Category: News

The latest tranche of documents released by the United States Department of Justice on the convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein has caused an uproar and a slew of resignations by senior officials and businesspeople across the US and Europe.

In Africa, the more than three million emails, photos, and videos released on January 23 are also causing some aftershocks as they reveal the extent of Epstein’s connections with prominent African figures, though appearing in the Epstein files does not automatically indicate a crime or wrongdoing.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

According to the documents, Epstein had ties with former South African President Jacob Zuma; Karim Wade, a politician and son of Senegal’s ex-president Abdoulaye Wade; and deceased Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

The new files also shed more light on Epstein’s connections to a relative of Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara, who appeared to connect the two men. This connection reportedly opened the door for a friend of Epstein’s, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, to propose a mass surveillance system to Ouattara that would work in the West African country. It is unclear if such a system is in place now.

Epstein’s possible fixing role culminated in a formal 2014 security deal between the two countries, although the details of it are scant.

The revelations, in general, underscore the range of Epstein’s influence on powerful figures across continents.

Epstein, who was first convicted in 2008 on charges of sex trafficking, was found dead by suicide in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting a trial on sex trafficking charges. His ex-girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted and sentenced in 2021.

Here’s what we know about the Ivory Coast deal and his ties to Africa’s political elite:

Israel and Ivory Coast: The context

Discussions between Ouattara and Barak appeared to start in mid-2012, after the Ivorian president travelled to Jerusalem for talks with Israeli leaders, presumably in hopes of striking a security agreement. Ouattara met Barak, who was then the Israeli defence minister, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Five days before the trip, on June 12, 2012, exiled military officials linked to the Ivory Coast’s former president had attempted to overthrow Ouattara’s government.

Ouattara’s predecessor, Laurent Gbagbo, had refused to hand over power to Ouattara, and a civil war that killed at least 3,000 people ensued. The fighting had only ended about a year before when UN and French forces intervened and arrested Gbagbo.

Ouattara’s son, Dramane, and niece, Nina Keita, also met Epstein in New York on the same day, according to the Epstein files. It’s unclear what the parties discussed.

Keita, a former model, was friends with Epstein and travelled regularly on his private jet, according to the documents. She appeared to have connected Epstein with her uncle, as well as other highly placed Ivorian politicians, according to the documents.

The files showed that on September 12, three months after Epstein met Ouattara’s son, he again met Keita in New York.

He met Barak immediately after in a private meeting at the Regency Hotel in New York, according to a schedule published in the files. It’s not known what was discussed.

In November, Drop Site News reported that Epstein referred to a trip to the Ivory Coast, Angola and Senegal in a note to his assistant, but that there are no flight records to confirm the travels.

What did Israel propose to Ouattara?

A month after Ouattara’s travel to Jerusalem, an Israeli delegation visited Abidjan.

At the meetings, Ouattara reportedly asked about Israeli defence systems to overhaul security in his country, according to reporting by Calcalist, an Israeli publication that covered the exchanges at the time.

In late 2012, Ivorian Interior Minister Hamed Bakayoko travelled to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Barak, where they discussed a cybersecurity deal, Drop Site News found.

Then, in spring 2013, Barak, who had now left office as defence minister, travelled to Abidjan himself to converse with Ouattara in what would be their second meeting.

Barak presented an expensive security defence plan to the president, Calcalist reported. The $150m proposal encompassed border security, army training, and strategic military consulting, the publication said.

Drop Site News, in an investigation in November, added that the proposal included a mobile and internet surveillance centre, as well as a video monitoring centre.

The publication cited two sets of documents: an archive of leaked emails released by the Handala hacking group and hosted by nonprofit whistleblower site, Distributed Denial of Secrets, as well as earlier Epstein-linked documents released by the US House Oversight Committee in October 2025.

Barak’s surveillance centre was to be developed by the French-Israeli private security company, MF-Group, which specialises in surveillance systems, and was to be located in Abidjan, Drop Site News reported.

Email logs showed Epstein introduced Barak to Ouattara’s chief of staff later in September 2013, and planned a meeting in New York where the two men met.

Although Ouattara was pleased with the plan, he ultimately did not sign the deal because of the price tag, Calcalist reported.

Barak, in a response to Calcalist at the time, denied that he offered to build the Ivory Coast an intelligence apparatus. “The claims about establishing an intelligence apparatus and price offers are incorrect. These are private conversations, and the public has no interest in them,” he was quoted as saying.

What was the final agreement?

Although the plan appeared to be rejected, both countries continued to forge friendly ties.

In June 2014, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman was welcomed in Abidjan on a state visit.

Liberman had travelled to the country along with 50 Israeli businesspeople who were interested in investing in the Ivory Coast.

In a news release at the time, the Ivorian government said two agreements were signed: “One concerning regular consultations between the two countries and the other on defence and internal security.”

No details were provided. It is not known if Abidjan is using Israeli surveillance security systems.

Nevertheless, the Israeli-Ivorian security relationship has continued, with the latter buying military vessels, aircraft, and armoured tanks from Israeli weapons companies.

In 2016, a United Nations report found that Israeli firm Troya Tech Defence had sold weapons and night vision goggles to Ivory Coast in 2015, violating a UN arms embargo that was in place at the time.

In 2018, an investigation into Israeli spyware Pegasus, developed by the NSO Group, revealed that the malware had targeted journalists’ phones in the Ivory Coast. Pegasus, believed to be used by governments, was found to be operating in 45 countries.

In March 2023, privately owned Israel Shipyards, which builds naval vessels, delivered two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to Abidjan.

Critics of President Ouattara say the Ivory Coast has slid further from democracy under his rule and point to incidents like the Pegasus scandal, among other issues.

Did Epstein and Barak strategise about other African countries?

Barak also tried to leverage the Boko Haram crisis in Nigeria for a security deal, according to Drop Site News, citing the new documents.

Epstein was aware of Barak’s business deals and advised him on doing business in Nigeria between 2013 and 2020, according to email exchanges.

Both saw the escalating violence in the West African nation not as a humanitarian crisis, but as a business opportunity, the publication found.

