Les Wexner, the 88-year-old billionaire founder of L Brands and the man behind Victoria’s Secret, was formally questioned under oath at his New Albany, Ohio estate on February 18, 2026, by five members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that lasted nearly five hours. This marked the first time Wexner was ever federally questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — a striking fact given that internal FBI documents from 2019 had labeled Wexner among Epstein’s “10 co-conspirators” in the sex trafficking investigation. The deposition video was released publicly by the Oversight Committee the following day. The contradiction at the heart of this story is jarring.
While the FBI internally classified Wexner as a co-conspirator — and later as a “secondary coconspirator” — the Assistant U.S. Attorney told Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that he was “neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect.” Wexner himself testified under oath that neither the FBI nor the DOJ ever interviewed him about Epstein. No charges have been filed against him. This article examines the full timeline of Wexner’s entanglement with the Epstein investigation, the financial relationship that funded Epstein’s operation, the investigative gaps that allowed years to pass without a formal interview, and the political dynamics shaping the congressional inquiry.
Table of Contents
- Why Was Les Wexner Questioned at His Estate About Being an FBI-Identified Co-Conspirator?
- What Did Wexner Actually Say Under Oath?
- The Financial Pipeline — How Wexner’s Money Built Epstein’s World
- The FBI’s Internal Contradiction — Co-Conspirator or Not?
- Why Was the 2019 Subpoena Dropped?
- The Political Dimension — Democrats Push Back
- What Comes Next for the Epstein Investigation?
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Was Les Wexner Questioned at His Estate About Being an FBI-Identified Co-Conspirator?
The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Wexner in January 2026 as part of its broader investigation into the Epstein files. Rather than requiring the aging billionaire to travel to Washington, five committee members went to his estate in New Albany, Ohio, for the February 18 deposition. The nearly five-hour session was conducted under oath, and the full video was released just one day later — an unusual move that signaled the committee’s interest in public transparency on this matter. What made the deposition particularly significant was Wexner’s own testimony that no federal law enforcement agency had ever sat him down for questioning about Epstein. This is remarkable given the FBI’s internal classification. In July 2019, an internal FBI email listed Wexner among Epstein’s “10 co-conspirators,” alongside names like ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, and Leslie Groff.
Then in August 2019, days after Epstein died in his Manhattan jail cell, a separate FBI document labeled Wexner a “secondary coconspirator,” though it noted there was “limited evidence regarding his involvement.” For nearly seven years, the man the FBI internally flagged as a co-conspirator was never formally questioned by the bureau itself. The timeline of how Wexner’s name became public adds another layer. His name was redacted in DOJ files released in late January 2026. It was only unredacted on February 10, 2026, after Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky publicly called for the disclosure. Within days of the unredaction, the Oversight Committee had scheduled and conducted the deposition — suggesting congressional investigators moved quickly once Wexner’s co-conspirator designation became a matter of public record.
What Did Wexner Actually Say Under Oath?
During his nearly five hours of testimony, Wexner struck a consistent tone: he was a victim of Epstein’s deception, not a participant in his crimes. “I was naive, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man,” Wexner stated. He told the committee he “did nothing wrong” and had “nothing to hide.” These are strong, categorical denials — the kind that carry legal weight when made under oath before a congressional committee. However, the denials came alongside significant memory gaps.
Wexner repeatedly said he “did not recall” events he was asked about, a response that, while legally safe, frustrated some committee members. He did admit to visiting Epstein’s private island and acknowledged signing a birthday card to Epstein as “your friend Leslie” — details that, while not evidence of criminal conduct, undercut the narrative of a purely transactional or distant relationship. A birthday card signed as a friend suggests personal warmth, not just a financial arrangement with a money manager. It is worth noting a critical limitation in evaluating Wexner’s testimony: the man is 88 years old, and the events in question span decades. Genuine memory loss and strategic non-recollection can look identical from the outside. What the committee could verify, however, were the documentary records — the financial transactions, the travel logs, the communications — and it is the gap between those records and Wexner’s recollections that will likely drive the investigation forward.
The Financial Pipeline — How Wexner’s Money Built Epstein’s World
The financial relationship between Wexner and Epstein is not a minor footnote. Epstein managed Wexner’s personal finances for over a decade, from the 1990s into the early 2000s. This was not a casual advisory role. Epstein had sweeping power of attorney over Wexner’s affairs, and through this arrangement, Epstein accumulated the wealth and assets that would later define his criminal enterprise. Rep. Robert Garcia put it bluntly during the proceedings: “There would be no Epstein island, there’d be no Epstein plane, there would be no money to traffic women and girls… without the support of Les Wexner.” This is not an allegation of criminal intent on Wexner’s part, but it is a statement about material reality.
The private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Boeing 727 dubbed the “Lolita Express,” the Manhattan townhouse — the infrastructure of Epstein’s trafficking operation was financed, directly or indirectly, through wealth that flowed from or through Wexner’s accounts. Whether Wexner knew what Epstein was doing with those resources is the central unresolved question. For context, consider the scale. Wexner built L Brands into a retail empire that at its peak included Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, and other household names. His personal fortune made him one of the wealthiest people in Ohio. Epstein, by contrast, had no clear independent source of wealth before his association with Wexner. The financial dependency ran in one direction, and understanding that dynamic is essential to understanding how Epstein operated for as long as he did.
The FBI’s Internal Contradiction — Co-Conspirator or Not?
