‘Fox guarding the henhouse’: AMA, Vaccine Integrity Project to conduct their own vaccine safety and efficacy reviews
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 11, 2026
The American Medical Association (AMA) is teaming up with the Vaccine Integrity Project to conduct its own review of vaccine safety and efficacy, claiming that advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are no longer doing a good enough job.
The groups said Wednesday in a press release that “for decades,” the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) had “served as the engine of evidence-based vaccine policy” for the U.S. “That system has now effectively collapsed.”
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard told The Defender the claim that ACIP’s evidence-based process has collapsed is “categorically false.” She said:
“ACIP continues to remain the nation’s advisory body for vaccine use recommendations driven by gold standard science. While outside organizations continue to conduct their own analyses and confuse the American people, those efforts do not replace or supersede the federal process that continues to guide vaccine policy in the United States.”
The Vaccine Integrity Project, based at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), says it is dedicated to “safeguarding vaccine use in the U.S.”
The AMA will work with the project to review vaccines for the 2026-2027 respiratory virus season. These include immunizations against COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), according to the press release.
CIDRAP Director Michael Osterholm said in a statement that the goal is “to restore peace of mind for clinicians and patients by ensuring that experts are continuously evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness using transparent, evidence-based methods.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said it’s unlikely that the groups will restore people’s peace of mind about vaccines. She said:
“Unfortunately, the AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project support a narrative about vaccines that is being exposed more and more as problematic and contradicted by what people are seeing with their own eyes.
“The system is broken and efforts to prop it up from the inside are being exposed for conflicts of interest and flawed analyses.”
The groups’ review process looks similar to how the ACIP traditionally worked, but they won’t issue recommendations. Instead, they will share their review results with medical societies, which can write recommendations for their patient demographic.
The AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project said they will also involve medical societies and public health and healthcare organizations to craft policy questions.
Review members will disclose “relevant” conflicts of interest, according to the press release. However, “relevant” was left undefined.
The AMA and Vaccine Integrity Project said in a statement:
“The goal of this work is to ensure a deliberative, evidence-driven approach to produce the data necessary to understand the risks and benefits of vaccine policy decisions for all populations — the approach traditionally used by the federal government.”
The effort may generate more confusion among Americans who are torn between looking to the federal government or medical societies for vaccine guidance, according to Trial Site News.
“The country is no longer operating with a single, uncontested center of vaccine-policy gravity,” Trial Site News wrote.
‘Like asking the fox to guard the henhouse’
The Vaccine Integrity Project, launched in April 2025, is funded by an unrestricted gift from iAlumbra, a nonprofit founded by Walmart heiress and philanthropist Christy Walton.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Greenwall Foundation and Lasker Foundation are also listed among the project’s funders.
The Vaccine Integrity Project declined The Defender’s request for a list of donation amounts and names of any individual donors.
Former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky serves as the Vaccine Integrity Project’s adviser of medical affairs. In 2022, Walensky admitted the CDC gave false information about COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.
Already, the Vaccine Integrity Project released a review of the hepatitis B vaccine that supported vaccinating all newborns at birth, rather than delaying when the mother has tested negative for hepatitis B. The project is currently reviewing the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
“Trusting the AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project to objectively review vaccine safety feels a lot like asking the fox to guard the henhouse,” said Nebraska chiropractor Ben Tapper.
Mack Rosenberg said the repeated failures of such organizations to “truly and comprehensively” analyze vaccine safety data have led to “increasing distrust among the public — and with good reason.”
AMA ‘a political force,’ not a ‘neutral medical association’
In 2025, the AMA spent nearly $24 million on lobbying, making it one of the top 10 groups trying to influence government policy, according to OpenSecrets.
“This is not the behavior of a neutral medical association. It is the strategy of a political force,” wrote Jason Altmire in an op-ed for RealClearHealth.
Altmire, a former hospital and health insurance executive who served in the U.S. House of Representatives, is an adjunct professor of healthcare management at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.
Tapper questioned whether the AMA and the Vaccine Integrity Project would sufficiently assess the safety of vaccines.
For many people, the concern isn’t that vaccines can have benefits, he said. “The concern is whether safety data is fully transparent, whether adverse event reporting is thoroughly investigated, whether conflicts of interest are disclosed and whether risk-benefit analyses are stratified appropriately by age and health status.”
The AMA, which touted 2024 revenues of $546 million, was criticized during the COVID-19 pandemic for deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.
Its “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation” encouraged doctors to use certain words and avoid others. For instance, “stay-at-home order” replaced “lockdown,” and “deaths” replaced “hospitalization rates.”
The AMA in August 2025 was disinvited from the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee’s workgroups.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Keir Starmer-tied think tank paid PR firm to target The Grayzone
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | February 16, 2026
Leaked files have revealed that Labour Together, the shadowy think tank run by disgraced former top Keir Starmer aide Morgan McSweeney, paid the Washington DC-based corporate intelligence firm APCO Worldwide to spy on journalists who reported on their corrupt handling of campaign finances.
The reporters named appear to have been targeted for their efforts to investigate how the UK’s Labour Party elites spent 730,000 pounds in undeclared donations to install Starmer as their leader.
The files show APCO used those funds to oversee the fabrication of a dodgy, evidence-free dossier claiming that Russia was behind damaging disclosures about Labour Together, which it submitted to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) of Britain’s GCHQ — London’s equivalent to the US National Security Agency.
The “significant persons of interest” listed in APCO’s McCarthyite casebook included The Grayzone and myself.
According to my APCO dossier, “While a self described ‘investigative journalist,’ he is an author for the Gray Zone. The site has been described as a ‘conspiracy blog’ and ‘Wagner propaganda channel.’ In 2023,” the dossier reads, I “was arrested by counter-terror police after [I] arrived in the UK.”
APCO bills itself as “a trusted and strategic advisor… that drive[s] our clients’ missions and objectives forward.” Despite its massive contract with Labour Together, the files show the PR firm struggled to identify its targets, and proved unable to establish the most basic facts about them.
When APCO branded The Grayzone as “Wagner propaganda,” it seemed to have confused us with “Grey Zone,” an entirely unrelated and now-defunct Telegram channel affiliated with the Russian military contractor. APCO also claimed I was “arrested by counter-terrorism police” in May 2023 upon returning to Britain. In fact, I had been detained, not arrested.
APCO also targeted journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul Holden, who led investigations into Labour Together’s potentially criminal activities, based on leaks and Freedom of Information requests. The PR firm had sought to secure “leverage” over Holden in order to sabotage his work.
The spying scandal began in November 2023, when Britain’s Sunday Times revealed that Keir Starmer’s campaign manager, Morgan McSweeney, had failed to declare £730,000 in campaign donations which he diverted to advance Starmer’s rise to Labour leadership. One month later, APCO prepared a memo for Labour Together outlining a strategy to blame the damaging disclosure on Russian hackers and attack the journalists who dared to publish details of the offending documents.
The story was given new life in February 2026, when British journalist Peter Geoghehan exposed a secret contract showing Labour Together paid APCO £30,000 to investigate the journalists it blamed for exposing its legally questionable activities.
It has now gone mainstream, with the Sunday Times publishing a lengthy report branding the Labour operation as a “dirty smear” based on a “lie” about Russian hacking.
However, the Times article omitted any mention of this reporter or The Grayzone, even though we were prominently targeted by Labour Together. In the following investigation, we explain why The Grayzone was targeted, tracing the origins of the slimy spying operation to a network of Labourite operatives who have sought to destroy us since well before Starmer came to power.
“Familiar with masters of the same drivers”
Labour Together was founded in 2015 by McSweeney, Starmer’s longtime svengali. After several failed campaigns for establishment candidates, McSweeney managed to transform his organization into a propaganda juggernaut, soliciting large donations from the UK Israel lobby’s most significant moneyman, Trevor Chinn.
While presenting his campaigning outfit as a plucky little think tank, he wielded it against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the movement behind him. To neutralize the ecosystem of alternative media outlets supporting Corbyn as Labour leader, Labour Together contracted a political operative named Imran Ahmed to spin out a censorship front called “Stop Funding Fake News.”
After weaponizing dubious charges of antisemitism to defund one of the most influential pro-Corbyn outlets, Canary UK, the organization folded, then resurfaced as the much bolder Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Based inside the office of Labour Together, CCDH relied on the funding from Chinn and, as The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal revealed, secretly coordinated with the Israeli embassy in Washington.
McSweeney entered Downing Street as Starmer’s Chief of Staff just one month before Trump’s re-election. Among his most important tasks was repairing relations with the US President. At the time, Trump’s aides were bristling over reports that McSweeney met with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris during the Democratic National Convention to plot strategy. One of Trump’s top donors, the transhumanist mega-billionaire Elon Musk, also had his knives out for McSweeney after journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker revealed that CCDH’s top priority for 2024 was to “kill Elon Musk’s Twitter.”
McSweeney’s solution was to dispatch one of Labour’s most seasoned – and scandal-stained – fixers to Washington. He was Lord Peter Mandelson, the architect of the neoliberal New Labour wave whose notoriously transactional tendencies seemed to make him the perfect match for Trump. Mandelson made himself a fixture at Butterworth’s, a favorite Capitol Hill haunt of MAGA operatives, and insinuated himself into Trumpist social circles.
