SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jeffrey epstein
Trump Commerce Secretary Admits He Did, In Fact, Go to Epstein’s Island
Sen. Chris Van Hollen told Howard Lutnick he "misled the country and the Congress" when he claimed to have cut off ties with the billionaire sex offender.
Feb 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary admitted during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday that he lied to the public about his relationship with the billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was his next-door neighbor for 13 years.
As suspicion swirled around the president over his own ties to the infamous predator, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed on a podcast last year that he'd been horrified after meeting Epstein once at his New York City apartment in 2005, during which he said the financier made sexual innuendoes and showed off his massage table to Lutnick and his wife.
Lutnick said he then vowed to “never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again." He added: “I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going, because he’s gross."
But emails released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) late last month have revealed that Lutnick maintained a relationship with Epstein until 2018, just a year before his death in jail, and a full decade after the financier had been convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute.
Not only did Lutnick meet with Epstein for drinks and meals on multiple occasions and go into business with him, but he also made arrangements in 2012 to meet with Epstein on his private Caribbean island, where victims say sexual abuse of minors was rampant.
After facing bipartisan calls to resign from his post amid the new revelations, Lutnick appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, where he again attempted to wriggle out of the accusation that he'd remained cozy with Epstein.
"Of these millions and millions of documents, there may be 10 connecting me with him... over a 14-year period," Lutnick said. "I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person, OK?"
Unconvinced by the denial, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Lutnick if he'd ever made the visit to Epstein's island that was outlined in the 2012 email.
Lutnick admitted he did, in fact, have lunch with Epstein during what he described as a "family vacation."
"My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple. They were there as well with their children. And we had lunch on the island," he admitted.
He said they were there for about "an hour" and that nothing "untoward" occurred while he was there. He clarified that he left "with all of my children" and everyone else who'd accompanied him, including their nannies.
Notably, one of those nannies is the subject of another email sent to Epstein from his accountant, Richard Kahn, in 2013. In the email, Kahn tells Epstein: "Attached is a resume of Lutnick's nanny. I am trying to arrange a time... for you to meet her."
During the hearing, Lutnick said he was surprised to learn that the nanny appeared in the email and that, as far as he knows, she never met Epstein.
Van Hollen said that there was reason to believe Lutnick "misled the country and the Congress" when he suggested that he'd cut off all contact with Epstein.
Speaking of Lutnick's meeting at the island, Van Hollen said: "You realize that this visit took place after he'd been convicted. You made a very big point of saying you sensed this was a bad person in 2005, and then, of course, in 2008 he was convicted of soliciting prostitution of a minor. And yet, you went and had this trip and had other interactions."
Van Hollen said that even if Lutnick himself was not accused of wrongdoing with Epstein, the fact that he misled the public is worthy of shame.
“That does call into question your fitness for the job you now hold, and the question of your credibility before this committee and the Congress,” the senator said.
Van Hollen also asked about another gathering mentioned in the emails, which supposedly happened in 2011 and included Lutnick and other prominent figures, such as the filmmaker Woody Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn. (Previn is the adopted daughter of Allen's ex, Mia Farrow. Another adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, accused Allen of sexual assault, which he denied.)
After initially denying that the dinner took place, Lutnick said he didn't know what Van Hollen was referring to, then said there was a document in the tranche of files suggesting he'd met with Epstein again for only an hour and that they did not have dinner.
"I looked through the millions of documents for my name just like everybody else," Lutnick said.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) later appeared astonished by that statement.
“No," he said, "everyone isn’t worried about their names being in the Epstein files."
Following the hearing, calls for Lutnick to step down have only grown louder.
"Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump’s secretary of commerce, lied about his connection to Epstein, helped source a 'nanny' for Epstein, [and] visited rape island AFTER Epstein pled guilty to sex crimes," wrote Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)
McGovern also mentioned a $50,000 donation Epstein made in 2017 to a dinner keepingLutnick and another investor, which was put on by the Jewish philanthropic organization UJA-Federation of New York. Emails show that Epstein was offered 10 seats to attend the event but declined, saying Lutnick could fill them.
"This has gone on long enough," McGovern said. "Lutnick is a liar, and he needs to resign."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘There’s a Bunch of Sick F*cks’: Lawmakers in Both Parties Stunned and Disgusted After Viewing Unredacted Epstein Files
“Initially my reaction to all this was, I don’t care, I don’t know what the big deal is," the Trump-supporting Sen. Cynthia Lummis said. "But now I see what the big deal is."
Feb 10, 2026
Members of Congress were given a chance to scour unredacted versions of the Department of Justice's files on Jeffrey Epstein for the first time on Monday.
There are more than 3 million pages available for lawmakers to comb through following their release to the public with heavy redactions. Meanwhile, despite a law requiring all the files to be released in December, the DOJ is still sitting on another 3 million pages that have yet to be published.