In June 2013, Barak attended a cybersecurity conference in Abuja, which organisers said privately was a pretext to meet Nigeria’s then-President Goodluck Jonathan.

It came after Nigeria awarded Israeli firm, Elbit Systems, a controversial contract to surveil digital communications in the country. Public outrage caused Jonathan to consider cancelling the project, but the government never announced that it was withdrawn.

Barak continued leveraging his access in Nigeria to promote Israeli products and services. In 2015, he facilitated the sale of Israeli biometric surveillance equipment to a private Christian university in Nigeria, Drop Site News found. The university, in a statement, denied the sale.

In 2020, the World Bank selected Barak’s intelligence firm, Toka, and the Israeli National Cyber Directorate to advise Nigeria on designing its national cyber-infrastructure.

Epstein, meanwhile, also facilitated high-level access for Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, ex-chairman of the Emirati firm DP World. In 2018, Epstein connected bin Sulayem with Jide Zeitlin, then-chair of Nigeria’s sovereign investment fund, for discussions on securing port ownerships in Lagos and Badagry.

Bin Sulayem, last March, visited Nigeria and proposed that DP World establish industrial parks at Nigerian ports. The proposal has not been approved.

Which other African leaders had links to Epstein?

Jacob Zuma

The new files revealed that Epstein had some relations with former South African President Jacob Zuma, who led the country from 2009 until 2018.

Epstein appeared to arrange a “small dinner” on behalf of Zuma in March 2010 at the Ritz Hotel in London.

It’s unclear what the purpose of the dinner was, but emails released as part of the Epstein files seemed to show that a Russian model was invited. The model was told her presence would “add some real glamour to the occasion”, according to emails sent by Epstein’s planner, whose name was redacted in the files.

In a different email, Epstein appeared to share that information with British politician Peter Mandelson, who is now under investigation for his links to Epstein. A host, whose name was redacted “is having dinner for zuma tomorrow night at the ritz„ i have invited a beautiful russina named (redacted) to attend,” he wrote.

It’s unclear if Mandelson responded.

After the dinner appeared to have taken place, one email sender whose name was redacted wrote to Epstein: “(Redacted name) was a delight last night and enchanted all those she met…By the way, Jacob Zuma was much more impressive and engaging than I thought he would be!”

Karim Wade

Politician and son of Senegal’s ex-President Abdoulaye Wade, Karim Wade’s name appeared 504 times in the released files.

Wade, under his father, was a minister with an open-ended portfolio, and was so powerful that he was nicknamed “minister of heaven and earth”.

His relationship with Epstein began in 2010, according to an investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which cited the newly released files.

In an email to an unnamed contact in November of that year, Epstein wrote: “the President of Senegal is sending his son to see me in paris,” the publication noted. Over the years, they planned trips in Africa along with Emirati businessman, bin Sulayem. They also discussed business ideas, the files showed.

In 2015, after Wade was convicted on corruption charges by a new administration, records show Epstein approaching Norwegian leader of the Council of Europe, Thorborn Jagland, to ask about possibly filing an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. Wade’s lawyers regularly updated Epstein on efforts to free him, according to OCCRP.

Senegal pardoned Wade in 2016, after which he went into exile in Qatar. Keita, niece to Ivory Coast’s President Ouattara, who appeared to play some role in the efforts to free Wade, texted Epstein: “Thank you for everything you have done for him!!!!”

Robert Mugabe

The Epstein documents revealed that the sex trafficker planned to meet then-President Mugabe to propose a new currency for Zimbabwe amid that country’s hyperinflation crisis.

In email exchanges back in 2015, Japanese financier Joi Ito recommended to Epstein that they both approach Mugabe to discuss the currency after the Zimbabwean dollar lost its value. It’s unclear if the meeting ever took place.

Released along with the emails were FBI documents from 2017, which appeared to show unverified testimony from a “confidential source” who said Epstein was a wealth manager for Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Mugabe.

Australia’s Jack Doohan says he received death threats before he was dropped by F1 team Alpine, six races into last season.

Jack Doohan says he received death threats and had to call police to resolve an encounter with armed men at about the time of last year’s Miami Grand Prix, just before he lost his Formula One drive with Alpine.

The Australian driver said in the latest series of Netflix documentary Drive To Survive, released on Friday, that he had been threatened by email, describing the atmosphere around what proved to be his final race as “pretty heavy stuff”.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Doohan made his debut for Alpine in the last race of 2024 and was dropped and replaced by Franco Colapinto after Miami, the sixth race of 2025. He is now a reserve driver for Haas.

“I got serious death threats for this Grand Prix, saying they’re going to kill me here if I’m not out of the car,” Doohan said in the documentary. “I had six or seven emails saying if I’m still in the car by Miami, that I’ll be, you know, all my limbs will be cut off.”

Doohan also described an incident where he saw three “armed men”, adding that “I had to call my police escort to come get it under control”.

He did not specify how that incident was resolved, and did not identify anyone responsible.

After Colapinto replaced him at Alpine in May, Doohan posted on social media that he and his family had been facing online abuse, and indicated at the time that fans from Colapinto’s home country of Argentina were responsible.

The duo were the only two drivers in F1 last season not to score a point as Alpine finished last in the constructors’ standings.

A federal judge in the United States has ruled that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) broke the law by disclosing confidential taxpayer information “approximately 42,695 times” to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In a decision issued on Thursday, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that the IRS had erroneously shared the taxpayer information of thousands of people, in apparent violation of the Internal Revenue Code.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The ruling cited IRS Code 6103, one of the strictest confidentiality laws in federal statute, which largely prohibits the disclosure of tax return information without consent.

Kollar-Kotelly said that the IRS violated that law “approximately 42,695 times by disclosing last known taxpayer addresses to ICE”.

“The IRS not only failed to ensure that ICE’s request for confidential taxpayer address information met the statutory requirements, but this failure led the IRS to disclose confidential taxpayer addresses to ICE in situations where ICE’s request for that information was patently deficient,” she wrote.

Her finding is based on a declaration filed earlier this month by Dottie Romo, the chief risk and control officer for the IRS, which revealed that the IRS had provided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with information on 47,000 of the 1.28 million people that ICE had requested.

