Britain’s role in attacks on Cyprus, Venezuela, and Iran

By Alfie Howis

March 7, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely

Sign at RAF Base Akrotiri on Cyprus

Britain’s role in the recent machinations of the US empire has been central, despite going underreported and little criticised. Britain has a significant hand in the ongoing US war of aggression against Iran and their recent invasion of Venezuela. Britain’s empire and overseas bases, and associated intelligence and surveillance capabilities, are cornerstones of its contribution to these ongoing wars. Just as Britain’s colonial bases in occupied Cyprus served an intelligence and surveillance role in the Gaza genocide, so to did they help surveil Iran and prepare intelligence in preparation for US attacks, and are now being used as a staging post for those attacks. The ongoing UK-Mauritius Chagos Islands deal and subsequent US-UK rift over Diego Garcia’s use in the attack on Iran shows the potential for decolonial practice in international law and is a case that the US-UK Bases off Cyprus campaign can learn from.

RAF Akrotiri has been very important in the US attacks on Iran to date. For example, it provided a base for air refuelling planes that refuelled the bombers that struck Iran’s nuclear sites in June last year, and the bases likely provided intelligence and surveillance support for this operation too. Between March and May last year, the base also refuelled US bombers, which attacked Yemen, an attack in which the RAF also directly participated. The base is used for all UK bombing of Iraq and Syria, which still happens sometimes, and it was almost certainly an intelligence hub for the American support for the successful counter-revolution in Syria. British F-35s are currently stationed in Akrotiri, reportedly to conduct ELINT (electronic intelligence) against Iran, essentially to use their advanced sensors to gather intelligence on Iranian air defences as part of the current war. Any strike on Iran would commence with SEAD (suppression of enemy air defence) operations, necessitating mapping those air defences out beforehand, which is what the F-35s are doing. Now the British government has allowed the use of the bases on Cyprus for attacks on Iran, despite earlier denying this. GCHQ and the NSA’s main Middle Eastern intelligence base is in the British base area, which is extremely important to any military operations in the region. The NSA controls part of these bases more than GCHQ, meaning that there would be no oversight of US intelligence operations by the UK, let alone democratic accountability for the people of Britain or Cyprus to decide if they want this kind of thing happening on their land and in their political jurisdictions. 

Britain’s role in US wars during the Trump administration has been much more significant than many people realise. Britain actually suspended Caribbean and Eastern Pacific-related intelligence sharing with the US in November 2025 because of the US strikes on fishing boats, which killed innocent people. The British state was briefing, ie, telling journalists anonymously, that this was because the strikes were illegal murders that Britain didn’t want to be implicated in legally, which was, of course, a self-interested position, not a moral one.

Yet by the start of this year, Britain had started to contribute to the Southern Spear mission directly, this time in relation to the oil blockade of Venezuela. Essentially, the UK drew a line between these different parts of US actions in the area, even though the tanker seizures are clearly illegal too. There were at least 4 examples where this is evidence of a direct British role in the seizure of tankers. Britain helped the US seize three tankers in the Caribbean with a total of 2.5 million barrels of oil, the M Sophia, the Olina, and the Sagitta, between January 7th and January 20th. Britain contributed to this with surveillance flights, probably operating from British colonies in the Caribbean, from Florida, and from the Azores.

So once again, we see the intelligence and surveillance role that Britain plays in the imperial alliance; in lieu of a powerful navy, Britain seems to have specialised to an extent in its role. This type of activity is by its nature quite secretive – it would be politically difficult to have sent navy ships to interdict ships off Venezuela. But the surveillance contribution, enabled by the remaining empire’s geographical footprint, has not been picked up by the media here at all, and is also pretty unaccountable to parliament, and not subject to much democratic oversight. This, of course, mirrors Britain’s role in the Gaza genocide, where its surveillance contributions have been shrouded in secrecy and the details hidden even from MPs who are supposed to have some oversight of the military or at least its participation in foreign wars.

The other case is that of the ship, the Bella 1, renamed the Marinera, which the US seized in the North Atlantic, between Iceland and Scotland, on January 7^th. This was a Russian-flagged tanker sailing from Venezuela to Russia. What happened here was more direct – US special forces flew to Britain, which was tracked by flight trackers following known special ops planes. Then, they undertook the seizure operation after flying from Britain in helicopters, and meeting US Navy ships. Britain provided more intense logistical and surveillance help in this instance, as it happened so close to Britain. The ship was stolen and brought to Scotland, and the 26 crew were kidnapped and falsely imprisoned in Scotland, with most being able to leave after the US had determined they were allowed to.

