Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has ignited a fresh wave of controversy in the long-running saga surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose 2008 plea deal has been the subject of speculation for more than a decade. Speaking candidly on the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast on October 1, 2025, Lutnick claimed that Epstein secured his unusually lenient sentence by providing prosecutors with compromising video footage of high-profile clients participating in his sex trafficking operation. This assertion directly challenges the official stance taken by FBI Director Kash Patel, who, just weeks earlier, told Congress there is "no credible evidence" that Epstein trafficked women to anyone but himself.
Lutnick, a New York native and current member of the Trump administration, lived next door to Epstein for a decade. His only visit to Epstein’s Manhattan home left him unsettled. As he recounted to podcast host Miranda Devine, "I say to him, ‘Massage table in the middle of your house? How often do you have a massage?’ And he says, ‘Every day.’ And then he gets, like, weirdly close to me, and he says, ‘And the right kind of massage.’" Lutnick said the encounter was so off-putting that he never returned to his neighbor’s home.
According to Lutnick, the presence of the massage table was more than just an eccentricity. He suspects it was central to Epstein’s methods of entrapment and blackmail. "They get a massage, that’s what his M.O. was. ‘Get a massage, get a massage,’ and what happened in that massage room, I assume, was on video," Lutnick theorized. "This guy was the greatest blackmailer ever. That’s how he had money." He went so far as to suggest that many of Epstein’s high-powered associates—people whose names have circulated in the press for years—"participated" in these massages and were likely recorded.
Pod Force One host Miranda Devine pressed Lutnick, asking how figures like Microsoft founder Bill Gates could be so closely connected to Epstein and not notice his predatory behavior. Lutnick’s answer was blunt: "They participated." He implied that the silence from many in Epstein’s orbit was not ignorance but self-preservation, a fear of being exposed by the very evidence Epstein may have traded for leniency.
Lutnick’s claims have poured gasoline on the already smoldering suspicions about Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement with Florida prosecutors. The deal, orchestrated by then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, saw Epstein plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of soliciting a minor for prostitution. Despite evidence suggesting far more extensive criminal activity, Epstein received just an 18-month jail sentence—of which he served only 13 months. Even more galling to critics, Epstein was allowed work release, letting him leave jail for 12 hours a day, six days a week.
"I assume way back when they traded those videos in exchange for him getting that 18-month sentence, which allowed him to have visits and be out of jail," Lutnick speculated. "I mean, he’s a serial sex offender. How could he get 18 months and be able to go to his office during the day and have visitors and stuff? There must have been a trade." Such suspicions have long haunted the Epstein case, fueling conspiracy theories and calls for further investigation into the full extent of his crimes and connections.
Yet, in marked contrast, FBI Director Kash Patel has maintained that no such evidence exists. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 16, 2025, Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) pressed Patel on whether the FBI had any credible information linking Epstein’s trafficking activities to other individuals. Patel was unequivocal: "There is no credible information, none—if there were I would bring the case yesterday—that he trafficked to other individuals." When asked again if the answer was "no one," Patel replied, "For the information that we have… in the case file." He added, "I am not saying that others were not trafficked and others were not involved. What I am telling you is that based on the information that we have… we have released all credible information. I know that’s not going to satisfy many, many, many people."
Patel also noted that the original search warrants issued by Alex Acosta’s office were "limited" and did not include names, which may have restricted the evidence collected at the time. This limitation, he suggested, could be one reason why the FBI’s files do not implicate other high-profile individuals, despite years of speculation and media coverage linking Epstein to a so-called "rolodex" of powerful friends—including former President Donald Trump.
For years, the question of who else might have been involved in Epstein’s activities has loomed large. The leniency of his 2008 plea deal, combined with his connections to politicians, business leaders, and celebrities, has led many to believe that the full story remains hidden. Lutnick’s comments have now reignited those suspicions, suggesting that the silence around Epstein’s network is less about lack of evidence and more about self-protection. "And what happened in that massage room, I assume, was on video," he repeated. "This guy was the greatest blackmailer ever, blackmailed people. That’s how he had money."
Still, the official record remains unchanged. Patel’s testimony before Congress is clear: "If there were" credible evidence that Epstein trafficked girls to friends or associates, "I would bring the case yesterday." For now, the FBI insists that all credible information has been released, and no new prosecutions are forthcoming based on current evidence.
The clash between Lutnick’s personal account and the FBI’s official position lays bare a deep divide in how the Epstein case is understood by the public and those in power. On one side, there are those like Lutnick who believe Epstein’s influence and immunity were bought with blackmail and silence. On the other, law enforcement officials who say that, despite years of searching, no hard evidence has emerged to implicate others in Epstein’s crimes.
As the debate continues, the Epstein case remains a symbol of how wealth, power, and secrecy can frustrate the search for truth. With new claims surfacing and the official record unchanged, the mystery persists—leaving both critics and defenders of the current investigation unsatisfied, and the public still searching for answers.
