Decoding Epstein

A Healthy Skeptic’s Guide to the Epstein Saga (Updated November 2025)

Dear Readers of The Gaslight Gazette,

This post brings together my full body of reporting and analysis on the Jeffrey Epstein case. It will be updated regularly as new details emerge. For clarity, the entries are arranged in chronological order, with the most recent updates appearing at the bottom.

Decoding Epstein (July 2025)

In July 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released an unsigned memo concluding there was "no incriminating client list," "no credible evidence of blackmail," and nothing that could "predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties" in the Jeffrey Epstein case. In short, the Trump administration signaled it would not be disclosing new information or pursuing further accountability.

The backlash was swift—and unusually bipartisan. While critics like Senator Ron Wyden; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein; Trump’s former U.N. ambassador, Trump’s former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, with whom he has had a fraught relationship; and CNN anchor Jake Tapper were expected, condemnation also came from Trump allies including Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Lauren Boebert, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and even Alex Jones—who reportedly vomited and cried upon hearing the news. Similarly, his supporters condemned Trump’s decision on Truth Social, ratioing the President on his own platform for the first time—a term used when replies or quote posts far outnumber likes, signaling overwhelming disapproval.

In response to these criticisms, Trump wrote to supporters urging them not to “waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein.” He later posted that the Democrats’ “new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullshit,’ hook, line, and sinker.” Some, like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, chose to fall in line, urging their audiences to 'trust Trump' rather than press the Epstein issue. But they seem to be the exception. MAGA backlash over the handling of the Epstein files continues to dominate social media and the podcast sphere and split Trump’s coalition in the process.

For those unfamiliar with the Epstein saga, it might sound like just another internet conspiracy. And to be fair, plenty of wild, baseless claims have circulated. But beneath the noise lies a disturbing reality: Epstein had ties to some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. This story matters—not just because of what it reveals about elite networks, but because it helped shape the political identities of many, especially in online spaces.

MAGA supporters—and many leftists skeptical of elite power—have built their political identities around what they see as the corruption, double standards, and crimes tied to the Epstein saga. So when the case seemingly closed with a memo that raised more questions than answers, it triggered a political earthquake that’s already underway. Sensing the rift, Rep. Ro Khanna tried to channel MAGA outrage by voting to release the files. He was voted down in committee by all but one Republican.

This essay offers a clear, grounded introduction for those who haven’t followed the story closely, and examines how the federal government’s handling of the case—especially under Trump 2.0—has fueled outrage and suspicion that is worthy of healthy skepticism.

The Rise of Epstein’s Empire

Epstein’s path to cultivating relationships with powerful people began in the 1970s, when he was hired to be a teacher at the prestigious Dalton School by Donald Barr, the father of Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr. There Epstein began cultivating relationships that would lead to a career advising billionaires, starting at Bear Stearns (which he left shortly before an insider trading investigation in 1981). Reports indicate that he would end up living in one of the most expensive homes in Manhattan, purchased by Les Wexner the founder of L Brands, the parent company of Victoria's Secret, who seemingly purchased the home, never moved in, and then transferred ownership to his financial adviser Epstein. In the coming decades, Epstein would interact with powerful figures like David Blaine, Bill Gates, Chris Rock, Woody Allen, Jes Staley, Peter Thiel, Noam Chomsky, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, and Bill Clinton (Click here for a more comprehensive list of Epstein’s contacts).

It is not known how Epstein, who was worth a reported $560 million upon his death in 2019, made his money, but he was able to keep the home in Manhattan, have another in Florida, and purchase an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands where he would bring wealthy guests, some of whom were accused of engaging in sexual relations with girls that Epstein had sex trafficked to the island.

Such accusations began in 2005, when Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein after the family of a 15-year-old girl alleged she—and many others—had been sexually abused at his mansion. Despite multiple accusers, a grand jury indicted Epstein on just one charge: soliciting prostitution. Outrage over the lenient charge led to a federal investigation.

Behind closed doors, U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta struck a secret plea deal: Epstein pleaded guilty to two minor charges, served 18 months (mostly on work release), and registered as a sex offender—avoiding far more serious federal charges.