In most of those cases, Romo said, the tax agency gave ICE additional address information in violation of privacy rules created to protect taxpayer data.

The government is appealing the case, but the Thursday ruling is significant because Romo’s declaration supports the decision on appeal.

Kollar-Kotelly, meanwhile, called the Romo declaration “a significant development in this case”.

What agreement does the IRS have with ICE?

The case is the result of a growing effort under the administration of President Donald Trump to consolidate government data, alarming rights advocates who fear an erosion of taxpayer privacy.

Part of that data has been used to carry out Trump’s campaign of mass deportation, a key pillar of his second-term agenda.

On April 7, the IRS entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security to help with “non-tax criminal enforcement”.

That agreement, however, was widely understood to be the groundwork for the identification and deportation of immigrants in the US through taxpayer data.

The Center for Taxpayer Right sued the government over the disclosure, citing protections instituted after the 1972 Watergate scandal revealed how former President Richard Nixon misused tax data during his term.

“This nation already once experienced a President who sought to collect tax information on his political allies and enemies in the White House for use for favor and punishment,” the centre wrote in an initial complaint.

“Following the Watergate era, Congress clearly and unequivocally acted to protect the American people from these intrusions.”

It argued that taxpayer data is uniquely sensitive and “in grave jeopardy” of being shared broadly across the government.

Nina Olson, founder of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, said after Thursday’s ruling, “This confirms what we’ve been saying all along: that the IRS has an unlawful policy that violates the Internal Revenue Code’s protections by releasing these addresses in a way that violates the law’s requirements.”

Representatives from the IRS and the Department of the Treasury did not respond to The Associated Press’s requests for comment.

Currently, the data-sharing agreement allows ICE to submit names and addresses of immigrants inside the US illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.

The deal, signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, led the then-acting commissioner of the IRS to resign.

There are several ongoing cases that challenge the agreement between the IRS and immigration authorities.

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction for the immigrants’ rights group Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and other nonprofits as they sue the federal government to stop implementation of the agreement.

In declining the preliminary injunction request, Judge Harry T Edwards wrote that the nonprofit groups “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim”, since the information the agencies are sharing isn’t covered by the IRS privacy statute.

Still, two separate court orders have blocked the agencies from massive transfers of taxpayer information and blocked ICE from acting upon any IRS data in its possession. Those preliminary injunctions are still in place.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is heading to India for what experts say is a “very significant trip” as he tries to reset relations between the two countries and find new markets for Canadian exports.

While the trip, which starts Friday, is expected to be heavy on diplomacy, experts question whether it will result in major economic deals to shore up Canada’s economy.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Carney has pledged to broaden the country’s trading partners as relations with its neighbour, the United States, fray. And India, with its 1.4 billion people, is a potentially large market for Canada’s vast petroleum and natural gas reserves, among other products.

But to build those economic bonds will require Carney to overcome diplomatic tensions and hesitancy about the costs of its exports, according to analysts.

“Canada domestically needs to figure out to what extent it wants to grow its oil and gas industry,” said Tarun Khanna, professor at the University of British Columbia who focuses on energy policy.

“Improvement in the overall relationship can provide incentives to both nations.”

Repairing a diplomatic rupture

Part of the hurdle for Carney is repairing recent diplomatic strains between his country and India.

The two countries engaged in a prolonged diplomatic freeze in September 2023, after Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau alleged that India was involved in the killing of a Sikh separatist activist on Canadian soil.

India rejected the allegations as false, and both countries expelled each other’s diplomats.

A breakthrough came last year when Carney invited Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Kananaskis, Alberta, to attend the Group of Seven (G7) leaders’ summit in June.

Since then, relations have thawed. In September, both sides named new diplomats to serve as high commissioners to each other’s countries.

In the lead-up to this week’s meeting, more bilateral collaboration has unfolded. Officials from India and Canada have engaged in senior ministerial and working-level engagements in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), liquefied natural gas (LNG), critical minerals and supply chain resilience.

“This is a very significant visit and allows Prime Minister Carney to consolidate a reset that began in the relationship last year,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, a research institute.

Finding alternative trading partners

But the rapprochement with India also comes in a transition period for Canada.

The US has long been its primary trading partner: It is the only country it shares a border with. But since the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, the US has taken an aggressive stance towards trade with Canada.

Trump has stacked steep tariffs on key Canadian exports like steel, aluminium and automobile parts. He also suggested he would like Canada to cede its sovereignty and become a state within the US.

Carney has resisted such efforts, including by imposing counter-tariffs on US goods.

But in January, he gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he outlined his vision for “middle-power” states to break from the superpowers that seek their “subordination”.

“From the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just,” Carney said.

“This is the task of the middle powers: the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine cooperation.”

Carney’s trip to India, followed by Australia and Japan, is his first major trip to Asia following his Davos speech. Experts say the outing will give him a stage on which to spread his appeal for “genuine cooperation” among smaller economies.

“It allows him to take that message of middle-power diplomacy to India, Australia and Japan, the three most significant for Canada in the Indo-Pacific region,” said Nadjibulla.

The trip also comes at a time when, on the domestic front, Carney’s top priority is to strengthen economic resilience, make sure investments keep flowing into Canada, and protect industries that have been hit by Trump’s tariffs.

As part of that push, Carney visited China last month, becoming the first Canadian prime minister to do so in almost a decade.

A market for Canadian energy

Carney’s latest trip is expected to yield announcements on Canadian exports of oil, natural gas, uranium and critical minerals, as well as cooperation with India on developing nuclear power as a clean energy source.

The outreach effort is “part of Carney’s strategy” to diversify its economic trading partners and find new markets for its products, according to MV Ramana, an expert in energy and security at the University of British Columbia.

Canada is the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil in the world, and the fifth-largest oil producer overall. Its crude exports were valued at more than $100.7bn in 2024 alone.

But Ramana believes that negotiations will also centre on Canada’s uranium. The North American country is the world’s second-largest producer of the metal, which is key to nuclear power production.

“Canada is trying to position itself as an exporter, a petro-state of sorts — not just for oil and gas, but also critical minerals and uranium,” Ramana said.