The captain and first mate of this ship, the captain being a Georgian citizen, were not allowed to go home by the US once detained in Scotland. The wife of the captain made an appeal to the Scottish courts, arguing that her husband was being illegally detained without the right to the proper extradition procedures. A Scottish court granted an interim interdict, an emergency injunction, prohibiting the removal of the captain from Scotland, whilst the case was heard and the courts made their decisions. However, immediately after that court decision, the very same night, the two men were taken from Scotland to a US Navy ship, which set sail for the US. A couple of days ago, the captain had his first court hearing in Puerto Rico, where he will be transferred to DC and put on trial for ‘preventing a lawful seizure’ and failure to stop the vessel during the Coast Guard chase. The Scottish government condemned the US actions, but the Green Party of Scotland led a more serious analysis of the situation in the Scottish parliament, arguing that the US had basically illegally kidnapped people from Scotland, ignoring the courts.

There are a few things to pick up on here. Firstly, like all the US actions around Venezuela and the tankers, there was no legal basis for them to do any of this. A ship isn’t ‘illegal’ or part of a ‘dark fleet’ just because it’s ‘sanctioned’ by one country. Venezuela and Russia are, in theory, sovereign nations that can conduct trade and sail ships between them; no one gets to randomly call any of that illegal. There is this pretense that somehow these sanctions represent international law, but they are just edicts by one country, with no relation to international law, treaties, the UN, or any multilateral decision-making body. In fact, Bella 1 was not even sanctioned by the UK, so what was the possible legal justification for the UK’s involvement in this?

The second part is the US flouting of Scottish and British law. Scotland has its own judicial system that is separate from the rest of the UK. It is under the UK Supreme Court and the British Parliament, but it can exercise judicial authority otherwise. Likewise, the Scottish government has a high level of autonomy within the UK, with its own elected parliament and government. The US violating the law of places where its troops are based is pretty normal, take all the murders and rapes that go along with US bases abroad, cases that have come to prominence in Japan and Korea, especially. A US diplomat’s wife killed a young man in a car crash near a US base a few years ago in England, and flew back to the US, never to face any consequences.

So, regardless of UK law and international law, the US is allowed, and even invited, to do whatever it wants in Britain, and can commission the British military to help. The British military is helping the US commit crimes in Britain, crimes under British law, in the case of the kidnapping of the sailors from Scotland. The British military is literally helping a foreign power defy civilian courts here. In the UK, we are facing the trumping of our own government and legal system by US imperial diktats, and our military and certainly this government, are choosing to actively promote it. It is a serious crisis of sovereignty for the UK. It is more important to think of the imperial violence that we are dishing out to others rather than ruminating too much on the implications of that violence in the metropole, but there are the seeds of a domestic political and legal crisis here, which could one day help to undermine Britain’s role in all of this.

There was relatively big news in mid-February about the UK denying the US the use of its bases for their coming renewed war on Iran. Namely, bases in England and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean. Trump posted angrily about this and again withdrew his support for the Chagos Islands deal. To summarise the current situation regarding the Chagos Islands, there’s a UK colony in the middle of the Indian Ocean called the British Indian Ocean Territory. After WW2, the US leased the main island, Diego Garcia, as an airbase, and it’s now one of the most important US bases in the world due to its location. It was one of the CIA’s black sites and has supported attacks on the region before, including on Iran. Mauritius went through international courts to force the UK to give it back to them and won, so in 2025, the UK government made an agreement to hand over the territory but lease the base back from Mauritius for 99 years, guaranteeing the base’s status is basically unchanged. 

This is good news that there is some kind of rift between Britain and the US on this, but it does raise some interesting questions, and these denials have been rescinded anyway. Namely, can the UK always exercise this right of denial, because then it would proactively have had to have proactively approved US use of bases for attacking Iran last year, or did they approve the torture black site on Diego Garcia, do they approve the use of UK bases as transit for all this equipment to the Middle East which will be used to attack Iran anyway? Secondly, Trump posting that he ‘may have to use’ the Fairford and Diego Garcia bases to attack Iran, despite apparently being told he can’t, should be a big deal! Again, the question of UK sovereignty over its own land and military resources comes up – can we even say no to the US, is it possible at all? And will this government do anything about it if their request is ignored – highly unlikely.

However, it turns out that this whole issue may have originated in an order to the civil service in the foreign office, telling them to act as if the Chagos Islands deal had already gone through. In this case, it seems that the UK government asked the Mauritian government about the US request, and they must have said no, and so Britain said no. Alternatively, the foreign office may have said no based on the specific wording of the deal, where Britain must consult Mauritius on an attack on a third state from Diego Garcia, and have judged Trump’s intended actions to be an attack on the Iranian state, rather than self-defence, which would not require consultation. 