In June 2025, the restaurant erected a plaque honoring Mandelson during a ceremony overseen by Raheem Kassam, a close associate of former Trump chief of staff Steve Bannon. There, a mirthful Mandelson raised a toast and proclaimed a special kinship with the MAGA elite: “Although we don’t have identical politics, we are familiar with masters of the same drivers that brought our respective figures to power — President Trump in your case and Keir Starmer in mine.”
But Mandelson was also dogged by the same sex trafficking figure who constantly inhabited the personal lives of both Trump and Bannon: Jeffrey Epstein. Both McSweeney and Starmer had been keenly aware of the ambassador’s friendship with Epstein, but they dismissed the concerns, even ignoring a warning from UK security services.
However, when a series of emails confirming Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein poured forth as part of a release by the US Department of Justice, the ambassador’s position became untenable. Following his firing in September 2025, a new tranche of emails published this January provided an even more damning portrait of their friendship. They showed, for instance, that Epstein channeled money to Mandelson’s husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, for a specious initiative which was never completed. Even worse, the communications exposed Mandelson providing Epstein with advance notice of the impending collapse of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government in 2010, as well as sensitive information about the UK’s “saleable assets.”
McSweeney’s scheming had finally caught up with him. Though Starmer initially praised and defended his longtime campaign guru in parliament, he caved soon after, forcing McSweeney to resign his post on February 8.
In the days since, Starmer has been unable to fill the vacancy. Meanwhile, another senior Labour official is reportedly considering leaving his role as well. Amid the chaos, British media has begun to speculate that the Prime Minister will be next to go.
Will the revelation of Labour Together’s media enemies list, and its secret contract with APCO, be the weight that finally sinks Starmer?
Labour Together’s misdirection ploy: blame Russia
McSweeney was aware that Labour Together had secretly contracted APCO to spy on journalists; however, he didn’t carry out the dirty work himself. That job appears to have been commissioned by his successor at the think tank, Josh Simons, who’s now a senior minister in Starmer’s government.
Simons has dismissed reports that the PR firm was tasked with spying on reporters as “nonsense,” insisting that APCO was merely “asked to look into a suspected illegal hack.” Simons’ disingenuous claims are undermined by newly-leaked documents related to the probe, however.
Perhaps most damning is a December 2023 memo prepared by APCO for Labour Together which shows investigators fretting about “recent articles and blog posts” which threatened to draw attention to the political group’s questionable funding schemes. Information published by these meddling journalists, particularly Paul Holden, “[raised] concern about the source of his information and what more he may choose to publish in the future,” the memo continued.
It was therefore deemed “important to identify the source of the information and to ascertain what additional information could be published.” Labour Together tasked APCO with probing several journalists, dubbed “significant persons of interest.”
The memo speculated that Holden and others may have received leaks from inside Labour Together, Labour party headquarters, parliament, or “illegally-gathered information collected” from a purported “hack” of Britain’s Electoral Commission in 2023. APCO concluded it was “essential” for Labour Together to concoct a strategy to counter the critical reporting.
Its response was to blame the organization’s woes on a Russian hack. But rather than hiring a cyber-security firm to investigate the supposed data breach, it contracted a corporate intelligence firm to attack the messengers.
In February 2024, The Guardian contacted Holden to alert him that the paper was preparing a hit piece alleging he was under investigation by the NCSC for receiving illegally obtained information from Russia. The Guardian had clearly been influenced by briefings from Labour Together, as well as by APCO’s report. Yet the outlet backed off when Holden promised to sue them for defamation.
APCO is now under formal investigation for potential standards breaches by Britain’s Public Relations and Communication Association.
How did The Grayzone wind up on Labour Together’s enemies list?
It is unclear how and why I became a “significant person of interest” in APCO and Labour Together’s secret smear campaign. However, their operation dovetailed with another surreptitious attempt by intelligence-tied actors to smear The Grayzone as Russian agents.
I have never spoken to Paul Holden or other journalists named as the firm’s targets, or conducted any journalistic investigations into Labour Together’s corrupt financial dealings. When APCO initiated its probe, I had mentioned Labour Together in a single article months prior that focused on the organization’s censorship-obsessed spinoff, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Such sloppiness and paranoia is the hallmark of Amil Khan, a veteran British government psyops warrior turned “disinformation expert” involved with Labour Together and Starmer’s Labour.
Khan cut his teeth running covert British-funded psychological warfare operations during the Syrian dirty war, supporting violent extremist groups armed and financed by the CIA and MI6. He subsequently founded Valent Projects, which “specializes in addressing online manipulation.” Khan’s outfit produced a paper on social media ratfucking strategies for Labour Together entitled, “Power and Persuasion: Understanding the Right’s Playbook.”
In December 2021, The Grayzone exposed how Valent Projects covertly produced Covid vaccine propaganda funded by the British monarchy’s Royal Institute, using then-popular “BreadTube” personality Abigail Thorn as the front person for its campaign. The investigation apparently placed this outlet in the crosshairs of Khan and his information warfare network.
Less than a year later, The Grayzone exposed Khan again – this time, for his role in a covert conspiracy to destroy us. Enlisted by celebrity former leftist journalist Paul Mason, Khan helped coordinate a harebrained scheme to demonetize and deplatform The Grayzone. The pair discussed going “full nuclear legal to squeeze [The Grayzone] financially,” and proposed publishing intelligence agency-sourced smears to delegitimize this outlet.
As their revenge plot approached its paranoid apogee, Mason and Khan fantasized about hosting an anti-Grayzone summit with some of the most rabid, intelligence-tied opponents of our reporting. Among those they pitched for the gathering was Imran Ahmed, director of the censorship-obsessed Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which was founded by Morgan McSweeney and shared an office with his Labour Together.
While it is unknown if the anti-Grayzone summit ever took place, we have since learned that Mason enlisted a team of high-priced London lawyers to sue this outlet just days after our article exposing his secret smear campaign appeared. In May 2023, I was detained at the UK’s Luton International Airport and interrogated about The Grayzone’s activities by counter-terror police. Six months later, APCO initiated its covert investigation of me, The Grayzone, and others whose reporting had wound them up on the Labour Together enemies list.
APCO has so far remained silent about the scandal. The Grayzone has submitted a request for comment to Tom Short, the PR firm’s London chief. We received an automated response revealing he conveniently slipped away to the US. Upon Short’s return to Britain, APCO will no longer be able to hide behind bogus allegations of Russian hacking.
Munich Security Conference and the U.S. elephant in the room
Strategic Culture Foundation | February 13, 2026
Cosmetic cover-up of Western elite corruption and crimes is no longer possible.
The annual Munich Security Conference opens this weekend with the theme: “Under Destruction… The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics.”
The use of euphemism and blandishment is out in force this year as the Western elite gather in Bavaria.
However, absurdly, the conference, as usual, shies away from calling out the main source of global threat… the United States of America.
This is absurd but not surprising. Because the MSC has always been about rationalizing Western imperialist violence with the euphemistic spin of couching it as “security challenges”.
The Munich gathering is the world’s largest corporate conference on global security. It has been described variously as “Davos with guns” and “the Oscars for security policy experts”. The forum began meeting in 1963 and is dominated by Western perspectives, closely aligned with Western governments, the NATO military alliance, and think tanks like the Washington-based Atlantic Council, the London-based Chatham House, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Soros’ Open Society.
Sponsors of the MSC event include Western weapons manufacturers, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Rheinmetall, as well as Wall Street and European banks, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Commerzbank, and Big Tech like Microsoft and Palantir.
It is thus a conclave of Western global elites who come together in Bavaria every year to work out policies and arrangements to expedite the domination of the planet by Western capital. One might well ask: “Security for whom?”
This year, the global elites are facing acute problems arising from two sources: the fallout from the Epstein transnational pedophile network that has implicated the entire Western ruling class in systematic corruption and sordid, horrific crimes of sex trafficking children for the heinous gratification of the elite.
As with much of the Western establishment’s response to the Epstein scandal, the order of the conference will be an attempt to cover it up, if it is even mentioned.
The second source of acute challenge is the descent into rampant imperialist violence by the United States. This is not merely a symptom of Donald Trump as the 47th president in the White House. The descent into barbarism has been underway for decades. It has only accelerated under Trump (a partying friend of Epstein) as the U.S. moves desperately to shore up its declining global hegemony. That desperation is motivated by the emergence of a more equitable multipolar world and the inherent failing of American-led Western capitalism. The existential struggle for preserving U.S. domination has resulted in an explosion of international violence and lawlessness, which also threatens the privileges of supposed American allies.
A survey of barbarism under Trump over the past year includes:
- Bombing Iran and ongoing threats to annihilate the country
- Attacking Venezuela and kidnapping its president, Nicolás Maduro
- Seizing oil tankers from Russia and China in international waters
- Blockading Cuba and shutting down vital public utilities
- Continuous bombing of Somalia; at least 30 times in 2026 alone
- Bombing Nigeria and dispatching U.S. troops there
- Threatening aggression against Canada, Greenland, Colombia, Mexico, and Panama
- Threatening illegal trade sanctions on numerous countries
Needless to say, these are all criminal violations of the United Nations’ Charter and international law. And yet Trump thinks he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. The disconnect speaks of insanity. How perverse that this could all be a deliberate distraction from the association with child rapist and Mossad asset Epstein.
