy, and investments. I did not take him up on any of his invitations and never went to his island. As we all know now, he was a terrible person and someone I deeply regret associating with.”
CBS News has reached out to the NFL and the Giants for comment.
Bill Gates
Two emails Epstein sent to himself on July 18, 2013, contain unverified allegations that Bill Gates had extramarital “sex with Russian girls” that resulted in a sexually transmitted infection requiring antibiotics. In one email, Epstein claimed Gates also sought to “surreptitiously give” the antibiotics to his then wife Melinda Gates.
In another, which Epstein drafted as a resignation letter from the perspective of someone named “Boris,” he said, “I have been asked and wrongly acquiesced into participating in things that have ranged from the morally inappropriate, to the ethically unsound and have been repeatedly asked to do thing (sic) that get near and potentially over the line into the illegal…From helping Bill to get drugs, in order to deal with consequences of sex with russian girls, to facilitating his illicit trusts, with married women, to being asked to provide adderall fro (sic) bridge touramnts (sic), as I am a medial (sic) doctor, but have no presriptions (sic) writing ability.”
The emails appear to have been written by Epstein on behalf of an aggrieved employee of Bill Gates who was resigning. The Daily Mail and other outlets have suggested Epstein may have been drafting a resignation letter for Boris Nikolic, a physician and a former employee of Bill Gates.
A spokesperson for Bill Gates told CBS News: “These claims are absolutely absurd and completely false. The only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein’s frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to entrap and defame.”
The Wall Street Journal reported in 2023 that Epstein tried to threaten Gates after discovering he had an affair with a Russian bridge player named Mila Antonova, whom Gates had met in 2010. Neither Gates nor Antonova have confirmed the affair.
President Trump
President Trump consistently has said he kicked Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club and ended their friendship two decades ago, and while there are hundreds of references to Mr. Trump in the trove of newly released documents, the president claimed they further exonerate him.
Among the documents is a September 2009 deposition in which Epstein’s former house manager, Juan Alessi, said Mr. Trump “never” stayed over at Epstein’s home in Palm Beach, and also never got a massage while there.
There is also a message sent Sept. 28, 2012, asking: “what does JE think of going to Mar-a-Lago after xmas instead of his island?” “JE” apparently refers to Epstein; the names of the sender and the recipient are redacted. It’s unclear whether there was any response.
The Justice Department said in a press release that some of the material in the Epstein-related documents contains untrue information about Mr. Trump.
“I didn’t see it myself but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it’s the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical left,” the president said on Saturday as he flew to Florida.
Steve Bannon
Among the files released on Friday is nearly two hours of video from an interview Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief White House strategist during his first administration, conducted with Epstein.
Earlier Epstein document releases showed Bannon and Epstein often corresponded, and that Epstein sought to revive his shattered reputation through a documentary with Bannon.
The file and video do not make clear when the interview was recorded. In the interview, Bannon asked Epstein, “What are you, class three sexual predator?”
“Tier one,” Epstein replied.
Bannon asked, “You’re tier — what is — tier one’s the highest and worst?”
Epstein responded that no, “I’m the lowest.”
“You’re the lowest. Okay, tier one, you’re the lowest, but a criminal,” said Bannon.
“Yes,” Epstein replied.
Epstein also told Bannon, “I don’t know why I’m attracted to somebody. I don’t know people are attracted to each other.”
Emails from November and December 2018 also indicate Steve Bannon and his son, Sean Bannon, received Hermes Apple watches, priced at $1,499 at the time, from Epstein. They were identical models — “44 mm, space gray, stainless steel case, space black,” — the email said.
Lesley Groff, who was Epstein’s assistant, wrote, “Jeffrey will give to Steve when he sees him next.” In January 2019, there was another email from a redacted name sent to Epstein that read, “Steve has been given his Apple Watch!”
CBS News has reached out to Bannon by phone and email.
Brett Ratner
The files release includes photos showing filmmaker Brett Ratner with Epstein and two females.
The photos show Ratner with his arms around a female in a white top. They are on a couch next to Epstein, who is shoulder-to-shoulder with another female.
CBS News has reached out to Ratner’s production company, Ratpac Entertainment, for comment.
In 2017, multiple women accused Ratner of sexual misconduct and he was dropped from a number of film projects. He denied any wrongdoing.
Ratner recently directed “Melania,” a documentary that offers an inside look at the life of first lady Melania Trump in the days after the president’s 2024 election victory.