India has a long history of nuclear cooperation with Canada, which provided it with a research reactor in the 1950s for its nascent nuclear programme.

It has continued to import uranium from Canada, and the two countries are in the midst of finalising a 10-year, $2.8bn deal that would ensure a supply of the metal to India.

Given that backdrop, Ramana said he expects to see announcements on small modular reactors for nuclear energy, even though there are currently only a few operating in Russia and China.

The first in North America — the Darlington New Nuclear Project — is in the works in Ontario, and Carney appears to be angling for Canada to become a leader in such small-scale reactors. But it won’t be easy, warned Ramana.

“These are supposed to be cheaper, but they also produce far less power. As a result, the cost per unit of power generation will be much higher,” he said.

Another complication is the fact that the licence for the modular reactor design is owned by a US company.

That means the US will need to be involved, said Ramana, a tricky balance as Carney continues to be in the crosshairs of Trump.

‘Combination of price and strategic decision’

With the largest population in the world, India’s already-huge energy demands are expected to keep increasing.

Khanna, the energy policy expert, said that means there is likely to be negotiation about fossil fuels as well during Carney’s trip.

“We don’t know what will materialise, but given the Indian energy situation, oil and gas is one thing that will be on the table,” said Khanna.

But India has also faced backlash under Trump about where it sources its energy supply from.

In August, the US president slapped an additional 25 percent tariff on India, doubling his tariffs on the South Asian nation to 50 percent, as a penalty for its import of Russian oil.

That was finally rolled back this month, and US tariffs on India were brought down to 18 percent, though that rate, among others, was overturned by a decision from the US Supreme Court.

Now, the current US tariffs on Indian imports sit at 10 percent. But experts have warned that Trump’s tariff policies have sown uncertainty among the US’s trading partners, including India.

So New Delhi is looking to secure its oil supplies, and Canada is looking for new buyers, Khanna said. But price will ultimately be the key.

“India is a price-sensitive market, so the Indian side will be looking for deals that secure supplies but at a reasonable price,” he pointed out.

If Ottawa seeks to increase its market, “then it’s up to them to see what kind of incentives they can hand out”, Khanna added.

For India to sign a deal, “it will have to be a combination of price and strategic decision”.

After the beginning of Trump’s second term, the connections between capitalism, white supremacy and imperial domination became increasingly clear. These have been highlighted through ICE raids as modern-day slave patrols, global criminal operations such as the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, and United States assistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza as a bipartisan US and transnational corporate experiment.

The growing understanding that people in the Global South, along with Black, Indigenous and other People of Colour (BIPOC) within the imperial core, face a common enemy has galvanised an anti-colonial, revolutionary movement committed to radical transformation.

And then the release of the Epstein files flooded public discourse.

Jeffrey Epstein was a financier convicted of sex crimes involving minors. After renewed federal charges in 2019, he died in jail (officially ruled a suicide). The case triggered public outrage about ruling class impunity, media focus on unsavoury associations between the political and corporate class and a plethora of conspiratorial narratives about cover-ups.

The Epstein case became far more than a criminal proceeding; it reflects a symbolic exposure of ruling class impunity and concentrated power and a spectacle of corruption within an empire in deep crisis and decline.

The Epstein case exposed ruling class criminality while simultaneously displacing structural accountability.

Importantly, “spectacle” does not mean “fake”; it means the organisation of politics through symbolic drama that displaces structural political analysis. With spectacle, social contradictions (inequality, social crises and instability) are dramatised rather than structurally challenged.

The enduring media and public fixation on the Epstein files, particularly as their release proceeds with little accountability and continued narratives that discredit and isolate survivors, serves less as accountability and more as a political diversion from systemic injustices: Racism, capitalism, the growth of the police state and ongoing international impunity.

More troubling still, it marks another step in the erosion of democracy and the consolidation of expansionist, war-driven fascism.

Fascist spectacle

In work by Walter Benjamin, Hannah Arendt, Guy Debord, Umberto Eco and others, fascist spectacle involves anti-intellectual and emotionally driven mass mobilisation around simple moral binaries (pure people v the corrupt ruling class), where action is revered while thought is reviled; the replacement of institutional process with symbolic imagery and drama; and mythic narratives of national decay and rebirth. Political theorist Roger Griffin calls this rebirth “palingenic ultranationalism”, that is, destruction as a precondition for rebirth.

The function of spectacle is to subvert principled analysis and resistance to oppression with emotion – outrage, disgust, despair and helplessness.

Conspiracy theories are the narrative engine of spectacle. They transform systemic crisis and social instability into simple, emotionally gripping stories of social taboo-breaking, centred on hidden and untouchable enemies, laying the groundwork through which authoritarian solutions are marketed as necessary and even redemptive.

When structural violence becomes visible, but accountability remains absent, public anger often seeks explanation through personalised and conspiratorial narratives rather than systemic analysis.

Amid growing distrust and corruption in mainstream media and the rise of citizen-driven and alternative social media ecosystems, conspiracy theories surrounding the Epstein case have blossomed: Claims of secret global cabals engaged in immoral sexual criminality, ritualistic fantasies involving human sacrifice, cannibalism and ancient symbolic structures and explicitly racist and anti-Semitic tropes about hidden rulers, among others.

Theories like these, whether wholly true, partially true or false, are not new; fascist movements have historically mobilised around the idea that the nation is being secretly corrupted by a degenerate ruling class, with a radical cleansing necessary to return to a righteous path.

These narratives do not expose a corrupt system; they obscure and mystify it. By sensationalising corruption into myth and providing explicit, though untouchable, targets for public outrage, they displace rigorous anti-colonial and material analyses of structural exploitation, greed and state violence with collective authoritarian longing for a strongman and the suppression of dissent to restore order.

The criminality of Epstein and the powerful figures who orbited him and participated in his abuses have come to symbolise a degenerate ruling class with identifiable names and faces, targets who could be exposed and jailed, thereby clearing the narrative space for a heroic white knight to ride in with promises of salvation.

As Hannah Arendt warned, conspiracy thinking thrives when trust in institutions collapses. The Epstein scandal intensified the sense of a ruling class operating above the law and of a justice system which protects its own, conditions ideal for authoritarian movements to exploit by insisting the system is irredeemably rigged and that only a strong leader can tear it down.