This then makes it seem all the less benevolent. This government and the previous government, which started negotiations with Mauritius over this deal, have faced attacks from the right in the UK for giving away British land and throwing away an important base. The government has justified the deal not because it is the right thing to do, or by accepting any of the principles of the arguments around it, but instead, they justify it because they say it is the only way to keep the base operating. They claim that because of the ICJ ruling, they would be forced to cede the territory very soon, and so it was best to make a deal first. We don’t typically have much faith in these organs of international law, as they were set up to enforce the imperial order. However, it is possible for the subjects of that order to assert some agency and attempt to use that system in an insurgent manner. In this case, it is Mauritius and much of the world supporting it, which has forced this to happen, and indirectly has caused this rift and may prevent the base from being used for these attacks. I don’t think this will ultimately work, and the US would probably just use them anyway, but these are all interesting things to consider in relation to the base question. It seems that the UK is now allowing the use of Diego Garcia for attacks on Iran, which it deems ‘defensive’ even though that definition includes strikes on ground targets. The potential utility of this model of handover deal, despite keeping the base open, does then seem to restrict the uses of the base in line with aspects of Mauritian sovereignty, disrupting the bases in some way or another, which is a big decolonial win the left has not yet fully grasped.

We could then conclude that a big concerted international campaign against blatant colonial practices may actually work in damaging the effectiveness of these colonial overseas bases to some extent. Mauritius exploited the inherent contradictions between international law on the one hand and the bases’ colonial nature on the other, to build a campaign, get almost everyone onside, and force a reckoning in the international courts, which is binding. So for Cyprus, although it is a different situation in many ways, we can see similarities, and we can learn from what’s happened around Diego Garcia. The fact that the bases are a colonial relic is important because it gives our campaign the leverage to say that this is obviously wrong and obviously contradicts the international law that you, the imperial powers, set up, and this gives us the opportunity to build alliances based on that. That is actually much easier and much less radical than talking about the bases’ role in genocide, which seems wholly exempt from the international law system, which shows how dehumanised Palestinians and Gaza are. The US-UK Bases Off Cyprus Campaign that CODEPINK is running has those two integral parts to it, working on the bases in Cyprus’ contribution to genocide and imperial wars, and their inherent status as a colony on occupied land. Linking those two parts of the base question is the central point of what we’re trying to do and trying to expose, as a step towards practical change to the bases’ status.Email

Alfie Howis

Alfie Howis is an activist and writer with CODEPINK London.

Sonam Wangchuk’s Long Detention Tests Indian Democracy

Aalok Bajpai | 26 Feb 2026

• 
  

It has become a defining test of India’s tolerance for dissent, and commitment to dialogue.

Renowned engineer, innovator, education reformer, and socio-environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk has been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) since September 26, 2025. Currently incarcerated in Jodhpur Central Jail, his detention has now extended to nearly 150 days (five months). On February 19, 2026, the Supreme Court heard a petition challenging his detention, directing the government to produce original recordings of his speeches and accurate translations.

Dismissing Wangchuk's prolonged imprisonment as merely a legal matter would be simplistic. This case transcends an individual; it probes the sensitivity of India's democracy. In a democratic setup, tension between power and dissent is natural, but when voices of disagreement are silenced through extended incarceration, it raises questions about the health of the democratic system. This is not just about one person's freedom; it is a litmus test for India's democratic sensitivity, tolerance, and openness to dialogue. For the Indian people, this is a moment for introspection—have we begun to equate dissent with treason, criticism with rebellion, and warnings with crime?

Mr. Wangchuk has consistently drawn the state's attention to issues of environment, education, and social concerns in border regions. In a geographically and culturally unique area like Ladakh, his role has been more than that of an activist; he has served as a bridge for dialogue between local society and the central government. Thus, the question of his prolonged detention goes beyond law and order. It raises important questions on the nature of relations between power and society.

Right to Dissent in Democracy

The first question pertains to the right to dissent in a democracy. Detaining someone who has dedicated their entire life to education, community development, and Ladakh, who has brought glory to the country by winning the Ramon Magsaysay Award, who demonstrated patriotism in Galwan, undertook fasts for the protection of Himalayan environment, and inspired millions of Indians, under a stringent preventive detention law like NSA for such a long period sends the wrong message. Dissent is not a crime. Labeling someone who peacefully demands from the state as 'anti-national' and imprisoning them weakens the soul of democracy. The Constitution grants freedom of expression as a fundamental right not so that citizens only praise the government, but so that they can also question it. Individuals like Sonam Wangchuk do not oppose power; they alert society—whether it's about Ladakh's environment, education reforms, or local autonomy. If such voices are confined to long-term imprisonment, it creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship in society. This is akin to imprisoning not just one person, but the collective civic consciousness.

Misuse of NSA

The second issue is the need to prevent the misuse of NSA. Although meant for preventive detention, NSA has been repeatedly used to suppress political dissent. Extraordinary laws like NSA should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. If every dissent is deemed a 'threat to national security,' both freedom of expression and democracy will be endangered.