Dr. Mehmet Oz
A transaction report shows that in 2004, Jeffrey Epstein paid for the travel of Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity doctor and talk show host who now heads the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Department of Health and Human Services.
The report shows $1,592 was billed to Shoppers Travel, Inc.
Epstein was also invited to an event in 2014 in which Oz was a guest speaker, but Epstein wrote in an email that he was unavailable to attend.
Additionally, in 2016, Oz sent an email to Epstein, but the message is redacted.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where Oz has served as administrator since 2025, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Kathryn Ruemmler
Kathryn Ruemmler, who was White House counsel under former President Obama from 2011 to 2014, said in a December 2015 email that she adores Epstein.
“I adore him. It’s like having another older brother!” Ruemmler said to a redacted recipient, according to the emails released by the Justice Department. Ruemmler made the comment after Epstein offered to buy her a first-class ticket to Europe.
Ruemmler also served as associate White House counsel to former President Bill Clinton. She is now the chief legal officer and general counsel at Goldman Sachs.
In a May 2015 text message exchange, Epstein asks filmmaker Woody Allen if he wants to have a “day museum White House trip” the next week. That would have been when former President Barack Obama was in office.
Allen replied, “With my rap sheet I’ll never get past security.”
It’s unclear if they were referring to visiting someone at the White House or simply a tourist trip. Another person appears to be included in the text exchange, but the name is redacted.
Allen has not been charged with any crimes, and he has denied accusations by Mia Farrow that he molested their adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow.
Bill Clinton and Jeff Bezos
In an October 2009 email to Epstein from Peggy Siegal, a publicist and New York socialite, said she just left Ghislaine Maxwell’s house, where an after-party for an unnamed film was being held.
“Bill Clinton and Jeff Bezos were there,” she wrote.
Clinton’s name and photos surfaced in previous sets of documents related to Epstein.
A spokesperson for Clinton said in 2019, after Epstein was indicted on federal charges, that the former president took four trips on Epstein’s plane in 2002 and 2003, traveling to Europe, Asia and Africa. Angel Ureña, the spokesperson, said the trips included stops in connection with the Clinton Foundation, and staff, foundation supporters, and Clinton’s Secret Service detail were on every leg of every trip.
“President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,” he said.
CBS News has also reached out to Bezos for comment.
Former Ambassador Peter Mandelson
The latest Epstein document release by the Justice Department has increased scrutiny of Britain’s former Ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, with emails suggesting he may have shared sensitive U.K. government information with the late American financier and sex offender.
Emails published Friday by the Justice Department indicate Mandelson was in close contact with Epstein while serving as a member of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet, and that he may have shared confidential information about both the European Union and the United Kingdom’s finances.
On Feb. 4, the London Metropolitan Police announced a formal investigation into a 72-year-old former government minister, “following the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.”
Mandelson has not commented publicly on the documents suggesting he shared confidential U.K. government information with Epstein.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose office shared material on Mandelson with the police, told lawmakers in parliament on Feb. 4 that “Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament, and my party.”
It was announced in Britain’s House of Lords the previous day that Mandelson had formally notified the body of his intention to resign as a lord. Unlike the U.S. Senate, people are appointed, not elected to the upper house of Britain’s parliament, and they typically serve for life.
Here’s a brief overview of their friendship and falling-out, and how Trump’s political career intersected with Epstein’s prosecution.
1980s to Early 2000s: Trump & Epstein Are Friends. Trump parties with Epstein and flies on his private jet at least seven times. Trump appears in Epstein’s “little black book”, along with several of his family members (and many other famous and powerful figures).
2004: Trump-Epstein Friendship Ends. Trump and Epstein have a “falling-out,” as the president put it years later. The cause may have been a real-estate battle, but it’s not totally clear when or why they cut ties.
2006: Epstein Indicted in Florida. After Florida police investigate multiple claims of Epstein sexually abusing underage girls, he is indicted on just one count of soliciting prostitution. Florida officials are accused of giving him special treatment, and the FBI launches its own investigation.
2008: Epstein Takes Plea Deal. Epstein pleads guilty to two state charges after striking a plea deal with the U.S. Attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, to avoid federal prosecution (Acosta later served as Trump’s Labor secretary). Epstein serves most of his 18-month sentence in a work-release program that lets him leave jail during the day.
July 6, 2019: Feds Arrest Epstein. Epstein is arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in New York. Acosta resigns from the Trump administration days later amid public outcry over his decision not to prosecute Epstein years earlier.