As such, the spectacle of the Epstein scandal can absorb and manipulate public outrage, redirecting it away from necessary structural accountability in the form of decolonisation and redistribution of wealth, ultimately reinforcing the very systems it appears to challenge.

In doing so, it promotes the aesthetics of politics – the spectacle – rather than grounded critiques of capitalism and imperial power. Further, it serves to distract from failures ultimately promoting oppression and war. According to Federico Caprotti, various forms of fascist spectacle produce a “collage” which both expresses and obscures the syncretic ideology of the regime.

The grand spectacle: War

When politics becomes theatre rather than collective progress dependent on accountability, transformation or reform, crisis becomes emotional drama, drama demands release (internal resolution) or escalation and escalation inevitably finds its expression in externalised war, in which the nation performs a grand spectacle of unity and sacrifice on the largest possible stage.

War acts as a stabilising force when internal contradictions cannot be resolved through collective mobilisation. With its uniforms and marches, war channels discontent by uniting a fragmented, outraged population against an externalised enemy, transforming righteous anger at the violence, oppression and greed of a ruling class into manufactured unity, heroism and meaning through violence against “the other”.

These dynamics, outlined by Benjamin decades ago, feel alarmingly familiar in the present moment, including in the spectacle surrounding the Epstein scandal.

In this context, external conflict functions not only as policy but as emotional consolidation, redirecting internal disillusionment towards collective national purpose.

Fascist forces deploy such spectacles to distract and mobilise, and are doing so presently; accelerating the dismantling of what remains of US democracy and the post-war international order, to be replaced by a system ruled by force and naked self-interest.

Spectacle politics does not require loyalty to specific leaders but to the emotional narrative they embody, rendering individual figures ultimately expendable.

In this logic, even Trump could be discarded, sacrificed to clear the way for a “purer” white male strongman (Vance? Pence? Carlson?) who promises to cleanse the ruling class and by extension its foreign so-called “handlers” (enemies like Russia, China and Iran or even allies like Israel and Europe, the latter already being threatened by Trump), of its unsavoury elements, particularly if Trump’s baggage with Epstein proves politically irredeemable.

By contrast, liberation and reconciliation and an end to capitalist oppression, with its accompanying genocidal violence and planetary destruction, require a steadfast structural framework aligned with broader leftist, antiracist and anti-colonial principles. Such a framework prioritises systemic transformation over spectacle. Within this view, the Epstein scandal is not treated as the disease itself, but as a symptom of capitalism’s inherent corruption.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

After months of a crippling oil blockade on Cuba imposed by the United States, the fuel-starved country may now see some relief after the US government said it would begin authorising companies to resell Venezuelan oil, even as tensions between the two reach a head.

On Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would allow the resale of Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use” in Cuba as the small island nation faces one of its worst fuel crises in decades.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Venezuela is the largest provider of oil to Cuba. However, since US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and imprisoned him to face drugs and weapons charges in a New York court, the Donald Trump administration has taken control of Caracas’s oil and halted exports to Havana.

Washington has long had frosty relations with Cuba, but Trump’s administration is specifically seeking regime change there by the end of 2026, US media has reported.

The US’s policy shift this week, however, comes after Caribbean leaders sounded the alarm about the dire situation in Cuba, an island nation of 10.9 million people.

At a regional meeting of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries on Wednesday, attended by US Secretary of State and Cuban-American Marco Rubio, Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness called on Washington to ease the pressure.

“Today, many Cubans are facing serious economic hardship, energy shortages, and growing humanitarian challenges,” Holness said. Cuba is not a CARICOM member but shares close ties.

“We are sensitive to their struggles. But we must also recognise that a prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain there. It can impact migration, security and economic stability across the Caribbean, including Jamaica,” he added.

What’s the situation in Cuba now?

Cuba’s state-dominated economy was already struggling under a US embargo which has been in place since 1962, dating back to Havana’s alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Since then, sanctions on Cuba have eased and tightened under various US administrations.

The long-running sanctions have severely weakened Cuba, causing the country to become highly dependent on imports, and high inflation routinely leads to food and energy shortages. Mass emigration of Cuba’s skilled labour force, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has added to the country’s difficulties.

With Trump’s latest oil embargo, the US has added a severe energy crisis to the mix. Widespread power blackouts of up to 20 hours at a time are now being reported across Cuba, impacting hospitals, businesses and households alike.

Surgeries have been suspended, schools have cancelled classes, and waste trucks are parked as rubbish piles up in the streets.

Four United Nations special rapporteurs warned in early February that the situation is contributing to a severe public health problem in the country and said it could lead to a “severe humanitarian” crisis.

Cuba has lost 90 percent of its fuel supply, and despite shutting beach resorts and restricting aviation fuel sales, the country could experience a total blackout as early as late February, according to Ignacio Seni, a risk analyst writing for the US-based intelligence firm Crisis 24.

Why has the US  blocked oil deliveries to Cuba?

Cuba produces crude oil but does not have the capacity to refine enough to meet domestic demand.

Venezuela was providing as much as 50 percent of Cuba’s oil before the US government took control of its oil industry at the start of this year, about 35,000 barrels per day.

Under a special barter agreement in place since 2000, Cuba provides support for education, healthcare, and security services in return for discounted Venezuelan fuel. Indeed, about 30 members of Maduro’s security detail who were killed in the operation to abduct him in January were from Cuba.

Then, days after Maduro was abducted, Trump turned his aim at Cuba itself, warning Havana to “make a deal before it is too late”. He did not, however, give details about what type of deal he wanted.

On January 29, Trump issued an executive order imposing new trade tariffs on any countries selling oil to Cuba because of what he called the “policies, practices and actions” of the Cuban government, which, he said, pose an “extraordinary threat” to the US.

Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Havana funds “terrorism”.

Besides Venezuela, Cuba was also sourcing oil from Mexico, Russia and Algeria, but all oil imports into the country ceased. Trump’s order, therefore, effectively amounted to a blockade.

