The Epstein Files Are Becoming a Witch Hunt

"This type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt," warned Clay Higgins.

On Wednesday, Variety published the headline: "J.K. Rowling Denies Inviting Jeffrey Epstein to 'Harry Potter & The Cursed Child' Broadway Opening, DOJ Docs Show He Was Turned Away at Door." One wonders why the editors decided they needed the first part of that, which is accusatory in tone—even though the second part acquits her!

Luckily for Rowling, the new information, made available as part of the federal government's mandatory Epstein files disclosure—3 million more pages became available last Friday—knocks down this particular smear campaign. But here's my question: What if Epstein, a schemer and a charlatan whose entire shtick was worming his way into the company of rich and famous people for the purposes of manipulating and/or blackmailing them, had somehow snuck into the show?

If the response to this latest batch of Epstein files is any indication, Rowling would have been referred to as one of those notable names brought down by the Epstein files—guilty, by insinuation, of complicity in the most infamous sexual predator's appalling crimes. Rowling, of course, is already persona non grata among progressives, owing to her views on transgender issues, which are perfectly mainstream but toxically unpopular amongst the left. But that's the problem: The Epstein files have become an exercise in ax-grinding among partisan actors and knee-jerk critics of people who found themselves in Epstein's orbit—wealthy entrepreneurs, academics, the chattering class, etc.

This is not to excuse the appalling judgment of those who consciously and deliberately continued to court Epstein's favor even after the full extent of his depravity was well-known. Such figures include Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky, Steve Bannon, and Stacey Plaskett. Bannon and Plaskett, in particular, sought Epstein's political counsel right up until the end of his life. Chomsky gave Epstein advice on beating the charges against him. Gates is accused of despicable behavior, which he denies.

The best thing that can be said about the release of the Epstein files is that it sheds light on the incredibly poor discernment of several individuals who are influential in public policy. This is useful information that the public has a right to know.

But the release of the Epstein files has also meant that millions of documents containing thinly-sourced accusations, misleading information, and outright falsehoods are now flooding social media, giving a veneer of confirmation to rumors, gossip, and lies. This is very much by design, since Congress—by a vote of 427–1 in the House—opted to disclose everything, including transcripts of investigations, and reports that were never deemed truthful.

For example, the latest batch of docs prompted Keith Edwards, a Democratic strategist, to post on X the claim that Epstein is the one who introduced President Donald Trump to Melania is now "confirmed."

BREAKING: The Epstein files confirm Melania met Trump through Epstein. pic.twitter.com/NXROgRTa6z

— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) February 2, 2026

The claim is not confirmed. Just because someone said this, and an investigator made note of it, does not mean it's true. On the contrary, Donald and Melania have both denied that it's true, and The Daily Beast was previously forced to retract the claim because the official timeline of events contradicts it.

So here we have a clear case of bad-faith political actors weaponizing the Epstein files to tarnish their political enemies, even though the new documents don't prove anything about Trump. Indeed, for partisan figures who have been obsessed with the notion that the Epstein files would demonstrate Trump's complicity in Epstein's sex crimes, the most stunning revelation should be that there's no evidence of this whatsoever. There's also no evidence that the Clintons were involved in an international cabal of pedophiles.

No one's priors are being reconsidered, however. On the contrary, those who were interested in the Epstein files mostly because they wanted evidence that their political enemies were child rapists are now mostly claiming that such proof is still being withheld. Much like people who believe the moon-landing was fake and the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them.

Initially, this category included many of the MAGA faithful, who earnestly believed they were about to unmask a global pedophile ring involving the Clintons. More recently, the Epstein files disclosure became a Democratic crusade, as it dawned on liberals that Trump had been friends with Epstein, too, and perhaps complicit in his crimes. Again, there's nothing to incriminate Trump, and there's nothing to incriminate the Clintons. Rep. James Comer (R–Ky.) won't take no for an answer, of course. He has successfully pressured the Clintons to testify before Congress about Epstein.

Rabid Dog

It's worth repeating that the real villain of the Epstein files is Epstein himself, a vicious sexual predator who abused underage girls. He is likely not the only one, and there are other individuals in Epstein's orbit who reached settlements with accusers.