August 10, 2019: Epstein Dies. Epstein is found dead in his Manhattan jail cell. His death is ruled a suicide.
2024: Giuffre-Maxwell Documents Released. Files from a settled defamation suit Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre brought against his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell are released, fueling public interest in the case. On the campaign trail, Trump suggests he’ll declassify the federal government’s Epstein files if reelected.
February 2025: Bondi Says Epstein Files Are Coming. Attorney General Pam Bondi teases the release of more Epstein files, saying the “client list” is “sitting on my desk right now to review.” Days later, right-wing influencers are given binders of previously released Epstein materials.
July 7, 2025: FBI & DOJ Cancel Epstein Release. The FBI and DOJ release a memo saying that following an “exhaustive review,” they have determined that there is no “client list,” nothing in the Epstein files warrants further investigation, and there will be no further document releases.
December 2025: Congress Orders Epstein Files Release. The Epstein Files Transparency Act passes almost unanimously. (After unsuccessfully trying to stop the vote, Trump backs it at the last minute.) The DOJ posts the first batch of documents on December 19, but misses the deadline set by the law.
Elon Musk has spent recent days on his social media site X trying to explain why he exchanged so many emails with Jeffrey Epstein. The billionaire Tesla CEO insists that Epstein was the one pursuing him. But the more Musk explains, and the more emails are surfaced from the gigantic cache of so-called Epstein files, the stranger his defense seems to get.
Musk has denied any wrongdoing and says he never went to Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean, known as Little St. James. And while there doesn’t seem to be any concrete evidence that Musk went to the island, it’s pretty clear from the emails that Musk was itching to party with Epstein. Musk was engaged in long back and forth chats in 2012, 2013, and 2014 about a visit to the island.
A series of emails from Dec. 2012 that talks about a “ratio” at Epstein’s parties is particularly concerning, if only because it’s not entirely clear what he means. Musk talked about bringing his then-wife Talulah Riley, the British actress who he was married to from 2010-2012 and then again from 2013-2016.
Epstein: you are welcome to stay or just come for the day, plenty of rroom i will=send heli to get you
Musk: Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity th=s year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hi= the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is=much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what=l’m looking for.
Epstein: Understood, , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might m=ke Talilah uncomfortable
Musk: Ratio is not a problem for Talulah
In other emails from Nov. 2012, Musk asks “What day/night will be the wildest party on =our island?”
Ever since the new Epstein files were released on Jan. 30, roughly 3.5 million pages in total, Musk has also been going back and forth with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman online, each man accusing the other of being more implicated by the files.
“The big difference between you and me, Reid, is that you went and I did not. In fact, you went multiple times. First time was maybe a mistake, but not the second time you went,” Musk wrote.
“And, as the email shows, I obviously didn’t anticipate anything actually shady, as I was bringing my wife at the time (Talulah). Nonetheless, UNLIKE YOU, I came to my senses and declined to go. Epstein tried to get me to go to his island so many times that eventually I just blocked him,” Musk continued in another tweet.
The phrasing here is curious, obviously. What does Musk mean that he came to his senses?
Does it imply that Musk always knew Epstein was engaged in child sex trafficking, wanted to party with him, and then decided against it? Or does it mean that Musk only learned in the process of emailing back and forth in 2012, 2013, and 2014 that Epstein was a predator, which then changed Musk’s mind about hanging out with him?
So many things that Musk says can be confusing, largely because he’s not a reliable narrator of his own actions. The billionaire previously wrote in Sept. 2025 that he “refused” to go to Epstein’s island, though the emails we now have don’t suggest that at all. What the publicly available emails show is that Musk and Epstein were communicating about hanging out.
Even if you don’t count a potential visit to the island, there were other communications between the men about other meet-ups, including one from February 2013 that refers to a “facility,” where Epstein says he’ll bring four “assistants.”
Again, Musk denies any wrongdoing. But it seems like every time he decides to chime in on the controversy, things get a little more weird. And it’s not just about Epstein. Early Wednesday morning, Musk responded to a tweet from a user called @PubWanghaf.
“It breaks my heart to say but in order to save this country we are probably going to have to do things that make women sad :(” the X user wrote.
Musk responded with “true words,” without elaborating.
While at the World Governments Summit in Dubai, CNN correspondent Eleni Giokos prefaced her question by calling the topic “super important because it’s been dominating headlines.”