The US has also reportedly seized fuel tankers in open waters transferring oil to Cuba, according to a New York Times investigation into ship movements in the Caribbean Sea published last week.

The US began building up its naval presence in the area in September last year as it prepared to attack Maduro, and its troops continue to patrol the waters.

In mid-February, one tanker loaded with Colombian oil was intercepted by the US Coast Guard as it came within 70 miles of Cuba, the Times reported. The vehicle, called the Ocean Mariner, was previously used to covertly transport oil between Venezuela and Iran.

Before Maduro’s capture, US forces also struck multiple Venezuelan boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean that the US claimed – without evidence – were trafficking drugs.

How have Cuba and others reacted to the US blockade?

Cuban authorities under President Miguel Diaz-Canel have accused the US of imposing collective punishment on the country.

On Wednesday, it also accused the US of links to armed men who entered the country’s waters on a Florida-tagged speedboat. Four Americans of Cuban origin were killed in the altercation, and two were injured.

In the past, Havana has said it is open to “reciprocal dialogue” with Washington, but Diaz-Canel has also said Cubans will “defend the Homeland to the last drop of blood”.

Meanwhile, on February 12, a UN expert panel condemned the US’s directive as illegal and said the claim that Havana funds terrorism “lacks credibility and appears designed to justify the use of extraordinary and coercive powers”.

“It is an extreme form of unilateral economic coercion with extraterritorial effects, through which the United States seeks to exert coercion on the sovereign state of Cuba and compel other sovereign third States to alter their lawful commercial relations,” the panel said.

Other countries are trying to help. Mexico has sent two deployments of humanitarian aid to Havana between mid-February and this week, while Russia has floated the possibility of sending fuel to Cuba.

On Wednesday, Canada pledged food aid with 8 million Canadian dollars ($6.7m).

What relief has the US announced now, and will it change anything?

Washington said on Wednesday it would issue companies with special licences to resell Venezuelan oil to Cuba “in solidarity” with the Cuban people.

That came after Washington announced $6m in humanitarian aid to Cuba to be distributed by the Catholic Church in early February.

However, “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions” will be barred from obtaining oil sales licences, the US Treasury Department said this week.

Transactions should only support “exports for commercial and humanitarian use”, the statement added.

It is unclear if the new order will allow Havana to continue buying Venezuelan oil at a heavily subsidised rate as it was previously doing. If it does not, the situation may not ease significantly for Cuba, experts say.

“Without significant oil imports or a relenting of US pressure, Cuba’s economy is unlikely to recover, and the degradation of conditions is likely to accelerate,” Seni, the Crisis 24 risk analyst, wrote.

In January 2003, President George W Bush stood before the United States Congress to warn of a “grave danger” from a “dictator”, a former US client in the Middle East, armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Twenty-three years later, in the same chamber, President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address to paint a strikingly similar narrative: A rogue regime, a looming nuclear threat, and a ticking clock.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

In a dark twist of historical irony, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who was armed to the teeth by the US in Iraq’s 1980-1988 war with the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran, became Washington’s public enemy number one, surpassing Osama bin Laden. Now, that label has been seemingly applied to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a key leader during that ruinous war against Iraq that left a million dead.

But while the “war script” sounds familiar, the geopolitical stage has shifted dramatically.

As Washington pivots from the neoconservatives’ “preemptive” doctrine of the Bush era to what experts are calling the “preventive maintenance” of the Trump era – following the June 2025 strikes on Iran in tandem with Israel’s attack in the 12-day war – questions are mounting about the intelligence, the endgame, and the alarming lack of checks and balances.

The semiotics of fear: From clouds to tunnels

In 2003, the visual language of war was vertical: The fear of a “mushroom cloud” rising over US cities, or a biological weapon seeping into populated areas. Today, the fear has gone in the other direction: Purportedly deep underground.

“The administration is updating the visual dictionary of fear,” says Osama Abu Irshaid, a Washington-based political analyst. “They are exaggerating the nuclear threat exactly as the Bush administration did with the ‘smoking gun’ metaphor. But there is a key difference: In 2003, US intelligence was manipulated to align with the lie. In 2026, the intelligence assessments actually contradict Trump’s claims.”

While Trump asserted in his State of the Union address that Iran is “rebuilding” its nuclear programme to strike the US mainland, his own officials offer conflicting narratives. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt insisted Tuesday, parroting her boss, that the 2025 “Operation Midnight Hammer” had “obliterated” Iran’s facilities. Yet, days earlier, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Tehran was “a week away” from the bomb.

This “information chaos”, analysts argue, serves a specific purpose: Keeping the threat vague enough to justify perpetual military pressure.

“Bush benefitted from the post-9/11 anger to link Iraq to an existential threat,” Abu Irshaid told Al Jazeera. “Trump doesn’t have that. Iran hasn’t attacked the US homeland. So, he has to fabricate a direct threat, claiming their ballistic missiles can reach America – a claim unsupported by technical realities.”

The regime change quagmire

Perhaps the most glaring contrast with 2003 is the internal coherence of the administration.

The Bush team – Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz – moved in ideological lockstep. Cheney famously predicted US troops would be “greeted as liberators”.

They were anything but. The made-for-television scene of a statue of Saddam Hussein being torn down in central Baghdad quickly gave way to sustained, organised fighting against the US occupation, heavy US troop losses, as well as sectarian bloodletting that forced Iraq onto the cusp of all-out civil war.

Bush declaring major combat operations over under a huge “Mission Accomplished” banner in May 2003 came back to haunt his administration and the US for years to come.

The Trump team of 2026 appears far more fractured, torn between “America First” isolationism and aggressive interventionism.

• The official line: Vice President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have publicly stated the goal is not regime change. “We are not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear programme,” Vance said Sunday.
• The president’s instinct: Trump contradicted them on social media, posting: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

“The Neocons who hijacked policy under Bush have been weakened,” notes Abu Irshaid. “But they have been replaced by figures like Stephen Miller, who holds absolute loyalty to Trump and close ties to the Israeli right. Trump is driven by instinct, not strategy. He seeks the ‘victory’ that eluded his predecessors: The total hollowing out of Iran, whether through zero-enrichment surrender or collapse.”

The lonely superpower: Coercion over coalition

In 2003, Bush and United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair worked tirelessly to build a “Coalition of the Willing”. It was a diplomatic veneer, but it existed. Blair remains a much-loathed figure in the Middle East and in some quarters in the West for giving diplomatic cover to the Iraq debacle.

In 2026, the US is operating in stark isolation.

“Trump is not building a coalition; he is alienating allies,” Abu Irshaid explains. He points to a pattern of “extortion” extending from tariffs on the European Union to attempts to “buy” Greenland. “The Europeans see the coercion used against Iran and fear it could be turned against them. Unlike 2003, only Israel is fully on board.”

This isolation was highlighted when the UK reportedly refused to allow the US to use island bases for strikes on Iran, forcing B-2 bombers to fly 18-hour missions directly from the US mainland during the 2025 campaign.

The collapse of checks and balances

Following the damning intelligence failures and lies of the Iraq war, promises were made to strengthen congressional oversight. Two decades later, those guardrails appear to have vanished.

Despite efforts by US Representatives Ro Khanna (a Democrat) and Thomas Massie (a Republican) to invoke a “discharge petition” to block an unauthorised war, the political reality is grim.

“The concept of checks and balances is facing a severe test,” warns Abu Irshaid. “The Republican Party is now effectively the party of Trump. The Supreme Court leans right. Trump is operating with expanded post-9/11 powers that allow for ‘limited strikes’ – strikes that can easily spiral into the open war he claims to avoid.”

With the administration citing “32,000” protesters killed by Tehran – a figure significantly higher than independent estimates, and which Iran dismissed as “big lies” on Wednesday – the moral groundwork for escalation is being laid, bypassing the need for United Nations resolutions or congressional approval.

As US and Iranian negotiators meet in Geneva for make-or-break talks under the shadow of last year’s “Operation Midnight Hammer”, the question remains: Are the two nations with decades of enmity boiling between them on the brink of a new deal, or the prelude to a war that could ignite the entire region in flames?

Paris Agreement’s carbon credits enable cross-border trade to support emissions reduction and climate goals worldwide.

The United Nations has approved the first credits to be issued under a carbon market established by the Paris climate accord, aimed at reducing emissions – a mechanism that has faced scrutiny over greenwashing concerns.

The UN-run market allows companies and countries to offset their excess emissions by financing projects that cut greenhouse gases in other nations.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The UN Climate Change announced on Thursday that the new initiative involves a clean cooking project in Myanmar, which distributes efficient cookstoves that reduce pressure on local forests. Implemented in partnership with a South Korean company, the project will generate credits that will count towards the climate targets of South Korea and Myanmar.

“Over two billion people globally are without access to clean cooking, which kills millions every year. Clean cooking protects health, saves forests, cuts emissions and helps empower women and girls, who are typically hardest hit by household air pollution,” UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said in a statement.

The new mechanism “can support solutions that make a big difference in people’s daily lives, as well as channelling finance to where it delivers real-life benefits on the ground”, Stiell added.

But some critics fear that, if set up poorly, such schemes can undermine the world’s efforts to curb global warming by allowing countries or companies to greenwash – or overstate – their emissions reductions.

The UN climate agency said the credited emissions reductions are 40 percent lower than under a previous scheme, as more conservative calculations are applied under the new Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM).

“Our focus is on building confidence in this market from the outset, and this first issuance shows that the system is working as intended,” Jacqui Ruesga, vice chair of the UN body supervising the PACM, said in a statement.

The stoves in the Myanmar project burn woody biomass more efficiently, meaning they need less fuel and emit far less smoke inside the home. But at current rates, only 78 percent of the population is expected to have access to clean cooking by 2030, the World Health Organization said.

The 2015 Paris Agreement, which commits the world to limiting warming to well below 2C (3.6F) and ideally at 1.5C (2.7F), also envisaged that countries could take part in cross-border trade of carbon reductions.

New rules were agreed at the UN’s COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024 for the carbon market mechanism. At the time, Greenpeace said the agreement left loopholes that would allow fossil fuel companies to continue polluting. But other environmentalists said that, while not perfect, it provided some clarity that was absent from global efforts to regulate carbon credits.

Nurul Amin Shah Alam, 56, was a nearly blind Rohingya refugee from Rakhine state in Myanmar, family members said.

A nearly blind Rohingya refugee from Myanmar has been found dead in Buffalo, New York, days after the United States Border Patrol left him miles away from his home following his release from a county jail, authorities said.

The body of Nurul Amin Shah Alam, 56, was located by police officers in the city in upstate New York on Tuesday evening, a Buffalo Police Department spokesperson said on Wednesday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Shah Alam had been missing since February 19, when US Border Patrol agents dropped him off at a coffee shop following his release from a county jail.

Mayor of Buffalo Sean Ryan, a Democrat, said in a statement on Wednesday that Shah Alam’s death was preventable and the result of “inhumane” decision-making by federal immigration authorities.

“A vulnerable man – nearly blind and unable to speak English – was left alone on a cold winter night ‌with no known attempt to leave him in a safe, secure location,” Ryan said.

“That decision from US Customs and Border Protection was unprofessional and inhumane,” he added.

Several US representatives called for an investigation into the circumstances of Shah Alam’s death on Wednesday, including Grace Meng, a Democrat representing areas of New York City, who described a “shocking breach of responsibility and basic humanity by federal enforcement”.

Mohamad Faisal, one of Shah Alam’s children, said nobody had told his family or their lawyer where their father had been left by authorities after his release from prison, according to the Reuters news agency.

Faisal said the family were Rohingya refugees from Arakan state, officially known as Rakhine state, in Myanmar, and that his father could not read, write or use electronic devices.

He said his father’s arrest a year ago was due to a misunderstanding after police were called when Shah Alam wandered onto private property, while carrying a curtain rod he had purchased as a walking stick due to his impaired vision.

His father had not understood when police, speaking in English, told him to drop the curtain rod, and he was held in jail for close to one year, before being released following a misdemeanour plea deal, Faisal said.

His father had only wanted to “eat home-cooked food” and “be united with the rest of [his] family”, he added.