Unheard Demands of Ladakh

The third issue is the ignored core demands of Ladakh. Sixth Schedule status, statehood, priority for locals in jobs – these demands are linked to the region's security, culture, and livelihoods. Mr. Wangchuk's journey began with disappointment with the existing education system, which he felt did not meet the needs of Ladakhi students. In 1988, along with other concerned students, he founded the Students' Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), aimed at reforming government schools and making education more practical and relevant in the Ladakhi context. Recognizing the growing water crisis due to melting glaciers, Mr. Wangchuk developed the simple "Ice Stupa" technique. The ice stupas have earned international acclaim as a low-cost solution to water scarcity. Mr. Wangchuk was on a hunger strike in Leh from March 6, 2024, to March 26, 2024. His main demands were: grant Ladakh statehood under the Sixth Schedule, which provides special rights and protections to tribal areas; declare Ladakh an environmentally protected area; increase employment opportunities for Ladakh's youth; and preserve Ladakh's unique culture and language.

Imprisoning Sonam Wangchuk does not solve the problem. The sentiments of Ladakh's people should be addressed, not suppressed, especially since Ladakh is a strategically important border region.

Health and Humanity Concerns

The fourth question is about health and humanity. The Supreme Court itself expressed concern over his health. Is such prolonged preventive detention necessary for a person over fifty years old suffering from some chronic illnesses, who has previously undertaken fasts, and who had to be admitted to Jodhpur AIIMS due to health deterioration caused by contaminated jail water and adverse conditions? Isn't this against humanity?

Need for Peaceful Dialogue and Positive Resolution

Sonam Wangchuk has always supported peaceful protests. Following the Gandhian path, Mr. Wangchuk's movement has been based on fasts and peaceful marches from Leh to Delhi. Is imposing a harsh law like NSA on a person engaging in non-violent protest in line with democratic values? He is not just a political activist but an internationally acclaimed innovator and environmentalist. His demands as a climate warrior to save Ladakh's glaciers and its fragile ecosystem are connected to the future of the entire country, especially the Himalayas. His imprisonment means weakening the voice for Ladakh's ecological security. The Supreme Court has sought clarity from the government on whether there are sufficient grounds for his detention. The old adage goes, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.' Sonam Wangchuk's struggle is not just for Ladakh but a fight to balance freedom of expression and nature conservation in Indian democracy. An enlightened society must ensure that in the race for development, we do not lose our environmental guardians behind bars. This is the time for the Indian populace to adopt a clear and rational stance in favor of expression, dialogue, and tolerance—because democracy ultimately survives not through institutions, but through civic consciousness. The central government should immediately release Sonam Wangchuk and rectify its mistake. Sitting at the dialogue table with Ladakh is still possible. This would be best for the country's unity and dignity.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and multidisciplinary cultural commentator. The views expressed are personal.

THE EPSTEIN CLASS

Epstein in the Shadows

Incomplete Truths and the High Cost of Official Secrecy

by Nolan Higdon / February 23rd, 2026

Notice: My goal is to provide fresh insights with every post. This article focuses exclusively on new developments regarding the Epstein Files. For a comprehensive background on the saga, please visit our [full archive here]; the most recent updates are located at the bottom of the page.

Recently, social media was flooded with images purportedly showing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as a child alongside his mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, in the company of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. In reality, these images were sophisticated deepfakes, likely engineered as a character assassination attempt against Mamdani.

This targeted attempt to link Mamdani to the Epstein circle highlights the very type of conspiratorial fervor that experts argue is exacerbated by government gatekeeping. Dr. Kathryn Olmsted of the University of California, Davis, observes that conspiracy-minded thinking tends to flourish as governments become increasingly bigger and more secretive.

The handling of the ‘Epstein Files’ supports Olmsted’s view, as the Trump administration has worked to restrict what information about Epstein reaches the public. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump advocated for the full release of these records. Once President, his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, even claimed to possess a list of known co-conspirators. However, months later, Bondi, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, and Deputy Director Dan Bongino asserted that the files contained no actionable evidence for prosecution. When Congress appeared ready to force the release of the Department of Justice (DOJ) files on Epstein through the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Trump dismissed the Epstein scandal as a Democrat-led “hoax“ and reportedly pressured GOP lawmakers to oppose the legislation. Marjorie Taylor Greene, then a Representative from Georgia, claims Trump told her “his friends” were in danger if the files were released.

Following the enactment of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated the public disclosure of all DOJ records related to the case, the resulting rollout has faced intense scrutiny. While the Act allows for narrow redactions to protect survivor privacy or active investigations, critics argue the process has been applied inconsistently; in several documented instances, the identities of survivors were left exposed while the names of high-profile potential co-conspirators remained shielded from public view.

Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie successfully led a bipartisan charge to “un-redact” some of the names of ten alleged co-conspirators through a mix of pressuring the DOJ and reading the names into the congressional record. However, the one convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, claims there are 25 others who received deals with the federal government to avoid prosecution. The DOJ’s decision to redact these ten co-conspirators demonstrates at best a violation of the law and disregard for transparency, and at worst, an effort to protect known co-conspirators. This secrecy is particularly galling given that nude images of victims, which were legally permitted to be redacted, were released by the DOJ.