Legal Entanglements and Death

Over the next decade, dozens more women came forward. Virginia Giuffre alleged that Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell arranged sexual encounters between her and powerful men, including Prince Andrew, Duke of York (In 2022, Prince Andrew settled a civil sexual assault case brought against him in the U.S. by Giuffre). In 2018, a Miami Herald investigation reignited public scrutiny, especially of Acosta, who was then Trump’s Secretary of Labor. Epstein was arrested in July 2019; Acosta resigned soon after.

On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell. Though ruled a suicide, the circumstances were suspicious: he’d recently been removed from suicide watch, his guards falsified records, and security cameras reportedly malfunctioned and recorded unusable footage or were erased.

In 2020, French modeling agent and Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel was arrested in Paris on sex trafficking charges. In 2022, he was found hanged in his prison cell in an apparent suicide.

Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted in 2021 for sex trafficking and conspiracy. She received a 20-year sentence in 2022 and appealed in 2024. When she was arrested, Trump commented “Yeah, I wish her well, I’d wish you well. I’d wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty.” In the midst of the MAGA civil war over the Epstein Files, CBS reported that the DOJ urged “the Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal.”

In 2023, a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase alleged that the bank ignored internal warnings about Epstein’s criminal activity while continuing to profit from its relationship with him. JPMorgan ultimately paid a $290 million settlement. That same year, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the bank "knowingly benefited" from Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. Also in 2023, billionaire Leon Black agreed to pay over $60 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands in exchange for protection from current and future lawsuits about his involvement with Epstein and his island.

By late 2023, calls for transparency intensified. Court documents released in 2024 confirmed extensive travel and detailed allegations of widespread abuse. In early 2025, Trump released files related to the Epstein investigation to influencers, but later revoked their access. Finally, in July 2025, a DOJ memo claimed there was no evidence of a “client list,” blackmail, or murder.

Trump’s Conflict of Interest

Part of the reason that the White House’s handling of Epstein warrants healthy skepticism derives from Trump’s conflict of interest. Trump appeared to entertain Epstein-related conspiracy theories while campaigning in 2024. On Lex Fridman’s podcast, he said he had “no problem” releasing the Epstein files, and echoed similar sentiments on Fox News Channel. Fox News edited the clip to hide Trump’s backpedaling on releasing the Epstein files—and it’s unclear whether he’ll sue them for the deceptive editing like he did with CBS.

After taking office, Trump’s tone shifted. In June 2025 on Fox News Channel, he enthusiastically pledged to release the 9/11 and JFK documents, but hesitated on Epstein: “Yeah, yeah I would… I guess I would… You don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff… a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.” After the DOJ closed the Epstein case in July 2025, Trump dismissed the topic altogether, saying, “You’re still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? That is unbelievable…Are people still talking about this guy, this creep?”

This reversal could reflect a shift in judgment based on new evidence—or a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when personal relationships or interests could compromise professional judgment. Even if no misconduct occurs, the possibility warrants skepticism—especially when behavior appears inconsistent with prior commitments.

Trump and Epstein had a well-documented relationship. In a 2017 audio recording, Epstein told journalist Michael Wolff, “I was Donald Trump’s closest friend for 10 years.” Photos show them together frequently; Wolff claimed the government possesses images of them with topless women. In 2002, Trump praised Epstein as “terrific” and noted his fondness for “younger” women.

NBC reported Trump “allegedly flew” on Epstein’s plane. Accuser Sarah Ransome once publicly alleged that both Trump and Clinton were involved in sex trafficking, though she had previously recanted. In 2016, another accuser claimed put the two men together at a party where she alleged that both men raped her in 1994. She dropped the case for unspecified reasons in November of 2016. Wolff also claimed Epstein discussed using compromising evidence on both men to secure his release in 2019.

Trump has cited concern for victims as a reason not to release the Epstein files—despite the fact that redactions could protect their identities. He also claimed that parts of the files were “made up” by former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden—arguing that releasing them would only help those figures mislead the public. But this raises serious questions: When and how could these individuals have fabricated investigative documents? And if Trump believes there’s a mix of true and false information, why not release everything with a report explaining what’s real and what’s not?

