Jeffrey Epstein: The Almost Reckoning?
There’s progress. Of a sort.
An audio version of this article (narrated by me) is available here:
When I wrote my last piece on Epstein, oh, about a hundred years ago (two weeks), I included a section called “Fallout? What fallout?” in which I guffawed at the very notion of anything remotely resembling a consequence landing at anyone’s feet. Well, turns out I may have to eat my words. Hurray!
Or do I?
While it’s undeniable that there have been reputational repercussions – and even potential legal ones – for a few, I’m not sure any address the most heinous crimes we know Epstein was up to his neck in. So, is what’s happening justice or merely a pathetic approximation of it? And, if the latter, doesn’t it only serve to underline how helpless and hopeless the law is when it comes to dealing with the power class?
Here’s where things currently stand…
The arrests
Three criminal investigations have been launched directly as a result of the Epstein file release – and one has already resulted in charges. Now, before you set off or sniff any party poppers in celebration, I’m probably not going to start with what or who you think.
In Norway, former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has been charged with ‘gross corruption’ following disclosures that he stayed at Epstein’s properties in New York and Florida, visited his private island, and had the late sex offender cover his expenses and those of his family. He faces up to a decade in prison if convicted. Norway’s ambassador to Jordan, Mona Juul, resigned after reports that Epstein left $10 million to her children in his will. Her husband, diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen, is also under criminal investigation by Norway’s financial crimes unit. (Shotgun being a fly on the wall at their next big family gathering.) (Although, maybe it will be in jail, amiright?)
So, the bad news: some of Norway’s big-wigs loved a bit of Epstein dabbling. The good news: Norway’s legal system seems to be in robust working order. Sorry about your paedo-adjacents, Norway, but well done on your legal hard-hittery.
Then came the two arrests that made us all high-five ourselves. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor – the Andrew formerly known as Prince – was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on February 19. He was released approximately 11 hours later under investigation, meaning he has neither been charged nor cleared. King Charles released an absolutely savage (in royal terms) public announcement in which he didn’t refer to Andrew as his brother, said the law must take its course, and ended with this zinger: “Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all”. (Insinuating that Andrew isn’t family, geddit?)
Less than a week later, Peter Mandelson – former British ambassador to the United States, former Cabinet minister, and former hero of the “fail upwards” brigade – was arrested on suspicion of the same offence. He was released on bail and seems absolutely furious at the imposition.
The resignations and professional implosions
Outside the UK and Norway, legal fallout has been quieter. And by quieter, I mean nonexistent. Reputations, though, are finally being tarnished.
Larry Summers, the former US Treasury Secretary and ex-president of Harvard, announced he’ll be stepping down from his Harvard professorship after months of spiralling revelations. He also resigned from the OpenAI board, lost his New York Times contract, resigned his fellowship at the Center for American Progress, and received a lifetime ban from the American Economic Association. His emails with Epstein far exceeded anything ‘professional’, including discussions on how to pursue a woman he was mentoring without his wife finding out. Stay classy, Summers!
Academia, tech and financial institutions have been having a terrible time of it more broadly. Nobel Prize-winning scientist Richard Axel stepped down as co-director of Columbia University’s Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute. The president of the World Economic Forum, Børge Brende, announced his resignation after the forum launched an independent investigation into his relationship with Epstein. Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, resigned as chairman of a company called Monolith…
And then there’s Bill Gates.
The Microsoft co-founder apologised to staff at the Gates Foundation for his association with Epstein and for bringing his staff into meetings with him. He also acknowledged that he did have two affairs with Russian women that Epstein later discovered (and that were detailed in released emails). However, he still insists he played no part in Epstein’s crimes. That said, he did fess up to first meeting Epstein in 2011, three years after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for sex. And two weeks ago, he pulled out of a keynote speech at India’s AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, mere hours before he was due on stage because of Epstein-related wobbles.
In the Middle East, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem quit as chairman and CEO of DP World, the Dubai-owned logistics giant, after his name appeared more than 4,700 times in the files (still less than someone we know…). In one email he wrote to Epstein: “where are you? are you ok, I loved the torture video”. Yep. “Wait. What torture video?” I hear you cry. WHO KNOWS? NOT US. That isn’t relevant, campers. Move on. Check out the Dow Jones!
In France, former Culture Minister Jack Lang resigned from his role leading a Paris cultural institution after the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs sought to question him over his contacts with Epstein. In Slovakia, the former president of the UN General Assembly, Miroslav Lajčák (I’m looking forward to destroying that name on the audio), resigned as national security adviser after his correspondence with Epstein was made public. (A 2018 text exchange went: Epstein sends him an image, Lajčák replies: “Why don’t you invite me for these games? I would take the ‘MI’ girl”. Epstein responds: “Who wouldn’t [sic]. You can have them both. I am not possessive. And their sisters.”)
Technically, I now have to say: “Being named in the files is no indication of criminal wrongdoing”. Which is true. Indication of a total lack of moral and ethical judgement, however, is another matter. It’s also worth noting how all of the above were allowed to quit or resign. None were fired. Maybe that’s for pay-out reasons (the companies looking to avoid having to pay them out of their contracts), yet it does smack of being allowed to slink away quietly.
And then there’s Trump
I mentioned in my last piece how Mr “I’ve been exonerated!” Trump is mentioned over 38,000 times in the latest tranche of files, which is considerably more mentions than Jesus gets in the Bible. What I couldn’t have known then was that the most hold-onto-your-hats Trump-related news was just about to break.
An NPR investigation found that the Justice Department may have withheld Epstein files related to allegations that Trump sexually abused a minor. More than 50 pages of FBI interview notes and other records relating to a woman who says she was around 13 years old when Epstein started trafficking her are missing from the public database. Only her first FBI interview (in which Trump is not mentioned) has been made public. Multiple subsequent interview reports, which according to indexes and evidence logs should exist, are nowhere to be found.