The Architecture of Secrecy

Beyond the immediate legal battles, Ira E. Hyman Jr., a Professor of Psychology at Western Washington University, argues in Psychology Today that the “slow and incomplete release of information” regarding Epstein is actively fueling public belief in baseless conspiracy theories. A functional democracy is predicated on transparency; while the public would be better positioned to draw accurate conclusions if the files were released in their entirety, the Trump Administration has instead opted for a strictly selective release.

By the government’s own estimates, over three million files remain withheld or heavily obscured. A Channel 4 investigation concluded that a mere 2% of the documents have been made public. Compounding this, significant records held by the Epstein estate and various financial institutions remain hidden, while the government has occasionally posted and then abruptly retracted files. Consequently, these conspiracy theories may be less a product of public imagination and more a direct result of a secretive government providing a curated, rather than comprehensive, account of the facts.

The lack of transparency is further exacerbated by the fact that one of the most powerful figures at the center of the Epstein narrative, President Donald Trump, remains largely redacted despite frequent mentions. According to New York Times, President Trump is referenced 38,000 times in the released files; however, Representative Jamie Raskin notes that Trump’s name appears over a million times in the unredacted, unreleased versions. Furthermore, unlike other nations that have utilized these disclosures to launch inquiries into financial and sexual crimes, the U.S. government, led by Trump, has not engaged in any formal investigation of the public officials or institutions implicated in the files.

Ultimately, a critical analysis of the files, one that prioritizes evidence over speculation, is the most effective path forward. Lawmakers like Representative Thomas Massie have suggested that as the 2026 election approaches, more Republican Party officials may defect and support a full release in an effort to claim the mantle of public transparency. However, achieving true accountability requires the public to maintain pressure on legislators rather than succumbing to fatigue or dismissing all evidentiary discussions as mere “conspiracy.” What follows are some of the latest findings uncovered within the Epstein files.

Breeding Grounds: The Eugenics Obsession at Zorro Ranch

“New Mexico approves truth commission on alleged Jeffrey Epstein ranch abuse,” read a The Guardian headline on February 17, 2026. The day prior, New Mexico officially approved a commission to investigate years of alleged abuse at Epstein’s estate outside Santa Fe, known as Zorro Ranch. This legislative action followed intense public pressure sparked by revelations in the recently released Epstein files. The commission aims to address the testimonies of multiple women and girls who reported being sexually abused on the sprawling 10,000-acre (4,000-hectare) property, which served as a secluded hub for Epstein’s operations for decades.

In 2019, The Guardian reported on a disturbing ambition, “Epstein reportedly hoped to develop a super-race of humans with his DNA.” This coverage expanded on earlier reporting from The New York Times, which detailed Epstein’s plan to “seed the human race” by impregnating up to 20 women at a time at his ranch. Epstein was reportedly motivated in part by a desire to extend his life. Recent revelations from the unsealed files confirm these reports, linking his actions to a deep-seated belief in eugenics, a discredited social philosophy that advocates for ‘improving’ the human gene pool through selective breeding and the systematic exclusion of groups deemed inferior.

Many online observers have described the New Mexico ranch as a “baby farm,” which implies that infants were being tested there. While there have been allegations of sexual abuse on the property, no reporting or evidence within the files has proven the existence of a baby farm. Nevertheless, the documents do include specific details that are drawing significant attention to the story. For example, the files include a survivor who claimed she was used by Epstein as a “human incubator” in 2002. In 2013, another woman wrote via email to remind Epstein that he made “threats” toward her and stated, “You offered to buy my baby six months into our relationship.” Another email sent in 2019 to a conservative radio host in New Mexico read, “Did you know somewhere in the hills outside the Zorro, two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G? Both died by strangulation during rough, fetish sex.” The sender, using an encrypted email address, promised to send a USB with videos confirming the claims, but it is not known if the USB was sent.

The document releases also include a series of email exchanges from September 2011 that journalists attribute to Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, congratulating Epstein on purportedly having a “baby boy.” One message reads: “Don’t know if you are still on this bbm [BlackBerry Messenger] but heard from The Duke that you have had a baby boy.” In another email, the sender, presumably Ferguson, wrote: “Even though you never kept in touch, I still am here with love, friendship and congratualtions [sic] on your baby boy. Sarah xx.” Despite these messages, Epstein is not known to have had any children. Indeed, the sender, seemingly the Duchess of York, appears surprised by the news, writing: “You have disappeared. I did not even know you were having a baby.” Further complicating this narrative is a February 2012 email sent to Epstein from a redacted address which states: “Baby boy due on March 15th.” Epstein’s brother denied that his brother had a child.