Shifting Stories, Clouded Truths

Another reason to be skeptical of the Trump White House’s handling of the Epstein files is its shifting story and lack of hard evidence. When officials keep rewriting the past to fit the latest spin, it’s not a cue for blind belief—or knee-jerk dismissal—it’s a flashing warning sign to start asking questions.

For years, Epstein critics—including then-Senator and now Vice President J.D. Vance—insisted a client list existed. In 2023, FBI Director Kash Patel affirmed the list's existence. Attorney General Pam Bondi also claimed early in Trump’s second term that the list was “on her desk.” But following the July 2025 DOJ memo, which stated no incriminating “client list” had been found, Bondi walked back her statement, saying she was referring to general Epstein investigation files. Meanwhile, Epstein’s former lawyer Alan Dershowitz publicly claimed a client list does exist and that he knows who’s on it—but can't share names due to “confidentiality.”

These contradictions understandably fuel public suspicion: was there a list that’s now being buried, or was it all political theater? Without full transparency, both theories remain plausible—and both warrant scrutiny.

Similar shifts occurred regarding Epstein’s death. For years, MAGA commentators suggested Epstein was murdered. Bondi and Patel stoked this by promising the release of the Epstein Files. Yet just before the DOJ memo’s release, Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino stated clearly that Epstein died by suicide.

Further confusion stems from the 10-hour surveillance video Bongino cited as “definitive” proof Epstein wasn’t murdered. The existence of the tape is at odds with reports that the tape either malfunctioned, failed to record, or was accidently erased. Nonetheless, Wired reported the surveillance video footage had been edited and stitched together. Relatedly, a one-minute gap is visible, which Bondi claims the missing time is normal for that camera and promised documentation—but none has surfaced. Journalist Julie K. Brown has also questioned whether the camera shown even faced Epstein’s cell.

Conflicting reports from within the White House, altered evidence, and inter-agency feuds—including claims that Bondi accused Bongino of leaking information and rumors that Bongino resigned from his FBI post over the administration’s handling of the Epstein files—have further muddied the story.

Concealing Evidence: The Gaps That Matter

The evidence provided – and missing – in the Epstein case is another reason to be skeptical of the White House’s claims about the Epstein Files. In the case of Epstein, it’s clear the government is withholding information, as by their own admission: they won’t release certain files to protect victims. That means there are files that exist, and they are being withheld from the public.

There’s strong reason to believe more evidence exists—like camera footage from Epstein’s Manhattan home and private island—but its whereabouts remain a mystery. Whether it was destroyed, buried, or ignored, no official explanation has been given. Insiders say there’s more, too. Senator Wyden, for example, claimed he gave the Trump administration a file full of additional evidence and actionable leads.

Then there is evidence that exists, but goes unaddressed by the memo. For example, former Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta allegedly said in 2017, that he offered Epstein a lenient plea deal because he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and to back off. This, coupled with Epstein’s connections and shadowy past, has fueled long-standing speculation that Epstein ran a blackmail operation linked to global intelligence services—claims which often cite Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, who was believed by some to have ties to Israeli intelligence. “Israel Gives Maxwell Farewell Fit For Hero” is how The Washington Post described Robert’s 1991 funeral. Nonetheless, the intelligence connection is highly disputed as is the claim that Israeli intelligence killed Maxwell.

While the idea that Epstein was an Israeli asset remains speculative, it hasn’t gone away. After the DOJ memo, Tucker Carlson repeated the theory publicly. Acosta, notably, has never clarified or denied the intelligence-related claims attributed to him.

Unexplained gaps, contradictions, and silence from key players are legitimate reasons for public scrutiny. They are certainly a reason to suspend judgement, ask questions, and demand answers from those in power.

Conclusion: Skepticism Without Surrender

Healthy skepticism is not only appropriate—it’s necessary when examining how the Epstein saga has been handled. Shifting narratives, withheld evidence, and conflicts of interest across powerful institutions all justify public doubt. Dismissing legitimate questions as mere “conspiracy theories” is just as harmful as blindly believing baseless ones. Instead of shutting down inquiry, we should be demanding answers and pressuring those in power to tell the truth. The Epstein case offers more than enough reason to question official accounts—and insisting on transparency is not paranoia; it’s a democratic responsibility

---

Stay Informed, Stay Empowered! 💡

Hi Readers!