But the truth is, the U.S. has always ordained itself the right to violate international law and use violence for regime change and wars of conquest. This has been going on for decades. The Western allies and media have pretended that this criminal imperialism did not exist and indulged in an illusion of “rules-based order”, as the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney candidly admitted last month at the Davos forum.
What is new is that the lawlessness of U.S. imperialism has now become transparent and not camouflaged with pretexts about “defending democracy and the free world” and other deceptions. What is new, too, is that Western allies are also being threatened in the American rush to shore up its failing global power.
Laughably, the Munich forum this year is all about trying to delicately approach the subject without spelling it out.
In the Foreword to the conference’s introductory report this year, the chairman, Wolfgang Ischinger, writes:
The Munich Security Conference 2026 is taking place at a moment of profound uncertainty… a result of the changing role of the United States in the international system. For generations, U.S. allies were not just able to rely on American power but on a broadly shared understanding of the principles underpinning the international order. Today, this appears far less certain, raising difficult questions about the future shape of transatlantic and international cooperation.
Given the significance of this recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, we decided that this year’s Munich Security Report should address the elephant in the room head-on… the United States’ evolving view of the international order.
Addressing the elephant in the room is exactly what the Munich conference is not doing by using euphemisms to cover up what is out-and-out U.S. imperialist violence.
In the Executive Summary of the report, the MSC authors continue:
The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics.
Sweeping destruction – rather than careful reforms and policy corrections – is the order of the day. The most prominent of those who promise to free their country from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild a stronger, more prosperous nation is the current U.S. administration. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the U.S.-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
Again, this is the sort of odious cover-up that one would expect from a forum that is sponsored by the Western capitalist elite.
The only time that the Munich conference got a taste of the truth was 19 years ago when Russian leader Vladimir Putin delivered a still-memorable speech in 2007. Putin caused uproar among the Western elite and media when he condemned the unilateral use of “hyper military force” by the United States and its lack of respect for international law, which he said was leading to chaos and destruction.
Putin said in his 2007 address:
We see growing disregard for international law’s basic principles. One state – the United States – has overstepped its national boundaries in every sphere.
And, of course, this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them.
Nearly two decades later, Putin’s condemnation has only grown ever more relevant to describe today’s world of unbridled U.S. barbarism. “The vampire’s ball is over,” he added in a 2024 interview with Dmitry Kiselev.
A major part of the problem has been the impunity and vassalage that Western states have afforded the empire. As with the Epstein scandal and its evil, the West has indulged to the point where the system is out of control and is a threat to all.
The Munich conference, like Davos, the G7, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and other gatherings of the Western elite, is all about suppressing the truth so that there is no accountability for the crimes and sins of Western capitalism and its imperialist violence.
But a day of reckoning is coming as the obscenities of Western power become increasingly exposed.
Epstein Pitched JPMorgan Chase on Plan to Get Bill Gates ‘More Money for Vaccines’
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 10, 2026
In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bill Gates and key figures from the Gates Foundation regularly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, discussing ways to finance and develop a global pandemic preparedness and vaccination network.
The communications between Gates and Epstein were included in the “Epstein Files” released Jan. 30 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Last year’s passage of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act prompted the release.
Sayer Ji told The Defender the files show that Epstein “functioned as a switchboard” connecting “hedge funds, central banks, billionaires, academic institutions and global health initiatives.”
Ji published his analysis of health- and medical-related information in the files in a series of Substack articles and posts on X.
Seamus Bruner, director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said the files revealed the workings of a network of “Controligarchs on steroids, but with shocking new receipts.”
Bruner said the files showed that Epstein helped develop “the architecture for pandemic profiteering” years before the COVID-19 pandemic.
The documents largely date from the 2010s — after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting underage sex and his inclusion on a registry of sex offenders.
Ji noted that months before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the same actors who appear in the Epstein files participated in Event 201 — a simulation of a global pandemic caused by a coronavirus.
The pandemic preparedness infrastructure built in the years before the pandemic helped lead to this simulation, Ji wrote.
According to The Hill, members of the U.S. Congress began reviewing unredacted versions of the documents on Monday.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), told The Defender the documents’ release is about justice, not politics.
“Rep. Ro Khanna and I have tried to keep the Epstein files from being political. The Democrats want to make it about Trump, and the Republicans want to make it about the Clintons. We want to make it about the survivors and getting them justice and transparency,” Massie said.
Gates, Epstein and the ‘architecture behind pandemics as a business model’
Ji’s series of Substack posts revealed what he described as “a 20-year architecture behind pandemics as a business model — with Bill Gates at the center of the network,” along with multinational financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase.
The documents, dating from 2011 to 2019, illustrate an “architecture whose foundations predate the COVID-19 era by more than a decade,” Ji wrote. He said they constitute evidence of “a major Wall Street bank asking a convicted sex offender to define the architecture of a Gates-linked charitable fund.”
The documents included several emails outlining the development of a Gates-led charitable fund. A Feb. 17, 2011, email from JPMorgan Chase’s Juliet Pullis to Epstein included questions from the “team that is putting together some ideas for Gates.”
Epstein’s reply outlined how this fund could be structured. The proposal would be developed further in the following months.
In a July 26, 2011, email from Epstein to JPMorgan Chase executive Jes Staley, on which Boris Nikolic, Gates’ chief science and technology adviser, was copied, described a “silo based proposal that will get bill [Gates] more money for vaccines.”
By Aug. 17, 2011, Staley and Mary Erdoes, then-CEO of JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management, were discussing more details of the proposed fund, including developing “an offshore arm — especailly for vaccines” and projecting “billions of dollars” in donations within two years.
In a response later that day, Epstein said Gates was “terribly frustrated” at the slow pace of establishing the fund. He said Gates was insistent that “additional money for vaccines” be included in an upcoming presentation about the fund.
By Aug. 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase had apparently developed a proposal called “Project Molecule,” where the bank would partner with the Gates Foundation to develop a perpetual charitable fund for pandemic preparedness and surveillance, vaccine promotion and disease eradication.
According to Ji, the proposal contains many of the ideas Epstein had previously discussed with JPMorgan Chase executives. It also contained plans to spend millions of dollars to purchase oral polio vaccines for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a rotavirus vaccine for Latin America, and a meningitis vaccine for Africa.
The proposal suggested that Melinda Gates chair the fund’s strategic program/grant and distribution committee and that Erdoes, Warren Buffett, Jordan’s Queen Rania and Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, also participate. The Gates Foundation funded Gavi’s launch in 1999 and holds a permanent seat on its board.
Ji wrote that while Epstein’s name does not appear in the Project Molecule proposal, it acts as the “institutional translation of the architecture he was sketching informally.”
By 2013, these efforts appear to have led to the launch of the Global Health Investment Fund. A confidential Sept. 23, 2013, briefing described the fund as “the first investment fund focused on global health drug and vaccine development.” The fund promised investors annual returns of 5%-7%.
Among the attendees at the fund’s September 2013 launch were JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and representatives of Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK).
Gates could ‘work with anyone on earth’ but ‘chose a registered sex offender’
According to Ji, Nikolic’s involvement is significant. In August 2013, Gates and Epstein signed an agreement, in which Gates “specifically requested” that Epstein “personally serve” as Nikolic’s representative. The letter noted Epstein’s “existing collegial relationship” with Gates.
“This agreement was executed five years after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution,” Ji wrote. “Gates had the resources to work with anyone on earth. He chose a registered sex offender — and put it in writing.”
The documents showed that a month earlier — on July 18, 2013 — Epstein authored a draft email apparently intended for Gates. It references Epstein’s friendship with Gates, his disappointment that Gates sent him an “unfriendly strongly worded email,” and referenced sordid communications the two apparently previously shared.
“TO add insult to the injury you them implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis,” Epstein wrote.
In a video posted on X, Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, said that while it’s unknown whether Epstein ever sent that email to Gates, “the next month they’re in a contract together.”
“I think Bill Gates got the message,” Kane said.
In November 2023, a federal judge approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and over 100 women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse. The women alleged that JPMorgan Chase continued doing business with Epstein despite internal warnings over a span of several years.
“JPMorgan banked Epstein for years despite clear red flags — over $1 billion in suspicious transactions flagged internally and ignored. They knew. They didn’t care,” wrote The Truth About Cancer.
Did Epstein play role in launch of the ‘biosecurity state’?
According to Ji, the documents provide a roadmap for how a pandemic preparedness infrastructure was developed and how it helped make Event 201 possible.
“By the time Event 201 convened, the architecture … was no longer conceptual. It had been funded, structured, bonded, insured, staffed, and legally papered. What remained was the rehearsal,” Ji wrote.
September 2014 documents show that Gates disclosed his upcoming meeting with President Obama to Epstein, just as an adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak sent Epstein an invitation to a private, off-the-record reception with Obama the following month.