Regardless of whether or not he fathered a child, the files shed light on how Epstein’s obsession with gene editing led him to recruit so-called “code breakers” from the National Security Agency (NSA). This is not too surprising as I have previously noted that the files illustrate that Epstein had contact with high-level officials from U.S. intelligence agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA). Drop Site News reports that Epstein recruited gene-code breakers – scientists and technologists that decipher or manipulate the genetic code, enabling the editing, rewriting, or expansion of DNA instructions – from the NSA for over a decade. Epstein reached out to Daniel Dubno, a CBS News producer who previously worked with The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He also reached out to computing pioneer Danny Hillis asking “i am looking for nsa quality code theorist.” Eventually, Epstein reportedly leveraged his friendship with then-White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler to seek help finding NSA codebreakers. Their relationship included thousands of emails where Ruemmler called him “Uncle Jeffrey.” This week, the exposure of these ties led to her high-profile departure from Goldman Sachs. Epstein’s connections with people in the intelligence community went beyond the U.S.

The Intelligence Nexus: Assets, Informants, and Mossad

“Israeli intelligence sources reject claims Jeffrey Epstein was Mossad [The Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations] operative following document releases,” read a February 2026 Fox News headline. The Israeli government seemingly felt compelled to address the matter after unsealed files revealed that both an FBI informant and a confidential human source had explicitly identified Epstein as an asset of Israeli intelligence (possibly Mossad, the national intelligence agency of the State of Israel).

The documents further corroborate these ties, detailing Epstein’s extensive connections to Israeli intelligence circles and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Most recently, the files disclosed how Epstein brokered a series of high-level deals involving Barak, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. Following revelations that he was one of the ten co-conspirators linked to Epstein, and maintained a long-standing relationship with him, Sulayem resigned from his position at DP World on February 13, 2026.

Inner Circles: The Administration and the Epstein Network

There are indications in the files that Epstein’s connections to Trump’s inner circle, if not Trump himself, persisted into Trump’s first term. One of those connections was Tom Barrack, who currently serves as the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria. During Trump’s first term, Barrack was a top fundraiser, key advisor, and Chairman of the 2017 Presidential Inaugural Committee. Barrack joins other administration officials discussed in previous posts as having associations with Epstein, such as former Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

The relationship with another known associate from Trump’s first term has also become clearer. Epstein maintained a surprisingly close relationship with Steve Bannon, the former White House Chief Strategist during Trump’s first term. Files indicate Epstein advised Bannon on how to structure his podcast to build a media empire rather than a non-governmental organization (NGO), which would have invited stricter financial scrutiny. In addition to leveraging his relationship with Canadian-American billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman to influence the New York Daily News’s coverage of allegations following his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor, Epstein worked with Bannon to repair his public image by positioning him as a figure who could expose the secrets of the global “elite.”

Their correspondence suggests they discussed Trump’s apprehension regarding Bannon speaking to Epstein, with Epstein texting Bannon: “Now you can understand why Trump wakes up in the middle of the night sweating when he hears you and I are friends.”

In a text message exchange, Bannon and Epstein bemoaned how Trump had lost the midterm elections to the Democrats. Bannon stated that the White House had “zero plan to punch back.” “He is really borderline,” Epstein responded. “Not sure what he may do.” Bannon replied, “I think it’s beyond borderline — 25 amendment,” referring to the 25th Amendment, which is a constitutional mechanism used to remove a president from office who is deemed unfit to serve. In 2017, Michael Wolff, who also close to Epstein, reported that Bannon had once warned Trump that the 25th Amendment was the actual threat to his presidency.

The Ivy League Contagion: Academic Collateral Damage

The ripples of the Epstein scandal have been particularly destructive within academia. Academia’s connections to Epstein have been discussed for years including Larry Summers (who stepped down from some roles at Harvard University and OpenAI as a result), Noam Chomsky, and Marvin Minsky. Minsky, a renowned MIT AI scientist, had connections to Epstein, including accepting research funding and visiting Epstein’s private island. Minsky was also implicated in accusations by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claimed she was directed by Epstein to have sex with him, allegations denied by Minsky’s widow.

In the weeks following the release of the largest trove of files, several prominent professors have faced severe professional consequences. At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), officials removed the media expert profile of Mark Tramo, an associate adjunct professor of neurology, following a petition for his removal. Meanwhile, David Ross resigned as department chair at the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan after records showed he responded enthusiastically to Epstein’s proposal for an art exhibit featuring underage models. At Yale University, computer science professor David Gelernter was removed from the classroom pending a review of his correspondence with Epstein. Columbia University recently severed ties with Dr. Thomas Magnani and stripped Dr. Letty Moss-Salentijn of her administrative duties. The disciplinary actions followed the release of documents revealing that both dental college faculty members bypassed standard admissions protocols to facilitate the enrollment of Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend.