Thank you so much for supporting The Gaslight Gazette and Disinfo Detox Podcast on Substack. My mission is to keep this important content free and accessible to everyone—and with your help, I can keep it that way.

If you’re able, please consider becoming a subscriber for as little as $5 a month. Your support helps me continue delivering thoughtful analysis and truth-telling to more people. But if that’s not possible right now, that’s totally okay—I understand the tough economy many of us face, especially when those in media and politics seem out of touch.

Even if you can’t subscribe, you can still make a huge difference: leave a comment, hit like, follow, and share the work on social media or anywhere you think it will help—maybe even in your classroom. Every little bit helps.

Remember, we’re in this together. Your support, in any form, keeps this community strong and informed. Let’s keep pushing back against misinformation—step by step, voice by voice.

Thank you for being part of this journey!

---

The Press Was Dying—Then Trump and Epstein Gave It a Lifeline (Link)

Nolan Higdon Jul 30, 2025

he White House’s refusal to release the full Jeffrey Epstein files may have accidentally sparked a journalistic revival. After decades of corporate consolidation and credibility crises—from the Iraq War lies to the biased 2016 election coverage—the press seems poised for a comeback. For the first time in years, mainstream outlets are acting like watchdogs again.

The 1940s-1980s are often hailed as the “golden age of journalism”—a time when reporters exposed the Vietnam War lies and brought down a corrupt president. But the 1980s corporate monopolies and partisan punditry came to define the industry. At the same time, trust in media was shattered for many in my generation during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, when media uncritically repeated government lies about weapons of mass destruction. Shockingly, many of those responsible for spreading misinformation stayed in media—or moved seamlessly from government roles into newsroom positions.

Over the last decade, especially since Trump’s 2015 campaign, the press has been under constant attack as “fake news.” But those attacks landed because people already distrusted the media—thanks to episodes like the erasure of Bernie Sanders in 2016, COVID-19 coverage that often reflected political bias, the hyperbolic Russiagate narrative, and a refusal to scrutinize Biden’s cognitive health. Some journalists even called for the end of objectivity after Trump’s 2016 election. By 2020, a few offered half-hearted apologies. But the damage was done.

Now, with Trump back in the spotlight and media trust at record lows, something unexpected is happening. We’re seeing impressive reporting on Trump’s ties to Epstein, including recent revelations in The New York Times, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal. In doing so, the press may be clawing its way back to relevance—and responsibility.

The Epstein story is deeply disturbing: a well-connected trafficker of minors who died under suspicious circumstances in 2019 after previously receiving a sweetheart deal (A detailed account of Epstein’s activities and associations is available here). He’s been linked to intelligence agencies, blackmail schemes, and elite networks that span politics, tech, and entertainment.

Trump once leaned into conspiracy theories around Epstein and promised to expose them—but when his administration declared “nothing to see here,” even his supporters were skeptical. Previously, the press—despite its constitutional protections—had often failed the public when it came to Epstein. Vanity Fair cut allegations of underage girls from a 2003 profile. ABC was accused by one of its reporters of burying a 2015 interview with an Epstein accuser—an allegation the network denies. The New York Times reportedly accepted gifts from Epstein and failed to report on his interest in minors. Journalist Alan Macleod noted that outlets like HuffPost, Forbes, National Review, and even The New York Times ran puff pieces on Epstein well after serious allegations were public.

But now, things are different. We’ve seen credible, damning coverage of Trump’s close relationship with Epstein:

• A Wall Street Journal story revealed a grotesque birthday message Trump sent Epstein.

• A former Epstein girlfriend confirmed Trump and Epstein’s close friendship to CNN.

• The New York Times reported that Trump invited only Epstein to a 1993 Mar-a-Lago event—and called him “the greatest.”

• According to The New York Times, Epstein accusers told the FBI in 1996 and 2006 that Trump was involved in sex crimes.

• According to The New York Times, Trump was notified in May 2025 that his name appeared in the files—prompting his administration to quickly downplay their importance.

• CNN aired photos and videos of the two together. When asked about them, Trump hung up after 30 seconds.