But the Epstein files do not contain a great deal of new evidence of sex crimes among Epstein's friends, associates, and acquaintances. Yet everyone whose name appears in the Epstein files is now being treated like an exposed sex criminal. This includes hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, who appears in a photo alongside three young people, possibly on Epstein's island. On X, high-follower accounts cited the photo as evidence that Dubin had sexually assaulted those children, who were probably procured for him by Epstein.

Except that's not the case at all. Those are Dubin's own kids!

That's Glenn Dubin. Those are his own kids. This whole thing is becoming an insane moral panic along the lines of the Satanic child abuse panic, recovered memory, campus rape hysteria, and all of that.

Epstein was a predator, and people who kept in contact with him showed… https://t.co/1mFpPA8UXL

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) February 3, 2026

This is a witch hunt mentality; in fact, it's reminiscent of the public panic over sexual misconduct on college campuses throughout the 2010s, in which junk statistics and one-sided journalism helped advance an utterly false notion that elite universities were a "hunting ground" for young women. The idea that scores of rapists hunted college women, lured them into attics, and attacked them during depraved rituals was the thrust of the infamous Rolling Stone hoax story, which was subsequently debunked.

Moreover, the release of the files may be setting a dangerous precedent. It is incredibly unusual for the federal government to unseal investigative records, which contain reports that lack corroboration. This is an unusual case, and there's certainly an argument to be made that public confidence in the justice system requires disclosure here. But I can't help but consider the statement by Rep. Clay Higgins (R–La.), the lone no vote on Epstein disclosure.

"If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt," he wrote.

Can anyone say that he was wrong?

For more from me on this subject, I have a piece in The Free Press making a similar argument.

---

This Week on Free Media and Freed Up

(We haven't taped either yet. Stay tuned later this week!)

Freed Up, in case you are wondering, is my brand new show with Christian Britschgi, Reason's resident salmon-wrangler and housing reporter. Unlike Reason's other video products, we are not actively trying to make you any smarter or better informed about the news—though we expect, as a side effect of watching, you may accrue information about Star Wars, Chinese history, Pokemon, working out, and/or the Catholic Church.

Considers this our desperate attempt to capitalize on the success of all those two dudes hanging out podcasts. And we are inviting you to join us!

---

Worth Watching

Two casting controversies took social media by storm this week, and they are both movies I'd like to see. First, conservatives were mad about Lupita Nyong'o, a black woman, portraying Helen of Troy in Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey. (Elon Musk quipped that Nolan had lost his integrity.) It should be noted that this casting rumor isn't even confirmed; all we know for sure is that Nyong'o will appear in the movie. Second, some liberals were irate that Jacob Elordi is portraying Heathcliff in the new Wuthering Heights movie. In the source material, author Emily Brontë describes Heathcliff as "dark-skinned," whereas Elordi is fair-skinned. This is rather silly, though. For Bronte, a woman of Victorian England, "dark-skinned" could have meant anything from African or Indian to Spanish or Italian. (Elordi is of Spanish descent, for the record.) Moreover, though Heathcliff is definitely lowborn and an outcast owing to his origins—and that affects his temperament and the manner in which he is treated by the other characters—his specific racial identity is not particularly important to the story.

This is insane. Heathcliff is not a "person of color" in the modern sense. He is described as a "dark skinned gipsy," and what that means is ambiguous. For Emily Bronte, Spanish people would have been dark-skinned. (The collective white identity did not exist until recently.)… https://t.co/DNSC71MuYA

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) January 30, 2026

As for Helen of Troy, in Greek mythology, she emerged from an egg after her father, Zeus, mated with a swan. It's essential to depict her as very beautiful, but she does not need to be a fair-skinned white woman like Diane Kruger, who played her in the 2004 Troy movie. (That movie was pretty great, in my opinion, and I definitely liked Kruger as Helen!) Kruger isn't Greek; neither is Matt Damon, who's portraying Odysseus this time around—but no one is mad about that. It's just Nyong'o generating the anger.

Let's wait and see, shall we?