On September 17 and 18, 2025, a storm of controversy erupted in Washington as new details emerged about the FBI’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation—and the alleged existence of a secret client list implicating some of the world’s most powerful figures. Republican lawmaker Thomas Massie took center stage during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, declaring that the FBI possesses a list of at least 20 suspected Epstein clients. According to Massie, this list—compiled from witness statements and evidence gathered by the FBI—includes a Hollywood producer worth hundreds of millions, a royal prince, a prominent banker, a high-profile government official, a former politician, a car company owner from Italy, a rock star, a magician, and at least six billionaires, including one from Canada. The suggestion that such a list exists has reignited long-held suspicions and fueled demands for transparency.
Yet, in the same hearing, FBI Director Kash Patel steadfastly denied that any “client list” exists. Under oath, Patel insisted there was no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to anyone but himself, a claim that left many in Congress unsatisfied. “We know these people exist in the FBI files, the files that you control,” Massie told Patel, referencing documents used by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Patel maintained, “Any investigations that arise from any credible investigation will be brought. There have been no new materials brought to me.”
The divide between lawmakers and the FBI widened when Patel was questioned by Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, about whether former President Donald Trump appeared on the alleged client list. Patel’s response was evasive: “The index has been released and the index will speak for itself.” Lieu immediately seized on the ambiguity, telling America, “This is a huge red flag.” The FBI director’s inability to confirm or deny Trump’s presence on the list only deepened public suspicion, especially given Trump’s past friendship with Epstein. In a 2002 profile for New York magazine, Trump described Epstein as “a terrific guy” and remarked, “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
The controversy over the client list is only the latest chapter in the long and troubled saga of the Epstein case. The roots of today’s scandal stretch back to 2008, when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta brokered a plea deal that granted Epstein federal immunity. Under the agreement, Epstein pleaded guilty in state court to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor under 18. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail but served only 13, most of it under a work-release program that allowed him to leave during the day. The deal also gave immunity to four co-conspirators and an unspecified number of others, effectively shielding them from prosecution. According to a 2020 Justice Department investigation, Acosta used “poor judgement” in resolving the case so leniently.
Patel, who has previously advocated for the release of the Epstein files, blamed Acosta for what he called the “Original Sin” of the case. “The original sin in the Epstein case was the way it was initially brought by Mr. Acosta,” Patel told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Mr. Acosta allowed Epstein to enter—in 2008—to plea to a non-prosecution agreement which then the courts issued mandates and protective orders legally prohibiting anyone from ever seeing that material ever again without the permission of the court. The non-prosecution also barred future prosecutions of those involved at that time.”
Though a judge later ruled the Epstein deal illegal, the courts ultimately decided it was too late to undo the arrangement. The deal’s provisions, however, did not prevent federal prosecutors in New York from bringing new charges against Epstein in 2019, following an explosive series of reports by the Miami Herald. Epstein was arrested on July 6, 2019, on federal sex trafficking charges. Just one month later, he was found dead in his jail cell. The New York medical examiner ruled his death a suicide, though Epstein’s family and lawyers have publicly questioned that conclusion. Former Attorney General William Barr, testifying before Congress, said he was confident Epstein’s death was a suicide and dismissed rumors of intelligence ties as “dubious.”
The Miami Herald’s investigation also uncovered evidence that Epstein and his high-powered legal team—including Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz—exerted undue influence over both state and federal prosecutors. Emails revealed that Epstein’s lawyers made repeated demands and that prosecutors acquiesced at every step. The lead prosecutor in Florida, Marie Villafaña, drafted a 53-page indictment in 2007 accusing Epstein of sex trafficking minors, but higher-ups blocked the prosecution. In a further twist, eleven months of Acosta’s emails during the crucial period of plea negotiations vanished due to what federal investigators described as a “technical glitch.”
The fallout from the Epstein case has been far-reaching. Acosta, once a rising star in the Republican Party, resigned as U.S. labor secretary in 2019 amid renewed scrutiny. He has largely retreated from public life, surfacing occasionally on Newsmax TV to discuss economic issues. Meanwhile, Epstein’s longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted in 2021 of luring girls to Epstein between 1994 and 2004 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Prosecutors said Maxwell “helped him and made the abuse possible,” with Epstein sexually abusing children hundreds of times over more than a decade, exploiting girls as young as 14.
Despite the plea deal’s secrecy provisions, the demand for accountability continues to mount. On Friday, Acosta is scheduled to testify behind closed doors before the House Oversight Committee for the first time since his resignation. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are expected to press him on why the plea deal was struck, who benefited from its sweeping immunity, and whether any further evidence has been suppressed. The enduring secrecy surrounding the client list—and the FBI’s refusal to confirm its existence—has only fueled public suspicion that powerful individuals remain protected from scrutiny.
As the hearings continue, the Epstein case remains a potent symbol of how wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering can subvert justice. With new revelations surfacing and old wounds reopened, the public’s demand for transparency has never been louder. The question now is whether the truth about Epstein’s clients will ever fully come to light, or if it will remain, as it has for years, just out of reach.