Trump isn’t the only high-profile figure linked to Epstein. The financier’s web reportedly included Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Woody Allen, Jes Staley, Elon Musk, and even Noam Chomsky. JPMorgan Chase paid a $290 million settlement after profiting from Epstein-related dealings, despite internal warnings. The Wall Street Journal also revealed a warm birthday message from Bill Clinton to Epstein.

Coverage remains uneven. Media Matters found that Fox News, for instance, mentioned Obama 445 times compared to just 127 mentions of Epstein between July 18 and 23, 2025—choosing partisan distractions over accountability. In contrast, CNN (1,400 mentions) and MSNBC (1,886 mentions) outpaced even Newsmax (707) in Epstein reporting.

Legacy outlets aren’t doing this alone. Independent voices—podcasters, bloggers, and social media sleuths—kept the Epstein story alive for years while corporate media dismissed it as conspiracy. Journalists like Julie K. Brown gave the topic the attention it deserved. Thanks to the rise of independent media, Brown’s work reached a national audience. Now, the mainstream is finally catching up, thanks in large part to the persistence of alternative media.

Whether we are truly entering a new golden age of journalism remains to be seen. But the moment is ripe: audiences are fragmented and skeptical, partisan coverage is wearing thin, and a former president is again behaving like he has something to hide. The press has a choice: rise to the occasion, or sink into irrelevance as “fake news” becomes prophecy.

---

Epstein Files: Censorship and Secrecy in Government

Excerpt from Lies of the Land Trump, Israel, and the Media’s Double Standards Nolan Higdon Aug 05, 2025 (Link)

Censorship in the U.S. stems from many sources and institutions. The Epstein files have dominated headlines for the past month, driven by public demand fueled by intrigue, political bias, and conspiracy theories about intelligence agencies using sexual blackmail. Scholars warn that government secrecy breeds conspiracy, undermining democracy, which depends on transparency.

Yet the Trump White House has resisted delivering on their campaign promise to release these files. Trump and his congressional allies have used multiple tactics to censor the story: withholding the Treasury Department’s Epstein files, having the FBI redact Trump-related content, Congress starting August recess early to avoid voting on the matter, dismissing the files as “boring”, attacking those demanding transparency as “weaklings”, cutting off reporters who ask tough questions, and falsely equating interviews with convicted criminal Ghislaine Maxwell to objective testimony.

The motives behind Trump’s censorship remain unclear, but the fact is undeniable: the Epstein files are being deliberately withheld from the public.

---

The Epstein Files: Bombshells, Backpedals, and Broken Lies

An excerpt from Truth Under Attack CBS, Weiss, Lorenz, and RFK Jr. in the Age of Spin Nolan Higdon Sep 16, 2025 (Link)

The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein continues to haunt Trump and his allies. In early September, Senate Republicans—except Rand Paul and Josh Hawley—blocked a Democratic measure to release Epstein’s files. The House is now just one vote away from forcing their publication.

Still, pieces are trickling out. The House Oversight Committee released Epstein’s “birthday book,” a disturbing collection of notes, drawings, and greetings from high-profile figures including Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and former British diplomat Peter Mandelson. One particularly damning note allegedly shows Trump sending Epstein a birthday card adorned with a drawing of a prepubescent girl and references to a shared “secret.”

Trump has denied the letter’s authenticity, referring to it as part of the Epstein “hoax,” and even suing Wall Street Journal for referencing the letter in an article last month.

Others were less dismissive. For example, following the release the United Kingdom swiftly removed Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S. over his ties to Epstein. Meanwhile, survivors are compiling their own list of names as the government dithers over what to release.

The mental gymnastics to defend Trump are dizzying. House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed that Trump was an FBI informant who helped expose Epstein. Presidents serving as intelligence sources isn’t unprecedented—Ronald Reagan reportedly did so, and George H.W. Bush once led the CIA, while rumors have long circulated that Bill Clinton worked with intelligence during his time as Arkansas governor. Still, Johnson’s claim was so outlandish he later had to walk it back. Was his initial statement a lie, or was the retraction the lie? Either way, the truth is buried under a mountain of spin.