One interview with another woman’s mother, in which she recalled hearing that “a prince and Donald Trump visited Epstein’s house”, was removed from the public database and only partially restored after NPR published its findings.
The DoJ responded to these allegations by stating “NOTHING has been deleted” and claiming files were only held back if they were duplicates, privileged, or associated with an ongoing investigation. It also referred back to its previous statement that some files contain “untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump”. These conflicting knee-jerk responses suggest several things. Firstly, that the woman in question was lying. Secondly, to know that she was lying, the case must have been properly investigated at the time. And thirdly, that the files aren’t being released because they’re part of an ongoing investigation.
Not all of these things can be true at once.
If the claims have been proven false, why not release the files? If not, and the case is still part of an ongoing investigation then, by God, that’s surely in the public interest to know!
In a letter, Democrat Robert Garcia, the lead member of the House Oversight Committee, asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to explain where the pages are. He then told NPR: “We are witnessing a White House cover-up of serious allegations against the president by a survivor. We demand Attorney General Pam Bondi come clean about why these documents are being hidden, comply with our legally binding subpoena by sharing all records, and tell the American people if their president is under investigation for allegations of sexual assault.”
Woah.
In response to growing outrage, the DoJ backtracked, announcing it would also start a review into their own actions. Which is where things get really juicy. The Epstein Files Transparency Act (the law passed in November 2025 demanding the release of all the files) explicitly prohibits withholding files or redacting information for reputational or political reasons. So, if the files were withheld and aren’t part of an ongoing investigation there could be legitimate legal consequences for those involved – they will have broken the law. So, the DoJ is between a rock and a hard place: either they admit to withholding the files to protect Trump and so breaking the law. Or they admit that the President of the United States is part of an ongoing investigation into child sex abuse.
I wouldn’t want to be Pam Bondi right now.
My bet is that they’ll either claim mistaken filing or technical errors and have to release the files – but redact them so heavily they’re basically black sheets of paper. Or they’ll set fire to the storage room and say they’ve all burned up. Or they’ll start a war suddenly, without running it past Congress as they’re meant to, in order to distract everyone.
Oh, wait…
So, an almost reckoning?
The Clintons have had their turn in the congressional hot seat. Hillary Clinton sat for a six-hour closed-door deposition on February 26, followed by Bill the next day. Both denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. Hillary said she doesn’t recall ever meeting him and dismissed the inquiry as a political “fishing expedition”. Bill acknowledged he had contact with Epstein years ago but insisted he cut ties before the offences became public and said he would have reported him had he known what was going on. Democrats used the moment to argue that if Congress is hauling in former presidents, then perhaps the current one should also get a summons(!). Transcripts of both testimonies are expected to be released later.
Other signs that Congress may finally be widening the lens: earlier this week, Congress voted to summon Pam Bondi to testify again about her handling of the release of the files. Meanwhile, current US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has volunteered to testify before the House Oversight Committee about his relationship with Epstein. Lutnick has long said he cut ties with the man in 2005, but documents released in the files suggest he visited Epstein’s private island in 2012 (with his family!) and remained in contact well into the following decade. While obviously denying any wrongdoing, the optics of a sitting cabinet member having to explain his relationship with Epstein to Congress aren’t great, leading some lawmakers to call for his resignation.
The quite exciting news: as of this week, requests for testimony have also gone out to Bill Gates, Goldman Sachs’ general counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, and billionaire financier Leon Black. A civil suit has also just been filed against Black by Epstein survivors. It makes for grim reading, as you’d imagine, claiming that the billionaire has “deployed multiple frivolous and malicious lawsuits” against both claimants and their law firms over many years, trying to bully everyone into silence.
So, yes, a fallout of sorts has commenced. Thank God. But it’s still happening mostly to reputations, not to freedom, and survivors are still waiting for justice. Meanwhile, there are growing hums of discomfort and discontent wafting from MAGA corners. Yes, those previously banging the transparency and justice drums the loudest are getting tired, bored, and a bit worried. This hasn’t worked out quite the way they envisaged and The White House’s tactics of stall and deflect might well be working.
However, the last few days have genuinely made me a little more hopeful than when I first started writing this piece. I’ve had to keep adding more and more updates that hint, tentatively, at possible meaningful repercussions. Which is something, right?
Just One More Thing
In civil suits filed both before and after his 2019 arrest, Epstein was accused of relying “on an organised network of underlings: those who trained girls how to sexually pleasure him; office assistants who booked cars and travel; and recruiters who ensured he always had a fresh supply of teenage girls at the ready”.
None of these people have been investigated. Cases were quietly settled or held up in court. Yet, four women were considered such big players they were named “potential co-conspirators” in Epstein’s infamous 2008 plea deal and granted immunity from prosecution. (Paperwork detailing the background of this deal has still not been released.) Manhattan is not bound by that Florida-based deal, though, so where are those arrests?
Epstein’s crimes are still being treated as the work of one deviant little man, his consigliere, and their little black book, when this was obviously an organised criminal enterprise with institutional support. You don’t accidentally build a global paedophile ring using a rolodex and one mate. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people helped him build it. Which leads me back to the question in my last piece: why not re-interview the survivors and ask them who was about? Oh yes, because – “Wait! Look at the Dow Jones and this new war!”
My new book, Own Your Calm, is published this month across the US and Europe (in English). I’ve included the UK link here but please do check your local bookseller: Own Your Calm UK. I have written eight other mental-health books which have been translated into dozens of languages. I’ve also written a book about the TV show Friends which would make a delightful gift for any Friends obsessives. All are available to buy online or at your local bookshop.