Lawmakers have so far only scratched the surface of the information available. But what they've seen after just one day has even some of President Donald Trump's biggest defenders reevaluating their dismissal of the Epstein scandal.
“Initially, my reaction to all this was, I don’t care, I don’t know what the big deal is," Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) told independent journalist Pablo Manríquez on Monday. "But now I see what the big deal is and it was worth investigating. The members of Congress who were pushing this were not wrong!”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who have led the charge in Congress for the files to be released, said on Monday that six individuals who were “likely incriminated” in Epstein’s crimes had their identities blacked out by the DOJ in the files that were released publicly.
“In a couple of hours, we found six men whose names have been redacted, who are implicated in the way that the files are presented,” Massie told reporters outside the DOJ office where lawmakers viewed the files.
They did not initially specify the individuals' names, but Massie said at least one was a US citizen and some were “high‑up” foreign officials.
Massie later revealed that one of the men on this list was Les Wexner, the ex-CEO of L Brands, which owns Victoria's Secret. Wexner appears in the files thousands of times and was infamously one of Epstein's most intimate financial clients.
After Massie questioned why Wexner's name was blacked out, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced it had been unredacted and said the DOJ was "hiding nothing." The other five names remained redacted as of Tuesday morning.
The FBI closed its investigation into Epstein in July, concluding that while the financier himself abused several underage girls, along with his partner Ghislane Maxwell—who is currently serving 20 years in prison—he was not running a sex-trafficking ring that included other powerful figures.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said the files he and other lawmakers reviewed yesterday told a much different story.
“It’s disgusting," he said. "There are lots of names, lots of co-conspirators, and they’re trafficking girls all across the world."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) put it more succinctly when a Drop Site News reporter caught her on the way back from the DOJ office and asked what she learned from viewing the files.
"There's a bunch of sick fucks," she said.
Lawmakers also said the documents contradicted Trump’s claims that he booted Epstein from membership at his Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, and disassociated from him in the early 2000s because the predator was poaching young female workers from the resort. Trump has said that one of them was the late Virginia Giuffre, then a 17-year-old locker room employee, who’d go on to become one of Epstein’s victims and most prominent accusers.
According to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), "for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason,” the DOJ concealed a summary of statements allegedly made by Trump, provided by Epstein's lawyers, in which the president said he never asked Epstein to leave the club.
Balint confirmed she saw the same document.
"One [document] was related to whether or not Trump had ever kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, as he claimed," she said. "It's not true. It's a lie."
The law passed in November requiring the files' release mandates that victims of Epstein's abuse have their privacy protected, but forbids the DOJ from redacting information to protect prominent individuals, including government officials, from embarrassment.
“The broader issue is why so many of the files they’re getting are redacted in the first place,” Khanna said. “What Americans want to know is who the rich and powerful people are who went to [Epstein's] island? Did they rape underage girls? Did they know that underage girls were being paraded around?”
Massie and Khanna said they were disappointed to find that many of the files that were supposed to be available were still heavily redacted. Massie lamented that the DOJ had not yet provided access to the FBI’s 302 forms, which contain official summaries of interviews with witnesses and victims.
Raskin said viewing the files affirmed many of the concerns about the DOJ "over-redacting" files.
“We didn’t want there to be a cover-up, and yet, what I saw today was that there were lots of examples of people’s names being redacted when they were not victims,” Raskin told CNN. "There are thousands and thousands of pages replete with redactions. There are entire pages in memos where you can't see anything."
Lawmakers were given permission to view the files in a letter sent by the DOJ on Friday, following mounting criticism about the extensive number of redactions in the public release. They are required to sift through the files in a tightly-secured DOJ office and are barred from making copies available to the public, though they are allowed to take notes.
Raskin said that the office contains only four computers, making the process of sorting through more than 3 million files agonizingly slow.
"Working 40 hours a week on nothing else but this, it would take more than seven years for the 217 members who signed the House discharge petition to read just the documents they've decided to release," he wrote in a post on social media.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee about the handling of the files on Wednesday. Massie said he plans to grill her about why so many potential co-conspirators had their names redacted in the public release.
“I would like to give the DOJ a chance to say they made a mistake and over‑redacted and let them unredact those men’s names," he said. That would probably be the best way to do it.”
Blanche has responded to the criticism on social media, saying, "The DOJ is committed to transparency."
Khanna, who appeared on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday morning, said that based on what he saw in the public release, the opposite is true.
" Donald Trump had the FBI scrub those files in March," he said. "And the documents we saw already had the redactions of the FBI from March. So we still have not seen the vast majority of documents unredacted that have the survivor statements of the rich and powerful men who committed these crimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Massie Threatens to Go 'Nuclear' and Reveal Epstein Client Names If Bondi Won't Unredact Them
After getting the opportunity to view the unredacted files, Rep. Thomas Massie threatened to read the names on the House floor to secure justice for survivors.