“The last few days have been very interesting, very difficult, and I’m sure for you, sir, as well. This is an important question to ask, and I want to ask it in the context of what we’ve seen from Their Majesties and their response, and they’re saying that we should be focused specifically on the experience of the victims. The palace has been very clear on that,” she said. “We’ve just heard some commentary from [British] prime minister Keir Starmer as well. Bearing that in mind, he’s saying that there needs to be assistance for the victims, and I wonder what you think of this because it is so close to home, clearly very difficult. And I know you’ve put in various plans in place to move the institution forward, but how are you coping with that?”
The 61-year-old Edward appeared to be caught off guard and responded, “With the best will in the world, I’m not sure this is the audience that is probably the least bit interested in that. They all came here to listen to education, solving the future. But no, I think it’s all really important, always, to remember the victims, and who are the victims in all this? A lot of victims in this.”
In a prosecution question about one of the most sensitive criminal cases ever, Todd Blanche chose precision over empathy. “It’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein” may satisfy the law. But it does not satisfy a country still trying to bring justice to those who were wronged.
On Feb. 3, Todd Blanche appeared on The Ingraham Angle. Host Laura Ingraham asked him whether anyone named in the newly released Epstein documents could face prosecution:
Is there any chance that any of these individuals who partied with Epstein and engaged in relations with minors will be prosecuted?
Blanche’s answer was immediate and striking. “It is not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein,” he replied. He repeated the phrase more than once, adding that “it’s not a crime to email with Mr. Epstein.” At the same time, he insisted the Department would investigate any credible evidence of misconduct. However, he reiterated that Americans needed to understand that association itself was not criminal.
But the statement was insensitive and even more so, infuriating. So, Ingraham pushed back. Some of the photos, she noted, looked like more than just partying. “If those photos could speak, some of them were pretty bad,” she told Blanche. But his response was still clinical. “Photos can’t speak,” he said. “We need credible evidence.”
What Blanche was technically saying and why it landed so badly
Deputy AG (and Trump’s personal attorney) Todd Blanche is asked directly if anyone who had sex with a minor on Epstein’s island will be prosecuted—and his response is, “It’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.” pic.twitter.com/eQF6F6EWgo
Blanche is not wrong on a narrow legal point. Mere association with a criminal, even one as notorious as Epstein, is not itself a crime. Prosecutors need evidence of specific illegal acts. But the issue was never whether guilt can be assigned by proximity alone. The issue was tone, timing, and emphasis.
The Justice Department had just released millions of pages of Epstein-related materials. These include documents, emails, photos, and videos tied to a trafficking network that exploited minors for years. Survivors have spent decades being told that what they experienced was uncorroborated or complicated (via People).
Against that backdrop, Blanche chose to lead not with victims, but with reassurance for those who were close enough to Epstein to be photographed with him. By repeating “it’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein,” Blanche reduced a sprawling system of exploitation to a social faux pas. That rhetorical choice is what triggered outrage.
“Photos can’t speak”
Ingraham’s instinctive reaction captured what many viewers felt. The issue with the Epstein files isn’t just names on a guest list. It’s images and patterns. It’s the fact that Epstein’s crimes did not occur in isolation, and that social access often overlapped with abuse. And Blanche’s answer that photos “can’t speak” may be true in a courtroom sense.
But outside the courtroom, it sounded like dismissal. Photos may not testify, but they can corroborate. They can establish relationships, timelines, and credibility. To wave them away so casually, especially in a case defined by power and silence, came across as willful blindness.
Blanche has made the same the point before
The Feb. 3 interview wasn’t an isolated comment. Blanche has made similar statements in an interview with ABC News. He has emphasized that the Department’s review of the Epstein files is “over” and the materials do not justify new charges without additional evidence.
In each instance, he has stressed legal thresholds while critics argue he has downplayed moral urgency. That pattern has fueled suspicion that the DOJ is more focused on closing the book than confronting what the book contains. Especially because the administration is already facing questions about conflicts of interest after Trump’s name appeared in the files.
So, when Trump’s accomplice tells the public to not overthink who was around Epstein, skepticism is inevitable. “It’s not a crime to party with Epstein” may be legally accurate. But the statement is also emotionally jarring in a case where partying was often the gateway to abuse.
In that light, survivors, advocates, and commentators reacted negatively to Blanche’s comment. The public doesn’t need a lecture on evidentiary standards at this time. They need confidence that the system is not reflexively shielding the powerful.
But Blanche’s comments did the opposite. They sounded like a preemptive defense of everyone who got close enough to Epstein to leave a paper trail. And that’s the last thing people want to hear right now.