Similarly, Duke University closed three research centers, including the Center for Advanced Hindsight. While Duke University officials claimed the closure was unrelated to Director Dan Ariely’s hundreds of mentions in the Epstein files, the timing coincided with Ariely’s public defense of his relationship with the financier. University of Arizona cancelled its “Science of Consciousness” conference after anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff admitted to accepting funding from Epstein.

The fallout even reached university boardrooms. Brad Karp, a trustee at Union College, resigned from his role and his position at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Additionally, Thomas Pritzker, cousin of Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker, a trustee at the University of Chicago, and Francine LeFrak, a trustee at Barnard College, have seen their ties to Epstein come under intense scrutiny.

Other academic leaders have attempted to get ahead of the controversy. Leon Botstein, the President of Bard College, wrote to his campus to clarify that his interactions with Epstein were strictly for fundraising purposes, describing Epstein as a “skilled manipulator.”

The Mechanics of Exploitation: Evidence of the Empire

What is well known is that Epstein engaged in trafficking girls. There have been allegations from survivors who claimed that they were as young as 11 years old. In the DOJ’s files, investigators concluded that Epstein knowingly sought out minors for sexual abuse and trafficking. There are videos which show Epstein chasing young girls around a kitchen, and there are images which show Epstein in the company of minors.

The files add more depth and questions to Epstein’s predictions. For example, email communications show Epstein instructing a 14-year-old girl to send him pictures of herself: “ he photos should not be porn but should be sexy, do you watch porn? &n=sp; [suspicious link removed] for example. &nb=p; you want to be free without being porn, but=laugh , have fun,” but reminds her “you are going to be 22. not =4 years old.”

There is also a statement from a lawyer who claims that a victim, who was at a prepubescent age, was sexually assaulted by someone who allegedly knew Maxwell and Epstein and may have been trafficked by them. The lawyer provided a redacted photo, describing it as follows: “The photo shows a girl, her face visible, who looks prepubescent with medium length dark hair. Several Caucasian men are holding the girl’s legs spread open…[the rest of the statement is quite graphic and can be found on page 7 at the bottom for those who want to read it].”

In addition to the crimes, there is further evidence detailing how Epstein constructed his sex trafficking empire. The files indicate that Epstein leveraged his ties to model Naomi Campbell – a prominent figure for Victoria’s Secret, whose chief executive at the time was another alleged co-conspirator, Les Wexner – to attract young girls aspiring to be models. It was previously known that Epstein would invite young women to parties, promising to introduce them to high-powered industry connections; however, one girl claimed the only people present besides the girls were reportedly Epstein and Trump. Epstein also aggressively commanded these women, telling one individual of unknown age: “its time you start an education. 1. do not say FUCK to anyone except in bed. especailly not at the table. 2. you are 22, –only ask questions of men. they are not really intersted in your opinions until you are 30. and then only marginally, 3. I am very respectful that you have not been taught 21 century science. , so you can be forgiven in beliveing the world is flat. or the sun relvolves around the earth.”

The Transparency Antidote: A Call for Accountability

This week, in an attempt to get members of Congress on the record about the Epstein files, Drop Site News deployed a reporter to Capitol Hill. Much to their chagrin, members of Congress either spoke in vague terms of wanting “justice” or “accountability” without naming specific processes or guilty parties, or they pretended that they had not had a chance to review the files.

Either way, it illustrates the ways in which the political class in the U.S. seems poised to take a pat on the back for releasing the files, but avoid doing what Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Sweden have done.

For their part, Democrats have responded by introducing “Virginia’s Law,” named after Epstein survivor Virginia Giuffre. This landmark legislation seeks to eliminate the statute of limitations and jurisdictional restrictions in civil sexual abuse cases. However, much more needs to be done.

As long as the full record remains a curated subset of the truth, the vacuum will continue to be filled by sophisticated deepfakes and digital assassinations. True transparency is the only antidote to the conspiratorial fervor that currently thrives in the shadows of government gatekeeping.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Nolan Higdon is a Project Censored national judge, an author, and university lecturer at Merrill College and the Education Department at University of California, Santa Cruz. Read other articles by Nolan, or visit Nolan's website.

We're still missing the main point about not investigating Epstein's crimes

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released additional photos from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, including ones of Donald Trump. (Photo: Epstein Estate/House Oversight and Reform Committee)

Terry H. Schwadron

February 23, 2026  

ALTERNET

If the Jeffrey Epstein files alone felt like a set of embarrassing political crises up until now, it's grown into an unrelenting cankerous sore without solution or any apparent desire to cap a campaign looking for any associations with the child rapist.

We've suffered through reports of botched investigation of child rape, official disdain for victims, government cover-up efforts and absurd testimony to Congress about all of it. Now we're trying to make sense of university presidents who reached out to a guy with a bad history with donations.