Feb 09, 2026
With 3 million Jeffrey Epstein files still being withheld from the public and the names of many possible clients and co-conspirators still blacked out, Rep. Thomas Massie is threatening to invoke what he has called a "nuclear option" to force transparency from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice.
Massie (R-Ky.), who has pushed harder than any other Republican for the release of the files pertaining to the late sex criminal and his circle of powerful friends, will join Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to view unredacted versions of the DOJ files on Monday.
Under a law introduced by Massie and Khanna last year, which Congress passed almost unanimously, the DOJ was required to release all files to the public in December without redacting information solely to protect public figures from embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.
But millions still remain under lock and key, while those made public, including a tranche of more than 3 million released late last month, are heavily redacted.
Rep. Thomas Massie and I have requested a meeting with Todd Blanche to ask why the senders of these emails have been redacted. Concealing the reputations of these powerful men is a blatant violation of the Epstein Transparency Act we passed.
[image or embed]
— Ro Khanna (@rokhanna.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 4:10 PM
Those files contained many references to Trump as well as other powerful figures, including former President Bill Clinton, tech billionaires Elon Musk and Bill Gates, and former British ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.
Meanwhile, files containing compromising mentions of Trump were uploaded to the site before being swiftly deleted—including a list of unverified FBI tips that described the president participating in the heinous abuse of children.
In a Sunday appearance on CNN‘s “Inside Politics,” Massie accused the Trump administration of violating the law by failing to meet the deadline for the public release of information and by releasing the names of victims while covering up the names of alleged perpetrators.
He said that of particular interest were the FBI’s 302 files, which contain information from official interviews with witnesses and victims of Epstein’s abuse, which he said the DOJ is still withholding.
He also said the DOJ was “overredacting” documents related to “some really sketchy emails” between Epstein and associates, on which “we can’t see who the sender was.”
Massie said that Attorney General Pam Bondi "will be in front of my committee," referring to the House Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday to answer questions about the release of the files.
He said he plans to ask her why the rest of the documents have not been released, why—even with the delays that purportedly gave officials time to ensure victims' identifying information was redacted—they still published the names of some victims, and what information has been redacted from the files.
Asked by anchor Manu Raju how he would respond if the DOJ continued to flout the law, Massie said he was prepared to begin reading off the names of Epstein's clients on the House floor, provided the victims "believe that the best way to get justice is to force the DOJ to release these names."
Massie also remarked on the revelation in the latest batch of files that Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, who'd claimed to have cut ties with Epstein back in 2005, had actually continued a business and personal relationship with him years after he'd been convicted of sex crimes in 2008. This included joint business ventures, dinner gatherings, and a planned trip to Epstein's infamous private island in 2012.
Asked whether Lutnick should testify before the Judiciary Committee, Massie instead said, "No, he should just resign."
He said that Mandelson and the former Prince Andrew, another prominent Epstein associate who was stripped of his royal title, have resigned in disgrace from their posts "for less than Lutnick lied about."
On Friday, amid mounting pressure from lawmakers and the public, the DOJ sent a letter to members of Congress—obtained by the Associated Press—informing them that they could inspect the documents.
Legislators were required to give the DOJ 24 hours' notice before arriving and will be required to view the documents in a tightly-controlled "reading room." They are also barred from creating electronic copies of the files for distribution, but they may take notes.
In a post to social media Sunday, Massie called on inquisitive followers to point out which concerning documents they want him to scrutinize, saying those that receive the most "likes" will be his first priority.
Among the documents that have garnered the most outrage and demands for transparency are:
- A 2014 email in which a person, whose name has been redacted, thanked Epstein "for a fun night" and told him "your littlest girl was a little naughty";
- Another 2014 email in which a person, whose name has been redacted, said they were giving Epstein "permission to kill" an unspecified person;
- A 2009 email in which a person, whose name has been redacted, told Epstein they "loved the torture video";
- And a heavily redacted federal prosecution memo, sent after Epstein's death in 2019 to then-US Attorney Geoffrey Berman, which discusses investigative steps and possible liability of Epstein's associates, and several uninvestigated claims relating to complicity and participation in his crimes. That file was deleted shortly after being uploaded to the DOJ website.
On the same day that lawmakers will review the DOJ's files, Epstein's convicted accomplice Ghislane Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for the sex-trafficking of minors, refused to answer questions from the House Oversight Committee about who else was involved in Epstein's abuse, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
As Khanna pointed out, she did not do this in July when she privately answered questions from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Khanna has sent a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) containing a list of questions for Maxwell about any knowledge she has of other co-conspirators, the extent of Epstein's and Trump's involvement, and whether Trump offered her a pardon in exchange for her silence.
"The American people will see that there's an inconsistency," Khanna told reporters on Monday. "Why didn't she plead the Fifth when Blanche asked her questions, but now she's pleading the Fifth about things that don't implicate her, but may implicate many of the other powerful people in the Epstein class that committed these crimes?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular