Lead: Newly released Department of Justice files show federal investigators examined Les Wexner’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein over decades, probing whether the billionaire retail magnate had knowledge of or involvement in Epstein’s sex-trafficking network. The records, disclosed in a large DOJ production and reviewed by news outlets, include references to subpoenas, interviews and allegations dating back to the 1990s and up through the 2019 investigation. Lawmakers have reacted by summoning Wexner, now 88, for a deposition with the House Oversight Committee in Ohio as questions about his role and the scope of evidence remain in the public record. Officials say Wexner has not been charged and has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.
Key Takeaways
- The DOJ files include hundreds of references to Les Wexner, showing FBI inquiries and requests for information from 2007 through 2019.
- Investigators subpoenaed Wexner in 2019 and listed him in a mid‑August 2019 FBI document among eight named “co‑conspirators,” though one memo called the evidence of his involvement “limited.”
- Epstein obtained power of attorney over Wexner’s finances in 1991 and later settled with Wexner in 2008 for $100 million after Wexner’s family alleged misappropriation.
- Victims and third‑party tips in the files allege interactions between Wexner and young women in Epstein’s presence; Wexner has denied ever participating in or witnessing abuse.
- Congressional depositions and subpoenas are underway; Wexner is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee in Ohio.
- Key investigative milestones preserved in the files include a 2008 state plea by Epstein (13 months jailed under a non‑prosecution agreement) and the 2019 federal indictment that reopened probes into his network.
Background
Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner’s connection dates to the 1980s, when Epstein was introduced as a financial adviser to the then‑CEO of Limited Brands as Wexner expanded the Victoria’s Secret empire. A federal memo in the DOJ production says Epstein gained extensive control over Wexner’s personal finances after receiving power of attorney in 1991. According to the memo, Epstein later sold himself a New York home and a private plane that had been Wexner’s at prices described as deeply discounted.
Public scrutiny intensified after a mid‑2000s Florida investigation into Epstein, which culminated in a 2008 state plea deal that allowed Epstein to serve 13 months in county jail under a controversial non‑prosecution agreement. Wexner’s family lawyers later concluded Epstein had misappropriated “several hundred million dollars,” and Epstein agreed to return $100 million to Wexner as part of a settlement the same year. Despite that settlement and Wexner’s reported effort to sever ties, the DOJ files show the FBI continued to collect tips and interview witnesses about the Wexner–Epstein relationship for years afterward.
Main Event
The recent DOJ production, part of a broader release of documents tied to the Epstein investigations, contains multiple references to Wexner that were not always visible in earlier redacted releases. Investigators sought to determine whether Wexner knew of Epstein’s payments to young women or had been present when illicit activity occurred, and prosecutors placed him among people they wanted to interview during the 2019 federal case.
In 2019, the FBI and federal prosecutors issued subpoenas and interviewed attorneys connected to Wexner; internal notes from that year list him as a “secondary” co‑conspirator while cautioning the evidence of involvement was limited. The same year, the FBI received tips from individuals claiming to have seen Wexner and Epstein together around young women, and a 2019 affidavit included an allegation that an assault occurred at a property near Wexner’s Ohio residence.
Wexner has repeatedly denied the allegations. His legal team told prosecutors he was unaware of illegal sexual behavior by Epstein, and a spokesperson in the newly released files said Wexner was neither a target nor a co‑conspirator in the 2019 inquiry. Despite those denials, members of Congress have pursued further testimony and financial records; the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Wexner for a deposition aimed at following the money that enabled Epstein’s abuses.
Analysis & Implications
The files reframe public understanding of how deeply federal authorities scrutinized individuals in Epstein’s orbit beyond Epstein himself. Listing Wexner in a 2019 co‑conspirator document — even with caveats about limited evidence — signals prosecutors considered him relevant to understanding Epstein’s financial and social network. That designation prompted renewed congressional interest, which could produce new disclosures about asset transfers, business relationships and whether any enablers benefited from or concealed illegal conduct.
For Wexner personally, long‑standing financial entanglements with Epstein complicate a simple narrative of a businessman who severed ties in 2008. The 1991 power of attorney gave Epstein significant control over Wexner’s finances, and subsequent discovery by Wexner’s family of large misappropriations helps explain the magnitude of the 2008 settlement. Still, settlement and civil remedies are distinct from criminal culpability; DOJ memos in the files stop short of asserting criminal charges against Wexner.
Politically, the release of records and congressional subpoenas risks becoming a flashpoint between lawmakers who say redactions obscured a broader accountability effort and officials who defend the prior handling of evidence. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie framed the disclosures as a cover‑up at a House hearing, while Trump‑era and other officials have publicly pushed back on claims that the government suppressed evidence of trafficking to other men. The tension may shape further oversight hearings and could influence whether prosecutors or civil litigants pursue fresh legal actions.
Comparison & Data
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1980s | Epstein introduced to Wexner as financial adviser |
| 1991 | Epstein obtains power of attorney over Wexner’s finances |
| 2008 | Epstein pleads guilty to state charges; serves 13 months; $100M settlement to Wexner |
| 2019 | Federal indictment of Epstein; Wexner subpoenaed; listed among eight co‑conspirators in FBI doc |
| 2026 | DOJ file release reviewed by press; Wexner scheduled for House deposition |
The table summarizes key public milestones tied to the Wexner–Epstein relationship preserved in the documents. While financial settlements and civil assertions are recorded, the DOJ memos and FBI notes emphasize investigative steps rather than criminal findings against Wexner. That distinction matters for prosecutors, litigants and legislators parsing whether further criminal or civil actions are warranted.
Reactions & Quotes
Lawmakers and officials offered contrasting interpretations as the files came to light, underscoring political and prosecutorial fault lines.
“This is bigger than Watergate,”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R)
Rep. Massie used strong language at a House hearing to criticize DOJ redactions and urged fuller transparency; critics of his framing say the comparison overstates the available evidence and conflates redaction policy with substantive exoneration or guilt.
“He was neither a co‑conspirator nor target in any respect,”
Wexner spokesperson (paraphrased)
Wexner’s representatives have emphasized cooperation with investigators and pointed to legal filings asserting his lack of knowledge about Epstein’s crimes; Wexner’s team also disputes specific allegations in the released tips and memos.
“There was no credible information that Epstein trafficked victims to other men,”
FBI Director Kash Patel (Sept., public testimony)
Trump‑era and other officials have publicly contested suggestions of institutional concealment; at the same time, the DOJ release prompted renewed calls from Democrats for more complete accounting of investigative choices and evidence handling.
Unconfirmed
- The authenticity and provenance of an undated Epstein letter mentioning shared “gang stuff” with a person named Les remain unclear; Wexner’s spokesperson said he never received it.
- Several third‑party tips allege sexual activity involving Wexner and young women, but the files contain limited corroborating evidence tying him to criminal acts.
- Claims that specific assaults occurred inside Wexner’s primary residence are reported in affidavits and tips but lack independently verified documentation in the public record.
Bottom Line
The DOJ production deepens the public record about how investigators examined Les Wexner’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein but does not deliver a prosecutorial finding that Wexner committed crimes. The files document subpoenas, interviews and tips that kept Wexner within investigators’ ambit — and they show both concrete financial disputes and largely unverified allegations about social encounters.
Congressional depositions and oversight actions now aim to clarify remaining gaps: who knew what, when financial transfers occurred, and whether any individuals enabled or profited from Epstein’s abuse. For readers, the crucial distinction is between documented investigative steps and unresolved allegations; ongoing testimony and potential further disclosures will determine whether the publicly released files point toward new legal exposure or simply illuminate a complex financial and social relationship.