Ji said the communications occurred during “the week Ebola was formally reclassified as a threat to international peace and security.” He said the timing is significant, as this “was the week the biosecurity state was born.”
According to Ji, these developments helped activate the infrastructure outlined in Project Molecule, where Epstein acted as a node for Ebola-related project proposals.
This included Epstein receiving a United Nations (U.N.) diplomat’s proposal for the development of a “Nexus Centre for peace and health” that would take “into account the serious impact of Ebola,” and a proposal by a group of scientists for a pre-symptomatic Ebola detection system using PCR testing.
The scientists behind the proposal — affiliated with a U.S. military biolab at Fort Detrick, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — asked Epstein to send the proposal to Gates and the Gates Foundation.
By October 2014, Epstein was warning Kathy Ruemmler, then White House counsel to Obama, of the political cost if Obama didn’t take action on Ebola. By 2015, Epstein was acting as an intermediary in efforts to convene global experts who would “discuss how we can most effectively address and prevent pandemics.”
The proposal, by the International Peace Institute’s Terje Rød-Larsen, led to the convening of a May 2015 closed-door meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, titled “Preparing for Pandemics: Lessons Learned for More Effective Responses.” The World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank and U.N. were involved with the meeting.
The meeting’s agenda included sessions addressing “how pandemics should be anticipated, how authority should be exercised, how multiple stakeholders should be coordinated, and — critically — what legal, institutional, and financial mechanisms must be put in place in advance to enable rapid, centralized response,” Ji wrote.
According to Ji, the COVID-19 pandemic response has its roots in the 2014 Ebola response, as Ebola “was the first disease to formally justify the suspension of normal political and sovereign constraints on a global scale. … When the next global health emergency arrived — COVID-19 — the playbook was already written.”
“Epstein appears in the background of precisely these formative conversations — serving as a connector between global finance, philanthropic capital, and biological risk governance,” Ji told The Defender.
Epstein involved in ‘strain pandemic simulation’ two years before COVID
By 2017, these conversations led to proposals for pandemic simulations.
In a January 2017 iMessage thread between Epstein and an unidentified physician seeking help in finding a new job, the physician cited “expertise with public health security.”
The physician, who had experience at the U.N., WHO, Gates Foundation and World Bank, said he “just did pandemic simulation,” which could become a “big platform.”
Referring to Gates, the physician told Epstein, “He hates mental health but he’s crazy about vaccines and autism stuff. That could be start to a more broad conversation.”
A March 2017 email chain, which included Epstein and Gates, discussed efforts by the then-bgC3, Gates’ private strategic office, to develop “Follow-up recommendations and/or technical specifications for strain pandemic simulation.”
Ji noted that in 2017, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF), with Gates Foundation funding and a goal of creating “pandemic-busting vaccines” within 100 days. Later that year, the World Bank issued the first-ever pandemic bonds.
Event 201, held just six weeks before the first publicly acknowledged COVID-19 cases were announced, involved the Gates Foundation, WEF and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Global financial institutions, media organizations and intelligence agencies also participated.
The simulation focused on the response to a novel coronavirus outbreak by governments, pharmaceutical companies, media outlets and social media platforms.
Ji said the Epstein Files don’t show that COVID-19 was planned or manufactured, or that Event 201 led to COVID-19. Instead, they prove that “the institutional infrastructure to capitalize on exactly this kind of crisis was already built, tested, staffed, and insured.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026
In late January, the US Department of Justice dumped millions of documents detailing the criminal activities of US oligarch and serial paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, including his vast rolodex of paedophilic celebrities, financiers, politicians and public figures. The tranche is so vast, independent journalists and researchers have barely scratched the surface yet. But preliminary investigations amply demonstrate Epstein was centrally enmeshed with multiple foreign spy agencies. First and foremost, the Zionist entity’s notorious Mossad. The horrors wrought on West Asia as a result are incalculable.
A recurrent phenomenon in the newly-released documents, emails and text messages is Epstein and his grand global nexus seeking to profit from Western-inflicted misery the world over. On March 18th 2014, in the Maidan coup’s immediate, violent aftermath, he emailed Ariane de Rothschild, a French banker and CEO of the Edmond de Rothschild Group since March 2023, due to her marrying into the famous, powerful Jewish family. Epstein was exhilarated. “Ukraine upheaval should provide many opportunites [sic],” he wrote.
De Rothschild was drained after a “very long day sitting on bank board,” but delighted to hear from her close friend. “Miss our talks and hope you’re well,” she gushed. “Will be at home tomorrow night, will you be free? And let’s discuss Ukraine.” The “opportunities” Epstein perceived in the shattered post-coup country, as it plunged into Western-sponsored civil war, ranged from an untapped reservoir of young girls and vulnerable women to pimp out to high-ranking ‘clients’, to pillaging the country’s vast resources.
In July 2011, Epstein emailed associate Greg Brown, declaring “the Libyans now are legit, but need real help,” adding “they must be careful there will be many claims on that money.” He was referring to Tripoli’s frozen overseas assets, seized by Western powers in March that year, after the country plunged into insurrectionary violence. Epstein fired off this missive right when NATO’s bombing of Libya graduated from striking government forces to actively supporting rebel advances, as foreign fighters closed in on the country’s capital.
Brown excitedly responded, “there are already $80 billion in frozen funds/assets internationally,” and perhaps “three to four times this number in sovereign, stolen and misappropriated assets.” He was working with MI6 and Mossad veterans to “identify stolen assets and get them recovered.” If they could “identify/recover 5% to 10% of these monies and receive 10% to 25% as compensation,” the Anglo-Israeli private spying network could reap “billions of dollars”.
However, this paled in comparison to gains to be had once the Western-sponsored National Transitional Council unseated Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. “The real carrot is if we can become their go-to guys because they plan to spend at least $100 billion next year to rebuild their country and jumpstart the economy,” Brown salivated. He reminded Epstein the country was “rich”, with a small population but “the ninth largest crude oil & natural gas reserves on the planet.” Gaddafi was murdered by rebel forces that October.
‘Secret Weapon’
Numerous declassified materials amply indicate Epstein was a journeyman intelligence asset, with connections to several ostensibly separate spying agencies. Tellingly, some heavily redacted communications contain references to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). These buildings are used by US intelligence and government agencies to exchange top secret information, and access requires the highest security clearance. In a secret January 2018 discussion with political strategist Steve Bannon, Epstein bragged that his sprawling New York mansion was “similar to a SCIF.”
Bannon was one of many right-wing figures Epstein courted. Another was Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of shadowy data harvester Palantir. In June 2014, Epstein emailed to say he increasingly lent credence to Thiel’s “‘intentionality’ argument” – the proposal that the “mess” unfolding across the Arab and Muslim world over recent years was what then-US President Barack Obama “really wanted”. Epstein remarked, “we would have to admit a strategy brilliantly executed.” Thiel fired back:
“The ‘intentionality’ argument would center on making sure the US gets less involved with the rest of the world (I think that’s the ‘plan’). The more of a mess, with just lots of bad guys on different sides, the less we will do.”
Thiel was well-placed to know this was the Obama administration’s strategy. Birthed with seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, Palantir made vast sums serving as the War On Terror’s “Secret Weapon”. It was used to hunt “bad guys” at war with the US, and “Israel” – the key beneficiary of West Asia being set on fire during this period. Not coincidentally, the Zionist entity has for years employed a variety of Palantir products. Thiel commented in July 2024, the Gaza Holocaust well-underway:
“My bias is to defer to Israel.”
Accordingly, Epstein was clearly in the employ of both US and Israeli intelligence. In a February 2016 email exchange with Thiel, he declared, “as you probably know I represent the Rothschilds.” The banking dynasty was instrumental in “Israel’s” creation, funding construction of colonial settlements in Palestine from the late 1800s onwards. Epstein’s own ties to the Zionist entity were deep and coherent. From September 2010 to March 2019, he formally met with prominent Israeli politician and military veteran Ehud Barak over 60 times.
Barak was a repeat visitor to Epstein’s private island, Little St James. On at least one occasion, in January 2014, Barak visited with his wife, and specifically left his security detail behind. In June that year, Epstein arranged for Barak to meet Thiel. The Israeli politician was such a frequent guest at Epstein’s New York apartment on 301 East 66th Street, his staff referred to the lodgings internally as “301.”
‘Terrorism Financing’
In January, Barak sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming he “deeply regret[s] having any association with him.” However, their bond was intimate, warm, and long-running. Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sex offences didn’t dim their connection, and come November 2018, Barak referred to Epstein as a “great friend” in discussions with Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani, a businessman and member of the Qatari royal family. An FBI investigation was opened into Epstein on June 12th 2018.
That same day, Epstein lodged an order for six 55 gallon drums of sulfuric acid, “with fuel and insurance charge for transport,” with now-defunct, Florida-based Gemini Seawater Systems. It would be unsurprising if he’d been tipped off about the Bureau probe. Someone within the FBI, or a foreign spying agency keeping a close eye on the agency, could’ve alerted him. Just as Epstein maintained ties between different foreign services, he enjoyed relations with high-ranking state figures the world over.
Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani was but one Gulf royal who the paedophile financier counted as a close confidante. Epstein was evidently considered a go-to figure when Qatar was seeking to communicate with “Israel”. In February 2010, Al Thani wrote to Epstein that the “Israeli operation… doesn’t help anyone.” He referred to the brazen assassination of Palestinian Resistance fighter Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai the previous month by Mossad. A day earlier, local authorities formally blamed Mossad for the killing, triggering a media firestorm.
In July 2017, following the UAE and Saudi Arabia leading Arab states in severing diplomatic relations with Qatar, and imposing a US-supported land, air and sea blockade on the monarchy in advance of a planned land invasion, Epstein wrote to Al Thani, offering him advice on how Dubai could rescue herself. “I think Qatar should stop kicking and arguing,” and make nice with the Zionist entity, he proposed. “Let the heat come down a bit.”
In reference to the monarchy’s support for Hamas, he suggested “Qatar needs to come out against terrorism,” as “the smell of terrorism financing will be around for years.” Epstein went on to reference Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent international jaunt, where he’d met Trump in June, before becoming the first-ever Indian prime minister to visit the Zionist entity. Modi also snubbed the Palestinian Authority, eliciting condemnation from PA officials. Epstein reported:
“Modi took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US president [Donald Trump]. They had met a few weeks ago. IT WORKED!”
Troublingly, Epstein’s filial alliance with Ehud Barak overlapped with Barak serving as Tel Aviv’s security minister, raising the obvious question of whether Epstein in any way directly influenced Israeli policy during this time, or acted as an advocate and broker for the Zionist entity with other countries in West Asia and beyond. Barak solicited Epstein’s input with his public writing, including a draft of his book My Country, My Life: Fighting for Israel, Searching for Peace, which was released in May 2018.
That month, Barak’s wife emailed Epstein while visiting New York demanding an “urgent short meeting” between Epstein and her husband. One day later, Donald Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement, in favour of a “maximum pressure” campaign. In July 2018, Barak’s private surveillance firm Toka broke cover publicly for the first time, announcing it had raised $12.5 million in seed funding from investors including venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
Andreessen Horowitz invested in several ventures also backed by Jeffrey Epstein, including CoinBase. It is unknown whether Epstein invested in Toka, although his interest in such a company would be clear. The firm is stacked with former Israeli cyber spies, and has patented technology capable of locating security cameras and webcams, hacking into them, then altering their live feeds without trace. Such a resource removes any need for real-life individuals to oversee “honey trap” operations, and targets to take the bait.
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
Tales of the American Empire | February 12, 2026
Tales of the American Empire produces short historical videos about the American empire, like the “Sordid History of the CIA”, which is linked below. Most viewers are interested in the American CIA, so this is another episode about videos detailing the evils of the CIA. Some CIA officers work with murderous dictators and criminal organizations involved in the drug trade, arms dealing, and government contract fraud. These evil deeds are sometimes uncovered by the media but receive little attention.
There are YouTube videos that provide insight into covert CIA operations. This is far too much material to condense into a short video. Here is a quick review of more great YouTube videos about the CIA with a link to them below. If the link no longer works, the content has been removed. Two videos from the first part of this series have since disappeared. They may be found on smaller video hosting websites like Rumble, Bitchute, or Odyssey.
• The Sordid History of the CIA • The 1964 CIA Coup in Brazil • The CIA, Money Laundering, and Organized C… • The CIA’s Cocaine Corridor • The U.S. Plan to KILL Its Own Citizens: Op… • The Empire’s 2021 Coup in Guinea • Hector Berrellez (Unreleased Full Interview) • The CIA in Angola • Story of a Whistleblower Jailed for Exposi… • The 1954 CIA Coup in Guatemala • Part 1: Kevin Shipp, CIA Officer Exposes … • The Empire’s 2009 Coup in Honduras • Max Blumenthal exposes CIA-cartel connections • The CIA French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
RT | February 13, 2026
A lawyers association has filed a legal complaint against French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot over his accusations against UN Palestinian rights rapporteur Francesca Albanese regarding alleged remarks she made about Israel.
Barrot this week accused Albanese of labeling Israel a “common enemy of humanity” and called for her removal from the UN Human Rights Council. Albanese has rejected the allegations as “shameful and defamatory,” insisting that in her remarks made recently in Doha she was referring to “the system” enabling genocide in Palestine and not to the Israeli people or state.
On Thursday, the Association of Lawyers for the Respect of International Law (JURDI) filed a legal complaint against Barrot, saying that his statements represent “the dissemination of false information,” undermine the independence of UN mechanisms, and could constitute a criminal offence under French law.
Barrot’s calls for Albanese to step down were later echoed by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and Czech Foreign Minister Petr Macinka.
Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard defended Albanese’s “vital work,” cautioning against political pressure on independent UN experts.
The UN human rights office has also voiced concern. Spokesperson Marta Hurtado warned that judicial officials and rapporteurs are increasingly subjected to personal attacks and misinformation that distract from investigating serious human rights violations.
Albanese has previously labeled Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide,” and called for a full arms embargo and suspension of trade agreements with the country. She has been sanctioned by the US and has faced mounting accusations of bias and anti-Semitism, which she denies.
Her mandate runs until 2028, and she is due to brief the Geneva-based council next month. While there is no precedent for removing a special rapporteur mid-term, some diplomats cited by Reuters say a motion could theoretically be proposed, though strong support for Palestinian rights within the body makes it unlikely to succeed.
Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘one single cause’: Israel
The Take | Al Jazeera | February 10, 2026
What do we know about Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Israel? We talk with Craig Mokhiber, who spent decades inside the UN system, about what millions of newly released files reveal about Epstein’s effort to reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favor, why this story remains underreported, and what it means for how power operates globally.
In this episode:
Craig Mokhiber (@craigmokhiber), Human Rights Lawyer and Former UN Official
View on Rumble
Episode credits:
This episode was produced by Marcos Bartolomé, Chloe K. Li, and Tamara Khandaker, with Melanie Marich, Maya Hamadeh, Tuleen Barakat, and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Alexandra Locke.
Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio.
Von der Leyen to have new security unit under her command
By Lucas Leiroz | February 11, 2026
Apparently, the European Commission President fears some kind of political plot or reprisal against her within the bloc. For this reason, she launched plans to create an intelligence agency under her direct command, bypassing European institutions and further monopolizing her power. However, internal pressure within the bloc has forced the Commission President to scale back her ambitions, which is why her project is expected to be reduced to a simple additional security unit – rather than an intelligence cell.
The controversy arises amid an internal dispute between EU factions. Von der Leyen has shown signs of disagreement with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, as well as other European officials, in recent months. The Commission President is accused of acting in an authoritarian manner and attempting to monopolize the European decision-making process under her command – disrespecting both other commissioners and other institutions of the European bloc.
In response to internal pressure, von der Leyen avoided yielding to the opposition, but attempted to further expand her personal power. She proposed creating an additional intelligence cell within the EU, under her direct command.
Von der Leyen had already announced such plan last November. At the time, her public justification for the project was the supposed “need” to neutralize “Russian hybrid threats.” This justification doesn’t seem to have convinced even the most Russophobic European leaders, which is why the prevailing understanding among officials and analysts is that von der Leyen’s real intention is to shield herself against potential threats from within the bloc itself.
Politico commented on the case, reporting that the Commission president is facing significant internal opposition to her project. Apparently, she has reduced the scope of the plan, succeeding only in creating a special “security unit” instead of a complex new intelligence agency. Even so, the case is viewed negatively by most European officials, who are increasingly furious with von der Leyen’s dictatorial attitudes.
“The EU executive said in November it wanted to set up an internal cell to collect intelligence from across Europe, overseen by the president herself, as part of an effort to protect the bloc from Russian digital attacks and sabotage. But the plan triggered a backlash from European capitals and the EU’s diplomatic service, which has its own center for Europe-wide intel sharing (…) The cell will likely become a security unit and will leave much of the intelligence sharing to the INTCEN center of the European External Action Service (EEAS),” Politico’s article reads.
In fact, von der Leyen appears to have been politically defeated, since her initial plan will have to be shelved and she will need to rely only on a simple security group, instead of an intelligence unit. On the other hand, the mere creation of an additional security scheme under her command can already be seen as a clear sign that she is succeeding in shielding herself against possible internal plots. The wing led by Kallas was not successful in completely neutralizing von der Leyen’s proposal, only in reducing the scope of the project.
Kallas allegedly began to disagree with von der Leyen after the Commission President rejected her request to appoint a personal friend to a high-level position. The details of this disagreement have not yet been clarified, but it is known that she is becoming one of von der Leyen’s main critics, describing her as having a “dictatorial style.”
It is also important to remember that Kallas heads the EU’s Central Intelligence Service (INTCEN). In this sense, the creation of an additional cell would be a way to establish a confrontation between two intelligence agencies within the European bloc. Kallas managed to neutralize this threat, but was not strong enough to prevent von der Leyen from approving a new institutional security scheme under her command.
Obviously, all these discussions are happening behind closed doors. Publicly, von der Leyen claims the objective is to face “Russian threats”, while Kallas justifies her opposition to the plan with budgetary arguments.
“Having been a prime minister of a country, I know that all the member states are struggling with the budget, and asking that we should do something in addition to the things that we have already is not a wise idea,” Kallas said.