---

The Shocking Rise of Censorship in America

Excerpt from Authoritarianism by a Thousand Cuts Power, Fear, and the Death of Dissent? Nolan Higdon Oct 14, 2025 (Link)

This pattern of controlling information and suppressing scrutiny continued with the Epstein case, where leaked materials and political maneuvering revealed attempts to manage public perception. The Epstein case resurfaced in Summer 2025, as leaked materials—including birthday cards and images with Trump—continued to emerge. Reporting from Krystal Ball of Breaking Points suggested that the leaks stopped once Epstein associate and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell began cooperating with the government—implying they may have been intended to secure her a pardon. Meanwhile, congress attempted to block the release of Epstein files by taking summer recess early. Following the September 2025 election in Arizona, in which Democrat Adelita Grijalva was elected to the House of Representatives, enough votes exist to pass a bipartisan bill releasing the files. Yet House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to seat Grijalva, effectively continuing censorship of the public’s access to these documents.

Meanwhile, Drop Site News reported that prior to this death, Epstein acted as a broker for Israel in securing an international security agreement. CBS separately found that both the original investigation into Epstein’s death and the Trump administration’s 2025 report were deeply flawed, with significant evidence undermining their conclusions. Together, these findings lend weight to claims from Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein’s brother that Jeffrey did not commit suicide—and underscore the urgent need for greater transparency.

---

(November 2025) Unmasking Epstein: Power, Blackmail, and the Press’s Failure — A Call for Journalists to Uphold Their First Amendment Duty

For those new to the Jeffrey Epstein story, I’ve compiled my analysis and a helpful timeline of events here.

“President [Trump] Expected to Sign Bill on Release of Epstein Files” read the November 19, 2025 New York Times headline. The report came a day after the House of Representatives passed a bill to release the government’s case files on the deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with only a single dissenting vote. The Senate followed with unanimous approval. What the files contain, and whom they implicate, remains to be seen. But their impending release marks a pivotal moment in an Epstein saga that has consumed and distorted political discourse throughout the entire first year of Trump’s second presidential term. While much of the coverage frames the release as either a bipartisan effort to seek justice for Epstein’s victims or a political challenge for the president, a far more complex and unsettling question remains largely unaddressed by the mainstream press: Are some of our elected leaders, past or present, compromised by influence operations?

Trump Under Fire

Since Congress returned after the November 2025 shutdown, Trump has responded to the looming release of the Epstein files with efforts to silence dissent. He publicly denounced Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who supported releasing the files, as a “traitor.” After Representative Lauren Boebert advocated for releasing the files, he summoned her to the Situation Room, a space typically reserved for high-level classified briefings, in what many viewed as an act of intimidation. He appeared to attempt to purchase silence from convicted, and imprisoned Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell by refusing to rule out pardoning her for all crimes, and by relocating her to a ‘Club Fed’ facility where she enjoyed extra bathroom breaks, computer access, and even puppies, despite her role in trafficking children.

Pressure on Trump intensified on November 12, 2025, when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released 20,000 pages of documents obtained from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. They include his communications up until his death in prison in 2019. Trump is referenced 1,500 times in the documents, including Epstein’s claim that Trump liked watching “young women” in Epstein’s pool and “spent hours” in Epstein’s house with one of the victims. By November 18, 2025, the day Congress was set to vote on releasing the files, he lashed out at a Bloomberg reporter who asked about the files by calling her “piggy.” That same day, he threatened an ABC reporter with revocation of their broadcast license for asking about Epstein. Presumably to save face after what was seen as an embarrassing political failure to control his party members, who were set to approve the release, Trump reversed course and supported the release of the files.

With the release of the files now certain, Trump shifted gears, attempting to convince the public that the files were only damaging to Democrats. Trump warned that Democrats would “regret” the release of the Epstein files, an assertion that appears to encompass investigations by the Department of Justice into prominent members of the Democratic establishment mentioned in 20,000 documents: Harvard University’s Larry Summers, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and former President Bill Clinton.