Somehow, we're still missing the main point about not investigating the serious crimes that occurred. This week there are more congressional hearings with Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose mentions in the files seem far from the central crimes involved and more about gaining political advantage. We are even missing whether any purported crime is even still prosecutable.

The Epstein Files mess was a stinking pile of sexual attacks that successive governments had managed to push aside or constrained by outstanding prosecutions until it re-emerged a full-fledged presidential campaign issue for Donald Trump.

Over months, as Trump sought to distance himself from Epstein, his repeated lies about closeness with Epstein undercut any public declarations of un-involvement. After having picked up on MAGA insistence to re-opening the can of political worms, Team Trump was seen as shielding its worst sexual predators, who may include friends or donors. We still don't know, and the Justice Department is formally uninterested in finding out. We only know that Epstein's partner, the convicted Ghislaine Maxwell, now wants a pardon from Trump, who is non-committal about it.


Even with only partial and heavily redacted release of its contents, The Files now have exploded into global anger and frustration touching rich businessmen (and women) and government figures galore — for a bewildering range of email exchanges, acquaintances, social and business associations that may have nothing to do with attacks on 1,000 children.

We are suddenly awash in articles and social commentary about a permanent "Epstein class" of wealthy, influential "elites" who skip through their lives without concern for law or morality, sure of protection from exposure, prosecution or even discomfort. And while European countries are drubbing even unmasked princes and government ministers, we in the U.S. listen as Trump and his Justice Department shrug off any need to confront those people unless they are political opponents identified by Trump.

The strategy to protect Trump from Epstein has turned upside-down.


Starting Bad and Getting Worse
Almost everything about this case that goes back two decades is weird.

Presumably, previous administrations were told that Justice was pursuing allegations of many women who had gone to the FBI, and the Ghislaine Maxwell case only convicted at the end of 2021. Why there was insufficient follow-through with those victimized remains unclear, among the zillion questions about how Justice responded across administrations.

By now, we all know this, up to the recent shameful congressional testimony by current Attorney General Pam Bondi who was unable to even look at women in the room who say they have never been contacted by prosecutors. The stench of cover-up for friends of Trump and Epstein, now seemingly forever linked despite Trump's attempts at separation, crosses party lines and political leanings.


Instead, we debate to what degree the Trump administration is violating the law enacted this year to force release of the documents, the value of releasing documents that have been wholly blacked out to block identities of wealthy friends of Epstein, but still showing information about the victims of attacks on a private Caribbean island, New York and a New Mexico ranch, on planes, at parties, under pressure to recruit ever-younger teens. We debate words about law and order, while re-abusing the now-grown women involved.

Trump could have controlled this story, could have made himself and his Justice Department political heroes. Instead, he has chosen shrug even as his own Cabinet and donors are caught in public lies, and Trump is watching a constant erosion of public support.

The Backlash
Meanwhile, ripples from simple mention in the files – the Justice Department has been overly generous in mentioning as many names as possible while blocking release of any FBI investigative notes – are ensnaring people who seemingly had plenty of non-sexual contacts with Epstein over philanthropy and donations, financial advice, and Epstein's ever-eager desire to mingle with the rich and famous.

Robert Draper's New York Times piece sums it up brilliantly. Even as members of Congress, victims, lawyers and journalists pour through The Files in search of names of those involved, "the documents lay bare the once-furtive activities of an unaccountable elite, largely made up of rich and powerful men from business, politics, academia and show business. The pages tell a story of a heinous criminal given a free ride by the ruling class in which he dwelled."


Those caught in the Epstein web are not facing sex ring charges or assault but a whole variety of non-sexual allegations. The British police arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the dethroned prince, on suspicion of misconduct in public office involving handing confidential government information to Epstein. In 2022, he paid Virginia Giuffre an undisclosed sum to settle a lawsuit in a New York court in which she said he had raped and sexually abused her when she was 17. Maybe deposition discoveries in his defense eventually will prove useful, but those prospects again are months or more away.

Others similarly are being fired or dropped from boards and businesses and universities for longtime friendships with Epstein or shared trips or financial arrangements. Though inclusion in the files does not necessarily imply wrongdoing, the mere association with Epstein is being seen as reason enough to cut ties.

Not so with Trump and Republican friends. Even as the House Oversight Committee calls the Clintons to testify this week, few Republicans – and fewer people actually pinpointed in sexual crimes — are being called. Les Wexner, billionaire owner of Victoria's Secret and a close Epstein friend, told Democratic members of the committee that he was "duped" by Epstein. Republican members refused to attend. Maxwell was allowed to avoid questions as she sought a pardon for testimony. Any pressure on Alex Acosta, the original federal prosecutor with a deal to offer, was remarkably light.

There is no end in sight to a rebellion over scandal. We are stuck with an America that attacking "elites" who somehow escape the claws of the law only to keep shielding them amid a healthy dose of political partisanship.