However, sources familiar with the matter were consulted by Politico, including four European diplomats who participate in these confidential discussions. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they confirmed assessments suggesting a serious clash between the bloc’s factions. In their personal opinions on the subject, Politico’s sources endorsed the opposition to the creation of a new intelligence cell.
“There is no point in having another cell (…) Even at the level of INTCEN there is not much sharing yet. It is better, but there is no need for the creation of another cell,” a diplomat told Politico.
In fact, all this only confirms that the European bloc is deeply divided and unstable. Not even the main Russophobic and pro-war authorities in the EU are able to reach a consensus on their actions. The inevitable result of this is a serious institutional crisis, the consequences of which could profoundly affect the European decision-making process in the near future.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Ukrainian agents illegally bugged investigator probing Zelensky ally – officials
RT | February 11, 2026
Ukrainian security service agents illegally bugged the home of a senior investigator with the Western-backed National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), officials announced on Tuesday.
The targeted detective leads a team probing defense-sector graft and was involved in NABU’s investigation of businessman Timur Mindich, a longtime ally of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky who was charged with running a $100 million extortion scheme at a state-owned nuclear energy company.
NABU Director Semyon Krivonos commented on the case at a joint briefing with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), saying the bug was installed during repairs at the female detective’s home without a court warrant. SAPO head Aleksandr Klimenko said the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) had dedicated “significant resources to probing the detective’s supposedly undeclared property” in violation of its mandate and the law.
The SBU, Ukraine’s KGB successor, reports directly to the president. NABU and SAPO were created under Western pressure after the 2014 Maidan coup as largely independent bodies meant to keep senior-level corruption in check.
Last year, Zelensky tried to place them under the prosecutor general, a presidential appointee, but reversed the move after Western donors threatened to cut all aid in retaliation.
Mindich, a longtime Zelensky associate, fled to Israel hours before NABU filed charges against him and alleged accomplices. The scandal embroiled two then-serving ministers, resulting in a government reshuffle. Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, was also forced to resign amid suspicion of involvement.
Grooming the Gulf: How Epstein Forged Emirati Elites Into Tools for Israel
By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | February 10, 2026
In the last 48 hours, the U.S. Department of Justice has begun dumping what officials say amounts to more than three million pages of material tied to Jeffrey Epstein—an archive so vast it includes thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images. The tranche is only a fraction of what exists. Officials acknowledge that millions of additional documents remain under review, meaning the public has seen just a sliver of the government’s total Epstein archive. What is being unloaded into the public domain is not just evidence of private depravity; it is an inadvertent blueprint of how power really works when no one is supposed to be watching, an industrial‑scale influence machine whose files casually braid together billionaires, cabinet‑level officials, and strategic infrastructure from New York to the Horn of Africa. And even now, the public is being allowed to see only what officials deem manageable, with redactions still shielding some of the most sensitive names and millions of pages kept out of sight.
Hidden within those documents, leaks, screenshots, and email excerpts now circulating online, are connections that stretch far beyond Manhattan, Palm Beach, or even Paris. They reach deep into the Persian Gulf, into Dubai’s executive suites, and into the personal inboxes of officials in the United Arab Emirates.
These emails offer a unique glimpse behind the opulent shadows of Dubai’s towers, where untraceable billions flow like oil. In that world, a convicted pedophile whispers ministerial appointments to a UAE diplomat while discussing port deals that could move cargo and secrets across continents. According to persistent intelligence‑linked information surrounding his operations, Jeffrey Epstein was not acting alone or merely chasing thrills; he was allegedly operating as a geopolitical asset, cultivating leverage over Gulf elites, with places like Somaliland emerging as potential pawns in a larger strategic game. It is in such an environment that figures like Epstein thrive the best, because their private perversions double as statecraft.
Hind Al Owais and the Epstein Emails That Stain a Nation
Emails unearthed from the DOJ Epstein library reveal troubling facts about Jeffrey Epstein’s exchanges with Hind Al Owais, a young, ambitious Emirati woman navigating the opulent halls of UAE diplomacy. With her polished LinkedIn profile and lofty titles, she appears at first glance to be a symbol of progress. As director of the UAE’s Permanent Committee for Human Rights and a UN adviser since 2015, she has publicly championed women’s empowerment, declaring it both a moral and strategic imperative. On paper, Hind Al Owais is the face of a “modern” UAE: a diplomat, UN adviser, and later a senior human‑rights official fronting panels on women’s rights and regional mechanisms.
Hind Al Owais, UAE’s Permanent Committee for Human Rights and a UN adviser since 2015 (Source: YourStory.com)
In press releases, she speaks of “dignity” and “gender equality” while chairing events under the banner of the Permanent Committee for Human Rights in Abu Dhabi. In the emails, the tone is very different. The same woman who would later open high‑level human‑rights dialogues is trading easy banter with a convicted sex offender, eagerly accepting his career advice, and bringing family into his orbit. The contrast is not just personal hypocrisy; it looks like the textbook use of a polished, progressive female diplomat as a shield for an authoritarian system willing to outsource leverage work to a man like Epstein while selling the world a sanitised narrative at the UN.
The correspondence begins in 2011, during Epstein’s post‑prison resurgence. Al Owais, then a rising figure in UAE foreign affairs, began emailing the financier. Their communications suggest the exchanges were part of a broader effort to compromise UAE elites for Israeli leverage. Numerous emails linked to Hind Al Owais and Jeffrey Epstein from January 2012 are currently the subject of extensive scrutiny, prompting unsettling questions regarding the nature of their relationship. One email (EFTA01844869) states: “Getting one girl ready is difficult enough; two girls, you can certainly call a challenge.” Another conversation is said to mention introducing her sister to Epstein. In one message, Epstein positioned her as a future UAE Minister of Culture, declaring there would be “no competition.” (EFTA00909346)
One email (EFTA01845739) from January 26, 2012, stands out. Al Owais expresses excitement about introducing her sister, Hala, allegedly just 13 at the time, to Epstein, a man infamous for preying on underage girls. Epstein’s reply is suggestive, promising more time with both. Another message jokes about the challenge of preparing “two girls.” Critics online have seized on these exchanges, arguing that Al Owais was not just a passive contact but an active facilitator, a kind of soft‑power handler who normalised Epstein’s access to young Emirati women.
The DOJ emails that have surfaced so far do not explicitly spell out sexual transactions or list ages, which conveniently allows defenders to hide behind literalism. But in the real world, context matters: a senior diplomat, working in New York, repeatedly arranging access for “girls” to a man already notorious for abusing minors is not a neutral act; it is complicity dressed up as networking.
Online backlash was immediate. Critics claimed Al Owais worked as a procurer, supplying minors, including her own sister, to Epstein. Viral posts branded her a “pimp” and “Satan worshipper,” drawing thousands of retweets amid outrage over her UN role. Although no direct proof of underage involvement appears in the emails themselves, it can be argued that the pattern fits Epstein’s methods, which rest on compromising officials feeding a machine designed not only for pleasure but for leverage. Emails from 2017 show him lobbying against Qatar, accusing Doha of terrorism financing in line with UAE‑Israel strategies, underscoring that his communications with Gulf elites were deeply political, not merely social.
Photos circulating online show Al Owais beside Epstein, her diplomatic poise clashing with his predatory grin. Critics highlight the contradiction: how can someone linked to Epstein lead human‑rights initiatives in a country notorious for the kafala system? The kafala regime has long been described by rights groups as a system of modern servitude, binding migrant workers to employers in conditions ripe for abuse; placing an Epstein‑linked diplomat at the helm of “human rights” in such a state is less reform than reputation‑laundering.
Adding another layer, discussions online claim Ghislaine Maxwell received girls supplied through the same network. Ex‑spy Ari Ben‑Menashe alleges the pair ran Mossad honeytraps together, building on older reports that Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, had served as a Mossad asset. These accounts are contested and not fully documented, but the emerging patterns in the Epstein–UAE files sit uncomfortably close to what one would expect from an intelligence‑linked kompromat operation targeting Gulf elites.
Even as these revelations spread across social media, Abu Dhabi appears to have kept Al Owais anchored in its human‑rights machinery, letting her continue to front events and initiatives in the UAE’s name. The message is unmistakable: whatever passed between her and Epstein does not disqualify her from helping launder the regime’s image on the international stage.
Timeline of Epstein’s UAE–Israel Web
Year – Event
- 2009 – Bin Sulayem sends Epstein a torture video; Epstein replies, “I loved the torture video.”
- 2010 – Epstein allegedly linked in commentary to the Mossad hit on Hamas leader Mahmoud al‑Mabhouh in Dubai, fitting the broader narrative of an Israeli intelligence‑adjacent operator moving through Gulf territory.
- 2011–2012 – Al Owais emails Epstein about her sister and career boosts; Epstein dangles ministerial suggestions, positioning her as a future UAE Minister of Culture.
- 2013 – Epstein brokers Ehud Barak–bin Sulayem meetings for port investments, cementing a triangle linking an ex‑Israeli prime minister, a Dubai port magnate, and a convicted predator.
- 2017 – Epstein lobbies anti‑Qatar pressure in line with UAE and Israeli strategies, echoing the blockade politics that would reshape Gulf alliances.