Upon the release, Summers, who served under both President Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, quickly stepped back from public appearances and resigned from OpenAI’s board. Yet he remains a professor at Harvard University despite email exchanges with Epstein after the sex offender’s 2008 conviction, in which Summers suggested that women had lower IQs than men, and admitted to using Epstein to help him conduct an affair with a woman he referred to as his “mentee.” Meanwhile, Clinton’s spokesperson insisted the emails reveal no wrongdoing on the former president’s part (more on that below), while Hoffman, who connected with Epstein in 2015, seven years after Epstein’s conviction, maintains the relationship was strictly professional, a claim not disputed by the documents reviewed thus far.

Epstein’s Web: Government Ties and Covert Manipulations

While the sordid details of Summers and Trump received a fair amount of media coverage, less was paid to the documents which referenced Epstein’s connections to the Russian, the United States, and Israeli governments. Emails suggest that Epstein may have held compromising information on U.S. politicians that could have been shared with foreign governments, potentially allowing those governments to compromise American leaders. In the emails, Epstein claims to have photographs of Trump with “girls” in “bikinis,” but it is not known if they were under the legal age of consent.

In a series of emails, Epstein claimed that he had been sharing information with Russia about President Trump. A March 2018 email from Epstein’s brother Mark to Steve Bannon asked whether Russian President Vladimir Putin had “the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.” “Bubba” was Bill Clinton’s nickname, though Mark recently insisted that the reference in the email had nothing to do with the former president. The denial only deepened the ambiguity as Mark did not deny that a picture existed. So, did the photo exist? If so, who is Bubba? And if the email was a joke, why did Mark later tell News Nation that “Jeffrey definitely had dirt on Trump?”

More damning emails reveal Epstein’s connections to Israel. Drop Site News cited emails documenting “Epstein’s role in brokering intelligence deals for Israel.” These include facilitating a security agreement between Israel and Mongolia, establishing a backchannel between Israel and Russia during the Syrian civil war, and acting as a facilitator of a security agreement between Israel and the African nation of Côte d’Ivoire. The emails also reveal that Epstein hosted Yoni Koren—a Mossad agent and former aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak—at his home. Again, all the evidence mentioned so far is available to the legacy news media, yet they appear unwilling to confront the questions it raises.

Media Blindspots: Ignoring Power in Favor of Partisanship

The legacy press has shown little interest in investigating Epstein’s ties to governments or the broader implications. This was made crystal clear by CNN’s Dana Bash. On November 16, 2025, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines when she apologized on CNN for engaging in “toxic” rhetoric. This exchange with reporter Dana Bash received widespread coverage from press outlets and content creators, yet most avoided mentioning what Greene insinuated about Epstein and the intelligence community. It is important to note that Greene serves on the Oversight Committee and therefore is privy to sensitive information regarding Epstein. However, as a politician, her claims should be approached with caution and trusted only when supported by substantial evidence.

During the interview, Bash asked Greene, “You questioned who and what country is putting so much pressure on Trump to keep the Epstein files hidden. And you included a picture about donations from the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]. What are you trying to say there?” Greene responded that asking about the intelligence connections between Epstein and Israel is fair, “especially when we saw information recently come out in these emails…We saw Jeffrey Epstein with ties to [Former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Barak. We saw him making business deals with them, including deals involving the Israeli government, which seem to have led into their intelligence agencies. I think the right question to ask is: was Jeffrey Epstein working for Israel?”

Indeed, Drop Site News reported on the emails Greene referenced. Fair and Accuracy in Reporting acknowledged the credibility of Drop Site News’s reporting but noted that it was largely ignored by legacy media because, in the months prior, The New York Times repeatedly dismissed claims linking Epstein to Israeli intelligence as “conspiracy theories.” This had the effect of leading audiences to dismiss these accusations based on the outlet’s influence.

Bash, apparently unaware of the evidence that she should have reviewed before asking that question, said, “I just want to be clear. Are you saying Israel is pushing the president of the United States to cover up the Epstein files? And what evidence do you have that that is the case?” This was a strange question, given that Greene had just cited the evidence. Nonetheless, Greene replied, “No, I simply—no, I simply asked.” Which seems to be more than Bash is willing to do. Whether due to ignorance, negligence, or institutional caution, such exchanges illustrate how the press shapes public perception by filtering which parts of the Epstein story are legitimate enough to acknowledge.

