The release last Friday by the Department of Justice of approximately 3 million documents concerning the investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has triggered a surreal round of finger-pointing among the ultra-wealthy.
For decades, Epstein leveraged his immense fortune and connections to commit horrific crimes on a massive scale while receiving only token punishment. These newly publicized records deepen our understanding of his social sphere, which was disproportionately populated by plutocrats.
Key figures include the current Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who previously downplayed his ties to Epstein; Bill Gates, whose association with the predator contributed significantly to the end of his marriage; PayPal’s Peter Thiel; LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman; and Tesla’s Elon Musk, who, like Lutnick, misled the public regarding the frequency of his interactions with Epstein.
Every one of these men maintained contact with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction and imprisonment for soliciting prostitution from a minor; in some cases, these connections involved substantial business or charitable entanglements. With these scandalous associations now resurfacing, these oligarchs are frantically attacking one another to deflect attention from their own hypocrisy.
When Hoffman took to X—the platform Musk owns—to declare, “We should focus on prosecuting those who committed crimes and finally getting justice for the victims,” Musk retorted with sarcasm: “While you’re at it, maybe you can help OJ ‘find the real killer’.” Hoffman responded by posting a screenshot of a 2012 email in which Musk asked Epstein for an invitation to his private island, famously inquiring, “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?”
This sordid back-and-forth between Hoffman and Musk displays the emotional maturity of playground squabbles. However, the reality is that no member of Epstein’s social orbit deserves to evade scrutiny. Even if they did not personally participate in criminal acts, their continued association signaled, at a minimum, a willingness to tolerate Epstein’s depravity.
The Epstein archives offer a revealing glimpse into the ecosystem of the political and financial elite, and the view is grotesque. It becomes clear that Epstein’s circle ignored standard political boundaries.
While Gates and Hoffman represent centrist liberalism, Thiel, Lutnick, and Musk are staunch right-wingers. Yet, their partisan disagreements pale in comparison to their shared solidarity as members of the ruling class—a reality underscored by the fact that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were close associates of Epstein.
The documents also expose Epstein as a genuine nihilist who found pleasure not only in sexual abuse but also in profiting from global instability. A 2016 conversation between Epstein and Thiel is particularly illuminating:
Epstein: brexit, just the beginning.
Thiel: Of what?
Epstein: return to tribalism, counter to globalization. Amazing new alliances. You and I both agreed zero interest rates were too high, and as i said in your office. finding things on their way to collapse , was much easier than finding the next bargain
In a 2014 message to a banking executive, Epstein mused that “ukraine upheaval should provide many opportunities, many.” That same year, he messaged his business partner, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, asking, “with civil unrest exploding in ukraine syria, somolia [sic], libya, and the desperation of those in power, isn’t this perfect for you.”
As I have suggested previously, Epstein operated like a modern-day warlord, utilizing the “shock doctrine”—a concept famously defined by Naomi Klein. He flourished by encouraging turmoil, a trait that aligned him closely with the world’s wealthiest individuals, who frequently extract immense profit from human suffering.
Certain public figures are rightly connecting Epstein’s specific criminality to the broader moral failings of the billionaire class. During a CNN appearance on Tuesday, Senator Bernie Sanders offered a sharp assessment of the situation: “There is a growing sense that you have a small number of elite, of very, very rich people who hang out with each other, who really see themselves as above the law.”
However, Sanders’s blunt class critique is not universally embraced. A notable faction within the Democratic Party opposes framing the issue in such stark terms. Matt Yglesias, a leading voice of this group, argued against class antagonism in a December Substack piece titled “Let’s All Practice Billionaire Positivity.”
Yglesias contended that resenting billionaires is “emotionally and intellectually unhealthy” because they build successful enterprises like Amazon and Tesla. He further argued that many are Democrats or philanthropists, citing Republican donor Bruce Kovner’s support for “Success Academy… Juilliard and Lincoln Center” as evidence that “Many billionaires are doing great things.”
This defense of the “good billionaire” fails on several levels. First, the success of companies like Amazon and Tesla relies not just on their owners, but on the workers who deserve fair wages and a share of the profits; equitable distribution requires labor organization and political courage, not top-down charity.
Furthermore, a billionaire’s benevolence lasts only as long as their mood allows. Focusing on individual virtue overlooks the structural power billionaires wield to rig the economic system in their favor. Unlike the democratic safety net, their charity is whimsical.
Jeff Bezos provides a stark example: once praised for saving The Washington Post in 2013 and supporting robust journalism, he recently pivoted to appease Donald Trump, choosing to slash the paper’s staff by nearly a third. What is given voluntarily can be revoked arbitrarily. A billionaire is always a plutocrat first and a citizen second; without strong regulations to curb their power, the rest of us remain at the mercy of figures like Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful friends.