There is no ‘Epstein Class’ |
An undated photograph of Jeffrey Epstein’s island compound, published December 3, 2025 by the House Oversight Committee. Photo courtesy the Government of the US Virgin Islands/Wikimedia Commons.
A recent survey published by Drop Site News, Zeteo, and the progressive think tank Data For Progress found that a slim majority in the United States believes Trump launched his war against Iran to divert attention from damaging revelations contained in the Epstein Files. Democrats held this view “by an 81–14 margin” but, strikingly, a quarter of Republicans agreed. Among “those under 45, it is approaching an article of faith, with a 66–26 majority agreeing with the idea.” Doubtless, there would be similar levels of support for this view in Canada.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump harboured some hopes that his “war of choice” in Iran could prove to be something of a distraction when it comes to his Epstein connection. However, any serious consideration of the regional objectives of Israel and the geopolitical strategies of the US will readily show that there are much bigger issues and far more longstanding aims at work in the attack on Iran than Trump’s desire to avoid a personal scandal.
At one level, such widespread cynicism about Trump and his criminal attack on Iran could be seen as a healthy development. But when it comes to Epstein and his network of high-placed abusers and enablers, we are also confronting a degree of misunderstanding and political disorientation that is both troubling and in need of challenge.
In my own activity on social media, I have been struck by the extent to which people with otherwise well-developed left-wing perspectives have adopted a seriously inflated view of the power and influence of Epstein’s operation. The term “Epstein Class” has been bandied about so frequently that it has almost entered the political lexicon.
If the intention is simply to evoke the depraved conduct and covert activities of a wealthy and privileged social layer, the use of “Epstein Class,” as a popular if imprecise term, might be forgivable. But it has now taken on dimensions that go well beyond this.
In arguing for a realistic assessment of the nature of Epstein’s network, I should first of all stress that I in no way seek to minimize its hideous character. Young women and girls were subjected to rampant abuse and sexual assault at the hands of rich men who imagined that their vast social privileges secured them immunity.
So confident were these men of their protected status that Epstein was able to ply his disgusting trade through long years in which he was being criminally investigated and even after his initial 2008 conviction on “one count of soliciting prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18.”
Even after his courageous victims began to come forward, with Virginia Giuffre filing a lawsuit in 2011 detailing how Epstein and Maxwell arranged for her to have sexual encounters with “royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen” and others, Epstein continued to fly high and exert considerable influence.
A recent article in The Conversation refers to “horrifying revelations about Jeffrey Epstein’s systematic sexual assaults and trafficking of underage girls” but, very appropriately, it argues that “the Epstein files are most interesting for what they reveal about a web of gifts, favours and financial transactions that knit together what would otherwise be a disparate sprawl of bankers, developers, tech bros, media personalities and high-profile academics.” It tellingly adds that “no gift is given but in the expectation of a return.”
More sordid revelations continue to emerge about the reprehensible conduct of those who moved within this vile network. Suffice it to say that we are dealing with a striking assemblage of figures drawn from the highest ranks of economic and political power. As is now well established, Epstein’s connections extended to the House of Windsor and the White House, along with a range of other citadels of the plutocracy.
There is no doubt that Epstein was an effective influence peddler and a ruthless manipulator. He trafficked in favours and would almost certainly have used whatever kompromat he possessed to his advantage.
With the emergence of the Epstein Files, some of his wealthy associates and patrons are now facing consequences they never anticipated. High-level efforts to contain the scandal are clearly underway, but their success is far from assured, and the full extent of the fallout remains uncertain.
The revelations have undoubtedly shaken confidence in an international power structure. Yet even as we recognize their significance—and Epstein’s considerable reach—we should approach these developments with a degree of caution.
The use of the epithet “Epstein Class” might have some merit as an expression of anger at the corruption and unaccountable power of the ruling establishment. In this regard, it could be compared to the Occupy movement’s imprecise but evocative notion of an unjust society headed by “the one percent.” Yet it is necessary to counter some gross exaggerations now circulating with a more rigorous understanding.
Epstein slithered his way up to some remarkable heights but he was nowhere near setting the agenda in the corporate boardrooms and around the cabinet tables. He was a criminal who operated with impunity for decades but he died in prison, with the limits of his power and influence starkly clear.
The left has every reason to draw attention to what the Epstein scandal tells us about the system we live under and those who hold positions of power within it. We should demand truth and accountability and, above all, justice for the victims of this horror. But we also need to counter the distortions and diversions that are in play, beginning with those being spread by sections of the political right.
Last July, an article by Ben Lorber in New Lines Magazine drew attention to “MAGA’s Epstein revolt” and argued that “antisemitic theories are central to the far right’s obsession with the sex-trafficking billionaire and his links to the global elite.” It notes that “today, vocal segments of the Make America Great Again base are livid as Trump himself seems to be actively suppressing the records he once promised to release, a move that many observers chalk up to his own close connection to Epstein.”
As is well-known, a section of the MAGA base that took Trump’s isolationist rhetoric at face value is upset by his administration’s costly and protracted interventions on the world stage. In particular, many disgruntled supporters question the priority the Trump administration places on enabling Israel’s colonial project. The infamous Tucker Carlson has been outspoken on this theme of late.
Thus, Lorber writes: “In the MAGA world, one particular charge has surfaced with intensity—that Epstein may have been an asset of Israeli intelligence.” In those circles, however, criticism of Israel and US support for the Zionist project readily shade into the most clear-cut forms of antisemitism. “Scratch the surface of any right-wing critique of Israel or Epstein,” Lorber notes, “and it isn’t hard to find lurid tales of sinister Jewish cabals preying on children as they enact an age-old occult plot for world domination.”
Epstein’s many powerful connections doubtless included Israeli figures and they may well have been involved in his game of deal making and influence peddling. His friendship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak is a case in point. However, a healthy response on the left must utterly reject the kind of conspiracy theories and antisemitic tropes that embittered MAGA stalwarts are now taking up.
Precisely because antisemitism, drawing on ugly stereotypes, often cloaks itself in a false challenge to the power of elites, it has been referred to as “the socialism of fools.” Delusional notions that Epstein’s network was some kind of directing force at the commanding heights of global capitalism takes us in that sad direction. As one of my Facebook friends put it, bitterly but with some justification, “Epstein is the new Rothschild.”
We should welcome the impact of the Epstein Files on the rich and powerful and press for the fullest possible accountability. However, in this dangerous and volatile era of America First imperialism, we are confronting far more than a highly privileged network of sexual abusers—as the people of Iran can attest.
In the end, Epstein’s operation was only one of many that have provided such depraved services to the upper echelons at the expense of women and girls. Such abuses have taken place within palaces and other exclusive settings for generations—and, in all likelihood, still do.
As horrific as the crimes committed by Epstein and his associates were, they form only a small part of a much larger picture. There is no “Epstein Class.” What we face is something far more powerful and dangerous than the debauched operation of a single well-connected predator now exposed. As revealing as the conduct of the ruling class at leisure may be, the violence it inflicts in the course of maintaining its power claims far more victims.
The Epstein Files are of real significance, but we must resist misleading conspiracy narratives and keep a sense of proportion as we challenge both the prominent abusers Epstein served and the profoundly unjust social and economic system that enabled their crimes.
John Clarke is a writer and retired organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Follow his tweets at @JohnOCAP and blog at johnclarkeblog.com.
More than 75% of our operating budget comes to us in the form of donations from our readers. These donations help to pay our bills, and honorariums for some of our writers, photographers and graphic artists. Our supporters are part of everything we do.