by Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman
What do the Epstein file redactions reveal about elite networks, national security risks, and institutional failure in a more dangerous world?
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Irina Tsukerman about the release of millions of Epstein-related documents and their implications beyond sexual crimes. Tsukerman argues that the scandal extends into intelligence, money laundering, influence operations, and national security, particularly through Epstein’s ties to elite political, academic, and technological networks. She emphasizes that redactions reflect ongoing legal, intelligence, and reputational sensitivities, not transparency alone. The discussion highlights how conspiracy narratives obscured real abuses, how institutional failures spanned administrations, and why unresolved questions about foreign influence and elite accountability remain urgent in an increasingly unstable global environment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have a significantly more dangerous world post–February 5th, with deterrence and strategic restraint appearing to weaken, though not uniformly, and not necessarily on both sides of the U.S.–Russia relationship. The wars in Sudan and Ukraine, among others, continue. There has also been somewhat less focus on Greenland, Venezuela, and the so-called “Gulf of America,” among other issues.
At the same time, one of the biggest political and legal stories of the year so far is the new Justice Department release of Epstein-related materials—nearly 3.5 million pages released in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act—accompanied by substantial redactions.
From your expert perspective, what are the typical purposes of redactions? And what should we be emphasizing, in a more dangerous world, when extraordinarily controversial investigative materials are released at this scale?
Irina Tsukerman: Part of the controversy is not only the bulk release, but the way the public conversation repeatedly swings between two extremes: first, that there is a hidden “client list” that will implicate large numbers of influential people; and second, that the entire matter is dismissed as a “nothing-burger.” The latest Justice Department and FBI materials support a narrower conclusion than many expect. Investigators found extensive evidence that Epstein abused underage girls, but reported limited corroborated evidence that he operated a trafficking ring “for powerful men,” and stated that no formal “client list” was discovered, while also showing that leads and allegations involving other individuals were examined with varying outcomes.
That does not eliminate the public-interest concerns. When extremely wealthy and politically connected networks intersect with sexual abuse, secrecy, and settlement dynamics, serious questions arise about institutional incentives—who is protected, what is investigated, what is charged, and what disappears into procedural opacity. Even the mechanics of disclosure—what is released, what is withheld, and why—become part of the story.
This environment has also proven fertile ground for conspiracy thinking. The claim that a child-abuse ring was operated out of a pizzeria in Washington, D.C. originated with Pizzagate, and later themes were absorbed and amplified by QAnon. These claims were demonstrably false, yet they created an information ecosystem in which sensational falsehoods coexist with real abuse, allowing each to obscure the other and divert attention from evidence-based scrutiny.
Regarding political figures, the factual record is narrower than many viral claims suggest. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has been formally accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, though their past social proximity has drawn public scrutiny. Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein is documented through flight logs and acknowledged contacts, while Clinton has denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and denied visiting specific properties attributed to Epstein; these details remain contested in public discourse.
Finally, regarding Greenland, it is accurately reported that Ronald S. Lauder encouraged Trump during his first term to pursue acquiring Greenland, citing strategic considerations. Some reporting has also noted Lauder’s personal and business interests in the region, though these motivations remain debated.
Taken together, these actors, narratives, and institutional incentives collide in ways that can shape public reality—sometimes through law, sometimes through public relations, and sometimes through the informational fog that forms around scandals of this magnitude.
This is an issue Trump railed against during all three of his campaigns for office. Yet, incredibly, he was also one of the central participants—not in any “communist” circles, but within overlapping elite business, political, and social networks connected to Epstein. Many of the individuals involved were likewise Trump’s business partners or associates, including Alex Acosta, Leon Black, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and, of course, Tom Barrack, whose name appears frequently in the files. They were very much part of Trump’s broader circle of friends and associates.
They engaged in many activities together, some related to Epstein and some not. However, it is difficult to cleanly separate these relationships and credibly claim that, regardless of what each individual did legally or illegally, they did not know the broken boundaries between law, politics, and self-dealing that characterized these networks.
After taking office for a second term, Trump initially appeared to try to bury the issue. That approach became untenable once outrage within the MAGA movement grew so significant that it began to fracture the Republican Party. At that point, he shifted toward damage control—attempting to distance himself by minimizing references to his own name in the files and refocusing attention on figures who were no longer politically practical or convenient, such as Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and others who had been part of Epstein’s broader network in earlier decades. As Republicans, or former Democrats now politically expendable, they were easier to sacrifice.
One of the most neglected dimensions until recently has been the national security angle. This manifests in two major storylines. The first concerns Epstein’s involvement with universities and his apparent efforts to cultivate or financially influence scientists with access to sensitive or classified research—particularly in areas such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, which are priority domains for both the United States and its primary strategic competitor, China. Epstein also appears to have had interests in cybersecurity, including companies involved in intelligence-related services, possibly serving private clients and potentially government-linked ones.
The second major issue involves his connections to Russian intelligence networks. The pattern of associations is too complex to dismiss as coincidental. Epstein repeatedly surrounded himself with individuals linked to the Kremlin, Russian intelligence circles, or other Russian power networks—from his publicist and public-relations representatives to members of his personal security detail. Many of these figures had documented or credible ties to Russian state institutions.
Epstein travelled to Russia multiple times and held visas, some of which were reportedly facilitated by high-level intermediaries connected to British and transatlantic political networks. While the precise role of figures such as Peter Mandelson remains contested in public reporting, Epstein’s access and mobility within these circles suggest facilitation beyond that of an ordinary private citizen.
All of this indicates that Epstein was not merely a greedy or self-serving functionary. He has exercised substantial autonomy in managing and leveraging elite power networks, even if he may have been accountable to higher authorities. It remains plausible that he conducted operations benefiting Russian intelligence services or oligarchic interests, although the extent and formal nature of that relationship are still unclear.
What remains unresolved is where Epstein’s role as a cooperating intermediary ended and where a more direct function as an agent of influence—one capable of affecting U.S. policy decisions—may have begun. This question requires sustained, careful investigation. It is not clear that the FBI, significantly depleted of Russia specialists during the Trump years, currently has either the capacity or the institutional independence to pursue such an inquiry to its necessary depth.
Whatever the case may be, the scandal is far larger than Trump’s personal dealings with potentially underage women or women who were trafficked by force. At best, that was only the tip of the iceberg. At worst, it may have served as a cover for far more substantial intelligence, financial, and money-laundering operations.
These appear to have included movement and influence operations conducted under the guise of a sexualized social network—one that bound participants together and created leverage over them. That leverage helped Epstein retain control until it became apparent that he was likely to be prosecuted, potentially cooperate with authorities, and face serious legal consequences.
His death occurred under highly suspicious circumstances. While no definitive conclusion has been established beyond the official finding, the circumstances inevitably invite comparison to other cases involving transnational sex-trafficking figures. One frequently cited parallel is a French businessman engaged in trafficking women from Eastern Europe and Africa to Western Europe and the United States through a fraudulent modelling agency, who was also found hanged in a French prison several years earlier. While such comparisons should be treated cautiously, the pattern is troubling.
What is especially striking is that the majority of high-profile individuals within Epstein’s network continued their associations with him openly and, in some cases, brazenly—even after his sex-trafficking history became public and after he had served time in prison. Many did not merely maintain contact but appeared to defend him or minimize his conduct.
The same applied to politically and socially prominent figures, including Prince Andrew and members of his broader social circle. Despite mounting public evidence and reputational risks, these individuals continued to visit Epstein, communicate with him, engage in business or leisure activities, and avail themselves of whatever access or benefits he provided.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a contributor to The Washington Outsider. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bankat In-Sight Publishing. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.