The Billionaire Who Made Jeffrey Epstein Rich: Les Wexner’s 20-Year Secret

I can make this article publishable — but not in its current form, because it mixes verified facts with a lot of assertions stated as certainty (especially about what the FBI “called” someone and what exactly is in files). That’s high-risk legally and can get flagged.

Below is a clean, credible rewrite that keeps the punch, sticks to what’s supportable, and clearly labels allegations as allegations. I’ve also updated the “six names” portion to match what major outlets reported.

The Wexner–Epstein Question Returns: What the Newly Unredacted “Epstein Files” Do—and Don’t—Prove

In early February 2026, a new fight over transparency reignited public scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein’s network—especially the long-debated relationship between Epstein and billionaire retail mogul Leslie Wexner, the founder behind The Limited and the man who transformed Victoria’s Secret into a global empire. In a floor speech, Rep. Ro Khanna publicly revealed six names that had been redacted from newly released Epstein-related documents, arguing that the public deserved to know who was being shielded from view.

Among the names Khanna read was Leslie Wexner—a figure whose ties to Epstein have been documented for years, but whose role in the broader story remains fiercely contested. Reporting around the disclosure described the names as identities that had been scrubbed from the released files and then exposed publicly by a member of Congress who had viewed unredacted material.

What’s confirmed about Wexner and Epstein

Wexner’s connection to Epstein is not speculative. Epstein worked as a close adviser in Wexner’s orbit for years, gaining proximity, status, and the kind of legitimacy that opens doors. This relationship has long raised questions—especially because Epstein’s wealth and influence expanded dramatically during the period he was connected to Wexner, and because Epstein later lived in (and ultimately controlled) a Manhattan mansion that had been purchased by Wexner. (The details of the transfers and “why” remain debated; what matters for readers is that the relationship was real, prolonged, and unusually powerful.)

The early warnings that did not stop Epstein

Long before Epstein’s 2000s prosecutions, women reported alarming encounters—claims that later became part of the historical record and media reporting. Artist Maria Farmer is among the earliest known people to have reported Epstein to authorities in the 1990s; later reporting says she tried to warn law enforcement years before Epstein was held accountable.

Another widely cited allegation came from actress/model Alicia Arden, who filed a police report in 1997 accusing Epstein of sexual assault. The report itself has been publicly posted, and later media coverage discusses her account and the fact she reported it at the time.

What the newly highlighted documents mean—and what they don’t

Khanna’s disclosure has been widely framed as part of a broader dispute: critics say the released files are heavily redacted and leave the public guessing, while lawmakers and some survivors argue that redactions protect powerful people and blunt accountability.

But it’s essential to be precise: being named in documents is not the same as being convicted of a crime. Even when documents suggest investigative interest, the legal meaning depends on context—what the document actually says, who wrote it, and whether it was a lead, a hypothesis, or evidence. That’s why responsible coverage distinguishes between confirmed facts, allegations, and conclusions.

Why Wexner remains central to the public’s questions

Public fascination with the Wexner–Epstein relationship persists for a simple reason: Epstein’s credibility grew when powerful institutions treated him as legitimate. Wexner was one of the most influential business figures in America, and his world carried prestige. For many observers, the unanswered questions aren’t only about money or access—they’re about how power protects power, and how long warning signs can be ignored.

Wexner has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and has previously stated that he cooperated with investigators. Some reporting around the 2026 disclosure also notes that representatives for Wexner say he was not a target and was told he was not a co-conspirator—claims that are part of the ongoing public dispute over what the files show versus what has been stated publicly.

What readers should watch next

The most important next step is not viral speculation—it’s documentation: what additional material becomes public, what congressional investigators actually release, and whether any further legal action follows. This story is evolving quickly, and high-stakes narratives attract misinformation. If you’re publishing about it, the safest and strongest approach is to tie every major claim to a reputable source—and label anything else as allegation or unanswered question.

The bottom line

The renewed focus on Wexner reflects a larger truth about the Epstein scandal: the central mystery was never just one predator—it was the ecosystem that enabled him to move through elite spaces for years. The 2026 redaction fight has brought that question back to the surface. What it ultimately proves will depend on what comes next—and on what, finally, is allowed to be seen