The Ethical Crisis: Epstein’s Influence on Power and the Press

The failures extend far beyond CNN. Complicating matters further, in their communications with Epstein, journalists and politicians acted as if it was a fact that Epstein had damning material on Trump, but the revelations were not reported to the public. Take the New York Times’ Landon Thomas Jr., a financial reporter, trusted Epstein as a source for his reporting on Trump between 2015 and 2018. In the emails, Thomas repeatedly referenced Epstein’s alleged knowledge of Trump’s interest in “young women,” including Epstein’s claim that he had “given” Trump one of his former girlfriends. Yet Thomas never reported this information, nor did his colleagues. As Krystal Ball of Breaking Points pointed out, even if Thomas did not report this information, much of this material existed on NYT servers for other reporters to access. Even Thomas was shocked his colleagues did not report on Epstein’s claims. In a damning email from May 2016, Thomas wrote to Epstein, “I am kind of shocked that our reporters did not contact you[.] re the Trump/women story. Seems to me he got off rather lightly.”

Others in the press, such as reporter Michael Wolff, also viewed Epstein as a valuable source for damaging President Trump’s public image. Wolff appears in emails strategizing with Epstein about whether they should provide answers to Trump regarding his relationship with Epstein or let him “hang himself.” It is not clear if Wolff or Epstein or both or neither were communicating directly with Trump at the time.

The documents raise serious questions about journalistic ethics, revealing that both Thomas and Wolff advised Epstein on how to weaponize damaging information about Trump to protect Epstein’s reputation ahead of an upcoming book by thriller author James Patterson and journalists John Connolly and Tim Malloy. Thomas’ relationship with Epstein would eventually bring down his career. He was forced to resign from The New York Times in 2019 after admitting to editors that he solicited a $30,000 donation from Epstein.

It was not only journalists but also at least one politician who recognized Epstein as a valuable source brimming with compromising information. Stacey Plaskett, the delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, also seemed to be convinced that Epstein had dirt on Trump. So much so that she live-tweeted with Epstein during a 2019 House Oversight Committee hearing on Michael Cohen, over a decade since Epstein’s conviction, raising serious questions about the proximity between political power and Epstein’s influence.

Conclusion: What the Epstein Files Teach Us About Power and the Press

The legacy news media have long possessed the sources and evidence needed to expose critical aspects of the Epstein saga. Yet much of the story is only now slowly emerging through these recent document releases. Given Epstein’s proximity to power, these revelations will inevitably raise uncomfortable questions for many citizens who have tried to avoid sounding like the internet “cranks” they disdain (believe me, I feel it every time I write about this). The press is constitutionally entrusted to raise these questions responsibly and base their reporting on solid evidence. Transparency about those in power is essential, because sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

Historically, the media has faced justified criticism for mishandling the Epstein story, most famously Amy Robach’s complaint that ABC News “quashed” her Epstein report in 2015. Some journalists, like Dana Bash, choose to ignore glaring facts, while others, such as Megyn Kelly, attempt to minimize the gravity of the issue, equating “barely legal” with Epstein victims as young as 15 years old. Even though 15 is not legal, let alone barley legal. It is also disturbing that entire outlets persist in referring to victims as “young girls” rather than “children,” a dangerous softening of language that should alarm everyone.

Yet for every soft-peddling media outlet, and for every Kelly and Bash, there are courageous reporters producing serious journalism—like the Wall Street Journal’s investigation into Epstein’s birthday book or CBS’s exposé on the suspicious prison video from Epstein’s final days. This kind of fearless reporting is exactly what the public needs. If the president or anyone else, regardless of their political affiliation, is compromised, the public deserves to know. That is journalism’s essential role. So go down that rabbit hole because if the revelations of 2025 teach us anything, it is this: the real danger was never simply what Epstein knew, but what the American media chose to ignore.

---

📰 Support This Work

If you find value in what I’m doing, consider becoming a monthly paid subscriber—it helps me keep the lights on and the content flowing.

Can’t swing a subscription right now? No worries. A like, comment, share, or subscription goes a long way in boosting visibility and helping this project grow.

The more we spread media literacy, the stronger our democracy becomes.

💥 Let’s build it together.