In a statement to Investigative Post, a Buffalo-based news outlet, a US Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson said agents dropped Shah Alam off at a coffee shop after agents determined he had entered the country as a refugee and could not be deported.

“Border Patrol agents offered him a courtesy ride, which he chose to accept to a coffee shop, determined to be a warm, safe location near his last known address, rather than be released directly from the Border Patrol station,” the agency said.

“He showed no signs of distress, mobility issues or disabilities requiring special assistance,” the spokesperson said.

Temperatures in Buffalo, a city near the Canadian border, were below freezing last weekend.

The death is being investigated by homicide detectives, the spokesperson from the Buffalo Police Department said, according to Reuters.

Shah Alam’s death comes as an immigration crackdown enforced by the administration of US President Donald Trump is facing increased scrutiny.

At least six immigrants have died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency custody since the beginning of this year.

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are set to appear before the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into the network of influence and crime run by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Both depositions are planned to take place in Chappaqua, New York, where the Clintons reside.

Here is what to know.

What is a Congressional deposition, and how does it work?

It’s a sworn, out-of-court testimony given as part of a congressional investigation.

The witnesses – in this case, the Clintons – will testify under oath, behind closed doors, and respond to questions from committee lawyers and investigators.

The session will be recorded and transcribed, and knowingly providing false statements can result in legal consequences.

In the Clintons’ case, they initially resisted testifying, arguing that the inquiry was politically motivated.

They ultimately agreed to appear after the House signalled it was prepared to move towards a bipartisan vote to hold them in contempt, a step that could have led to criminal charges.

“No one is accusing the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said. “We just have a lot of questions.”

When are the depositions taking place, and how did we end up here?

The depositions will take place near the Clintons’ house in Chappaqua, rather than on Capitol Hill.

Hillary is scheduled to testify on Thursday, February 26, followed by Bill Clinton on Friday, February 27.

Both depositions will be held behind closed doors, transcribed and filmed.

Congressional depositions are typically scheduled during normal business hours – often starting between 9-10am local time (14:00-15:00 GMT) – but the committee has not publicly confirmed times. Earlier, they had been ordered to appear at 10am (15:00 GMT) for previous iterations of the subpoena.

The agreement to testify follows months of tense exchanges between the Clintons and Representative James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee.

Former President Bill Clinton’s deposition was first requested for October 2025 and later rescheduled for December. He declined to appear, citing a funeral. A follow-up subpoena set a new date of January 13, 2026, but he did not attend.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 9, 2025, and later moved to December 18. A subsequent subpoena set January 14, 2026, as the new date, and she also did not appear.

The Clintons have argued that the subpoenas were legally invalid and accused Comer of targeting them as part of what they described as a broader campaign of political retribution aligned with former President Donald Trump.

But earlier this month, the Clintons not only agreed to the depositions but argued that they should be held publicly. This, they argued, would both demonstrate to viewers across the United States that they had nothing to hide, and minimise the politicisation of their testimonies by House Republicans.

The depositions come nearly three decades after then-President Bill Clinton sat for a six-hour videotaped deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, where she alleged Clinton made unwanted sexual advances towards her in 1991 when he was governor.

During that sworn testimony in 1998, Clinton was questioned not only about Jones’s allegations but also about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

He denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a statement that later led to accusations of perjury and ultimately to his impeachment by the House of Representatives.

What is the House Oversight Committee investigating?

In this case, the House Oversight Committee is examining matters related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his network of associates.

Epstein was an American financier and convicted sex offender who used his vast wealth and high-profile social connections to orchestrate a decade-long sex trafficking ring involving dozens of underage girls.

In 2019, federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking minors, alleging he had operated a scheme in which underage girls were recruited and abused at his properties. He died in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial; authorities ruled his death a suicide.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton in connection with Epstein. However, scrutiny intensified after Bill Clinton was mentioned in a major batch of unsealed Epstein-related court documents released in early 2024.

Public attention was renewed again in late 2025 and early 2026, when additional records were made public under federal transparency measures, prompting new political pressure and helping set the stage for the current congressional inquiry.

The House Oversight Committee says it’s conducting a multifaceted investigation primarily centred around the activities of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Specifically, the Committee is investigating the following areas:

• The alleged mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime associate of Epstein, who is currently in jail facing trial.

• The circumstances and subsequent investigations of Epstein’s death while in federal custody.
• The operation of sex-trafficking rings, with a focus on discovering ways for the federal government to effectively combat them.
• The ways in which Epstein and Maxwell sought to curry favour and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities from scrutiny.
• Potential violations of ethics rules related to current and former elected officials.

Committee leaders say the information gathered could inform potential legislative reforms, including stricter anti–sex trafficking measures, tougher ethical standards for public officials and changes to how non-prosecution or plea agreements are used in sex-crime cases.

What was Bill Clinton’s known connection to Jeffrey Epstein?

Bill Clinton has acknowledged that he knew Epstein in the early 2000s.

Flight logs and court documents show that Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times.

A CNN analysis found that he appeared on the flight logs at least 16 times between 2002 and 2003.

The former president has said the trips were tied to work for the Clinton Foundation.

He said he met Epstein through mutual acquaintances and maintained that their interactions were limited to those trips and related meetings.

In a 2019 statement following Epstein’s arrest, Clinton said he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal conduct at the time and had not spoken to him for years before his arrest.

Court documents unsealed in 2024 referenced Clinton but did not allege criminal wrongdoing. Additional records released later included photographs showing Clinton with Epstein and Maxwell, also showing a swimming pool in one of Epstein’s residences.

Is Hillary Clinton alleged to have had any direct connection to Epstein?

There is no public evidence that Hillary Clinton had a direct relationship with Epstein or was involved in his activities.

According to a report by USA Today, her name appears more than 700 times in the Epstein files, with the majority being news articles about her 2016 presidential campaign that were shared with Epstein.

She has insisted that she never met Epstein.

She has also been questioned about her connection with Maxwell, primarily in the context of large events like the Clinton Global Initiative.

Clinton said in an interview with the BBC on February 17 that she met Maxwell “on a few occasions”.

Maxwell was reported to have also attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010.