- 2018 – Bin Sulayem shares Somaliland history; Epstein touts equity in the port and boasts of being basically in charge of nearby Djibouti facilities.
- 2020 – Abraham Accords normalize UAE–Israel ties, formalising a relationship that had already been woven in through years of quiet cooperation and shared interests.
- 2026 – Files and commentary claim Epstein trained under Barak for global blackmail operations, merging personal depravity with strategic utility.
If a diplomat could allegedly facilitate such access, the question becomes unavoidable: what might a billionaire port magnate do?
The Sultan’s Sordid Secrets — Bin Sulayem’s Torture Videos and Port Empires
From the intimate whispers of diplomatic emails, the narrative expands into the world of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the CEO of DP World—a state‑linked giant controlling a significant share of global container traffic. According to the files, bin Sulayem exchanged thousands of emails with Epstein over more than a decade. The correspondence blends lewd banter, elite introductions, and geopolitical scheming.
Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem does not run a boutique firm; he sits atop a state‑linked conglomerate that touches roughly one in ten containers moved on the planet, with stakes in more than 80 ports and terminals from London to Dakar to Berbera. In other words, when he jokes with Epstein about torture videos and shares “gifts” like a fragment of the Kaaba’s covering, he is not just another vulgar rich man; he is the point where a sovereign logistics empire meets a blackmail broker.
One revelation stands out (EFTA00749241): the torture‑video exchange. Unredacted after scrutiny by Rep. Thomas Massie in February 2026, it identifies bin Sulayem as the sender. This echoes the accusations from a 2009 scandal involving Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan torturing an Afghan grain merchant with cattle prods, sand, and fire—and another 25 victims, according to American businessman Bassam Nabulsi. The old torture tape was once treated as an embarrassing aberration; in light of the Epstein emails, it looks more like a symptom of a system where sadism and impunity are bonding rituals among the elite.
Online backlash was swift. Critics labelled bin Sulayem part of the UAE’s “filthiest scum.” Theories spread that the video served as kompromat—leverage collected by Epstein to secure cooperation. Whether or not that specific file was ever brandished as blackmail, the logic is clear: a regime that records torture and a fixer who monetises secrets are natural partners.
Meanwhile, bin Sulayem gifted Epstein a sacred Kaaba Kiswa cloth intended for Islam’s holiest site. Emails (EFTA01051761) show UAE businesswoman Aziza Al‑Ahmadi arranging the shipment. Epstein reportedly used it as a carpet, prompting outrage and accusations of desecration. This is what impunity looks like when religion is instrumentalised for power. A cloth destined for the Kaaba is rerouted through a UAE billionaire to a US sex offender, laid out on the floor as a decorative prop in his private den of exploitation. For many Muslims, the outrage is not just about sacrilege; it is about the casual way a state‑backed executive treated the sacred as one more chip in a game of influence with a man whose entire business model revolved around defilement.
The correspondence contains further lewd exchanges, including jokes about sexual exploits and discussions of foreign students. Bin Sulayem facilitated introductions to Emirati royals and even pitched ideas to Elon Musk through Epstein in 2015 EFTA02716369), using the predator as a networking hub into Western tech and political circles.
But the ports are the real story. DP World’s infrastructure controls intercontinental traffic. For a trafficker, critics argue, such systems offer anonymity and reach: containers are counted, not souls. Some theories cast bin Sulayem as Epstein’s logistics partner, someone whose empire could provide the plausible deniability that only large‑scale shipping can offer. Since 2006, Epstein acted as a go‑between, linking former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak with bin Sulayem. This triangular relationship—Barak, bin Sulayem, and Epstein—shows in Epstein file EFTA02600899, enabling discreet communications that certainly contributed to the foundation of later economic and political alignments, including the 2020 Abraham Accords, which normalised relations between the UAE and Israel. From here, the story shifts naturally to Somaliland.
The Somaliland Gambit — UAE Ports, Epstein’s Equity, and the Israeli Shadow
The bin Sulayem scandal converges in the dusty ports of Somaliland, a self‑declared republic clinging to independence from war‑torn Somalia. Here, the narrative escalates from personal perversions to geopolitical machinations, and Epstein’s fingerprints appear on deals that could turn strategic harbours into conduits for exploitation—all within the UAE’s ecosystem that has harboured money launderers and opaque fortunes for years, providing Epstein a fertile ground to operate.
Recently published articles and DOJ‑linked emails (EFTA01885124) show Epstein’s circle eyeing Somaliland as early as 2012 for water and finance ventures. One message describes “huge water reserves, untapped (and clean) near the port city of Berbera. providing direct access to the Saudi market. Easy to ship. Minimal transport.” The language is chilling in its simplicity: a territory reduced to a resource node on someone else’s spreadsheet, its water turned into a line item in a private equity‑style pitch.
Here, the UAE, through DP World and bin Sulayem, has poured billions into Berbera port, signing controversial agreements that bypass Somalia’s central government. DP World and its partners have committed up to 1 billion USD to logistics infrastructure along the Berbera corridor, tying the port into Ethiopian trade routes and Gulf markets, all under a legal framework that treats Somaliland as a quasi‑sovereign partner despite its lack of international recognition. For Mogadishu, this is a direct challenge to its sovereignty; for Dubai, it is a lucrative wedge into the Red Sea; for actors like Epstein, it is an ideal gray zone, where jurisdiction is murky, and oversight is thin.
Epstein’s role appears in multiple 2018 emails: bin Sulayem shares a brief history of Somaliland’s recognition push with Epstein, including a document (EFTA00842536) titled along the lines of “The recognition of Somaliland – a brief history,” inviting him into the conversation not as a bystander but as a broker. Epstein, in turn, claims equity in the port and boasts of being basically in charge of nearby Djibouti facilities, casting himself as a shadow stakeholder in the region’s maritime chokepoints. Whether that equity was real or inflated bravado, the intent is clear: he wanted to position himself at the junction of finance, infrastructure, and political recognition in one of the world’s most strategically sensitive corridors.
Recently uncovered emails from the DOJ Epstein library (EFTA01876256) reveal his enduring fascination with Somaliland, discussing strange projects like “building a small studio in Somaliland and calling it SOMALIWOOD STUDIOS, to produce shows like Sesame Street type, including children’s programming, etc. for African kids.” The proposed “Somaliwood” studio reads like black comedy until you remember who is talking. Here is a man accused of systemically abusing minors, now sketching out soft‑power projects aimed at African children in a territory whose legal status is deliberately ambiguous and whose poverty makes scrutiny difficult. It is the colonial mission civilisatrice updated for the age of offshore finance and private jets: entertain the children, harvest the elite.
These emails include conversations from the years prior to Epstein’s “death” with DP World chief Sultan bin Sulayem regarding proposals aimed at recognising the territory as an independent state. (EFTA00842536) For Somaliland’s people, the stakes are immediate. Poverty and instability persist while foreign powers carve up their coastline. Critics describe the deals as neo‑colonial projects. Some claim the UAE lobbied for Somaliland’s separation ahead of the Abraham Accords, with Epstein acting as an intermediary promoting Israeli technology, turning the territory into a bargaining chip in a three‑way game between Abu Dhabi, Tel Aviv, and Western security planners.
DP World handles roughly 80 million containers annually. To those who suspect trafficking behind the trade routes, that scale offers perfect cover. Israel was among the earliest nations to acknowledge the brief five‑day independence of British Somaliland in 1960, but it was on December 26, 2025, that Israel officially declared it would be the first nation to fully recognise Somaliland, sparking new developments in the Red Sea Basin. As part of this agreement, Israel plans to set up a diplomatic and potentially security presence in the region for the first time since its relations with Eritrea soured in 2020.
The human consequences are stark. Somali migrants fleeing famine risk falling into trafficking routes. Epstein’s proposed cultural projects in Somaliland echo the recruitment tactics used elsewhere in his network: philanthropy as bait, media as camouflage, and vulnerable populations as raw material.
Epstein, Mossad, and the Israeli Interest
For years, former intelligence officials, investigative journalists, and independent researchers have argued that Epstein was not simply a freelance blackmailer but an asset embedded in Israeli intelligence networks. Ari Ben‑Menashe, a self‑described former Israeli intelligence officer, has claimed that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran a Mossad “honeytrap” operation, seeded by her father Robert Maxwell—himself long reported as a Mossad asset. These accounts are disputed and not yet backed by a full documentary record, but they sketch a plausible frame: private vice harnessed for state leverage, with Epstein as the smiling frontman.
What the DOJ files now reveal is a pattern that fits uncomfortably well with that hypothesis. You have an Israeli‑aligned fixer cultivating leverage over Gulf elites, moving seamlessly between private jets, UN corridors, and port concessions, just as Israel sought to break its regional isolation, secure new security corridors, and reposition itself along the Red Sea. Look at the map.
The same years in which Epstein is emailing bin Sulayem about “recognition of Somaliland” and boasting of influence around Djibouti are the years in which Israel is quietly repositioning itself on the Red Sea, negotiating normalisation with Gulf monarchies, and searching for ways to project power near Bab el‑Mandeb without provoking domestic backlash.
A privatised network of ports, logistics corridors, and pliable elites, facilitated by someone who holds their secrets, solves several problems at once. It offers deniable access, commercial cover, and a ready‑made human‑intelligence pipeline into regimes that officially still have to perform outrage for the Arab street. In that light, the Abraham Accords no longer look like a sudden breakthrough of “peace” but the public codification of relationships that had already been wired in through years of backchannel deals, port concessions, and blackmail‑ready kompromat.
Was Epstein’s network decisive in sealing those agreements? The evidence is not yet complete. But the architecture is visible: Emirati royals and executives enjoying the services of a man whose alleged handlers, according to multiple intelligence veterans, sat in Tel Aviv; strategic infrastructure in places like Berbera and Djibouti drifting quietly into Emirati hands; and, finally, a ribbon‑cutting ceremony in Washington where everyone pretends this was all about tourism and flights.
The Geopolitical Knot — Theories, Implications, and the Call for Justice
Viewed together, the Epstein–UAE saga becomes, in the eyes of its critics, more than a criminal case. It becomes a portrait of how global power allegedly weaponises personal vice. From Al Owais’s alleged facilitation to bin Sulayem’s torture‑video exchange and the port deals in Somaliland, the narrative paints Epstein as a fixer for Israeli strategic interests, operating in the gray zones where intelligence services, corporate empires, and royal courts overlap. His activities reportedly included brokering Qatari‑Israeli meetings and backchannels involving Russia and Syria, further blurring the line between private financier and unofficial envoy.
Some theories suggest the Abraham Accords were sealed with kompromat, transforming ports into surveillance nodes and trafficking corridors. Online outrage reflects broader anger at perceived hypocrisy. The victims, underage girls, abused labourers, displaced Somalis, remain central to the story, even as elites evade accountability and rebrand themselves as champions of reform.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s refusal to testify before Congress adds to the sense of impunity. Rep. Thomas Massie’s push for unredacted files hints at further revelations, including six redacted names—one reportedly a senior foreign official. His posts have already identified figures like Leslie Wexner as co‑conspirators and bin Sulayem as the sender of the torture video. Theories of intelligence‑agency cover‑ups persist, fueled by Epstein’s highly convenient death in custody. Some speculate unreleased files may map deeper links to Israeli intelligence operations financed through the UAE’s untraceable wealth, routed through free zones, shell companies, and sovereign funds that answer to no electorate.
If you strip away the PR gloss, the pattern is brutally simple. Israel secures new corridors and listening posts along the Red Sea, marketed as “normalisation”; the UAE entrenches itself as a logistics empire and financial safe haven, its human‑rights abuses airbrushed by friendly diplomats at the UN; Western elites enjoy access, contracts, and plausible deniability. Somaliland, meanwhile, becomes another bargaining promise land in a game it did not design, its coastline sliced into concessions, its sovereignty traded in PDFs and email attachments between a Dubai tycoon and a US sex offender.
The DOJ archive does not just expose individual monsters. It sketches the contours of a system in which the abuse of girls, the torture of workers, and the carving up of fragile states are all part of the same circuitry of power. And as long as that circuitry continues to serve the strategic interests of states like Israel and their Gulf partners, there is every incentive to let Epstein die on camera, redact a few names, and insist the machine is gone—when, in reality, only the frontman has changed.
Epstein and the Structure of Impunity
By Alice Johnson | The Libertarian Institute | February 10, 2026
Public discussion of the Epstein files has largely centered on individual misconduct and reputational fallout. That emphasis risks overlooking the more consequential question raised by the Justice Department’s response to the disclosure mandate. The episode is less instructive as a scandal than as an example of how executive institutions behave when transparency carries political cost. What is at stake is not the identity of those named in the records, but how legal obligations are treated once compliance becomes inconvenient.
Congress attempted to limit executive discretion through the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It was signed into law on November 19, 2025. The statute required the release of all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. It was unusually explicit, narrowing permissible redactions and barring withholding for reputational or political reasons. By design, the law sought to reduce delay by removing ambiguity rather than relying on voluntary cooperation.
That effort fell short. The Department of Justice missed the statutory deadline, released only a portion of the required records, and applied extensive redactions without a detailed public explanation at the time. Subsequent reporting indicated that several documents initially posted were later removed from the department’s website, according to Al Jazeera. The department also indicated that additional materials would be released at a later date, effectively extending a deadline Congress had already set.
What matters here is less what the records suggest about particular individuals than what the episode reveals about enforcement. When a statute imposes a clear obligation but noncompliance carries no immediate consequence, the obligation weakens in practice. Compliance becomes conditional. This dynamic is familiar in other areas of executive authority, but the clarity of the statute makes it harder to dismiss as routine bureaucratic delay.
Public attention has largely focused on elite reputations. Yet credibility in American political life has rarely depended on moral standing alone. It has been sustained by institutional insulation, legal privileges, procedural barriers, and discretionary enforcement that limit exposure to consequence. The Epstein disclosures unsettle that arrangement not by exposing hypocrisy, but by making those protective mechanisms more visible.
Elite moral standing has never rested on transparency by itself. It has relied on narrative management and on institutional buffers that absorb political risk. When those buffers hold, reputational damage remains contained. When they weaken, confidence erodes. The present controversy reflects that erosion. It is not evidence of a sudden ethical collapse, but of declining faith in the mechanisms that once kept misconduct marginal and manageable.
The Justice Department’s response illustrates how impunity operates as a structural feature rather than an exception. Congress retains theoretical enforcement tools, including criminal contempt referrals, civil litigation, and inherent contempt. In practice, most of these mechanisms depend on the executive branch itself. Criminal contempt referrals are handled by the Justice Department. Civil suits move slowly and frequently defer to claims of privilege. Inherent contempt, while constitutionally available, has not been used to detain a federal official in nearly a century.
This structure produces predictable incentives. Executive agencies know that delay or partial compliance is unlikely to trigger meaningful penalties. Negotiated disclosure becomes a rational response. In this sense, the Epstein disclosures echo other episodes where official misconduct became public, but meaningful consequences failed to follow.
What distinguishes this episode is not the nature of the misconduct, but the lack of interpretive flexibility in the statute itself. The Epstein Files law explicitly required disclosure of internal Justice Department communications and barred withholding to protect reputations. When common-law privileges are invoked to narrow a statute designed to override them, institutional self-protection takes precedence over legislative command.
Transparency alone does not resolve this imbalance. In some cases, it reinforces it. Partial disclosure and heavy redaction can create the appearance of compliance while leaving the underlying distribution of power intact. Over time, this pattern conditions both officials and the public to treat disclosure as an endpoint rather than as a step toward accountability.
The broader implication is not that elites are uniquely immoral. It is that the structure of the modern administrative state rewards insulation. Concentrated authority combined with weak enforcement produces consistent outcomes regardless of who occupies office. The same design that shields political allies today can just as easily shield their successors tomorrow. From a libertarian perspective, the problem is unchecked discretion, not partisan advantage.
Viewed this way, the Epstein files function as a case study in governance rather than scandal. They show how laws intended to constrain executive behavior falter when enforcement depends on the goodwill of the institutions being constrained. They also help explain why elite credibility erodes when transparency is separated from consequence. Trust does not fail because uncomfortable facts emerge. It fails when legal mandates can be ignored without cost.
If Congress does not enforce its own statutes, future transparency laws will operate largely as symbolic gestures. Executive agencies will continue to weigh compliance against political exposure, and elite credibility will persist so long as institutional protections remain intact. This is less a moral failure than a structural one. Until enforcement mechanisms operate independently of executive discretion, impunity will remain a feature of the system rather than a deviation from it.
Featured Video
Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran TOO BIG TO INVADE
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The myth of oil as a dwindling resource
By Bruce Everett | August 18, 2008
… Natural resources are limited by definition, but how limited? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran TOO BIG TO INVADE
- The important change in Iran’s latest response to Trump
- Why the Israeli assassination strategy is leading them to defeat
- How The US Blockaded Itself In The Strait Of Hormuz
- Iran submits response to latest US proposal for ending aggression
- When Mandates and Shaming Are Ethical
- In Her Attack On Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Hypocrisy Is On Full Display
- Seyed M. Marandi: Iran Rejects U.S. Deal – War Is Likely Imminent
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Coming Off Seroquel Alone
- If Americans Knew
- Israel is outright killing not just Palestinians, but the very idea of Palestine –Daily Update
- Group indicted for insider trading allegedly used ‘going to Israel’ as code for illegal sales
- Israel is enabling a possible plague in Gaza – Daily Update
- A Conservative’s View: Trump’s War on Iran Is Destroying America
- Israel’s war on the West Bank comes for Palestinian greenhouses
- New $270 million Israeli-only roads project in the West Bank is Netanyahu’s latest bid to impose de facto annexation
- Gaza investigation: A family’s fight to find their missing relatives
- MSF: Israel’s deliberate restriction of food and aid led to alarming malnutrition levels in Gaza
- Israel earmarks $270M for Israeli-only roads (that’s apartheid) – Daily Update
- Two Supreme Court Justices were secret agents who helped Israel cover up its attack on the USS Liberty
- No Tricks Zone
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
Aletho News 