The most legally significant aspect of this story is the documented contradiction within the federal government’s own treatment of Wexner. In July 2019, an internal FBI email explicitly named Wexner among Epstein’s 10 co-conspirators. In August 2019, another FBI document classified him as a “secondary coconspirator” with “limited evidence.” Yet the Assistant U.S. Attorney told Wexner’s lawyers he was “neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect.” These cannot all be true simultaneously. Either the FBI’s internal classification was preliminary and speculative — a working theory that prosecutors did not share — or the prosecutor’s assurance to Wexner’s counsel was misleading. Both scenarios raise serious concerns.
If the FBI labels someone a co-conspirator but prosecutors tell that person’s lawyers they are in the clear, the investigation is operating with a fundamental internal disconnect. If the co-conspirator label was merely an investigative placeholder, it raises questions about how loosely such designations are applied and what they actually mean in practice. The practical tradeoff here is between investigative discretion and accountability. Law enforcement agencies routinely cast wide nets in the early stages of investigations, and not every person named internally as a subject or co-conspirator ends up being charged. That is normal. What is not normal is for someone labeled a co-conspirator to never be interviewed by the investigating agency — especially when the case involves sex trafficking of minors and the co-conspirator is one of the wealthiest men in the country. The gap between the FBI’s internal paperwork and its actual investigative follow-through is what the Oversight Committee appears to be probing.
Why Was the 2019 Subpoena Dropped?
Perhaps the most troubling procedural detail in this entire saga is what happened with the 2019 subpoena. Wexner was subpoenaed and scheduled to appear before investigators on June 24, 2019. This was before Epstein’s arrest in July 2019 and well before his death in August of that year. FBI records show that investigators spoke with Wexner’s attorneys beforehand and then dropped the subpoena entirely, accepting a statement instead. This is not inherently unusual — negotiations between lawyers and investigators frequently result in modified terms of cooperation. However, the outcome is significant.
Instead of the direct, on-the-record questioning that a subpoena compels, the FBI accepted a statement filtered through legal counsel. A statement prepared by lawyers is not the same as testimony under oath with follow-up questions. It allows the subject to control the narrative without the unpredictability of live questioning. When the subject is a billionaire with elite legal representation and the case involves the most high-profile sex trafficking investigation in modern American history, the decision to accept a statement in lieu of testimony demands scrutiny. Epstein victim’s lawyer Brad Edwards has stated there is “no evidence to suggest that Wexner was in Epstein’s company at the time of his crimes.” This is a meaningful data point, but it is also a narrow one. Being absent during the commission of specific criminal acts does not address the question of whether Wexner’s financial support enabled those acts, or whether he had knowledge of Epstein’s behavior. The legal question of criminal liability and the moral question of complicity do not always occupy the same territory.
The Political Dimension — Democrats Push Back
The Wexner deposition did not occur in a political vacuum. House Democrats expressed skepticism about his testimony and held a news conference during the deposition itself, challenging his denials in real time. This reflects a broader partisan tension in the Epstein investigation, where different factions have different priorities — some focused on prosecuting enablers, others on exposing institutional failures, and still others concerned that the investigation could become a political weapon.
The Democratic pushback on Wexner’s testimony signals that at least some members of Congress do not consider his “I was conned” defense sufficient. Whether that skepticism translates into further investigative action — additional subpoenas, referrals to the DOJ, or legislative proposals aimed at closing the kinds of oversight gaps that allowed Epstein to operate — remains to be seen. Congressional investigations are powerful tools for public disclosure but have limited enforcement mechanisms compared to criminal proceedings.
What Comes Next for the Epstein Investigation?
The release of the full deposition video, the unredaction of Wexner’s name in FBI documents, and the ongoing work of the House Oversight Committee suggest that the Epstein investigation is entering a new phase focused on the financial and social networks that sustained Epstein’s operation. Wexner is not the only figure facing renewed scrutiny, but his combination of vast wealth, documented financial ties, and internal FBI classification makes him a central figure in this chapter. No charges have been filed against Wexner, and it remains entirely possible that none ever will be.
The “limited evidence” notation in the FBI’s own documents suggests the bureau itself recognized the thinness of the case against him. But the investigative gap — seven years between the FBI’s internal co-conspirator label and the first formal questioning — has become a story in its own right. It raises fundamental questions about whether the wealthy and well-connected receive different treatment in the American justice system, and whether institutional failures allowed a known sex trafficker’s network to escape full accountability. The answers to those questions will likely unfold over months and years, not days.
Conclusion
The Wexner deposition represents a significant moment in the long aftermath of the Epstein case. For the first time, the billionaire whose money built Epstein’s empire was questioned under oath about that relationship. His testimony — a mix of categorical denials, admitted memory gaps, and the consistent refrain that he was deceived — is now part of the public record. So is the FBI’s internal classification of him as a co-conspirator, a designation that went unacted upon for years and that prosecutors apparently contradicted in private communications with his lawyers.
What this case ultimately illustrates is the distance between what federal agencies know internally and what they act on publicly. The FBI flagged Wexner as a co-conspirator in 2019. A subpoena was issued and then dropped the same year. It took a congressional committee, a public unredaction effort, and significant political pressure to produce the first formal questioning in 2026. For those tracking government accountability and the integrity of federal investigations, the Wexner chapter of the Epstein story is less about one billionaire’s guilt or innocence and more about whether the systems designed to investigate powerful people actually function as intended.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Les Wexner charged with any crimes related to Jeffrey Epstein?
No. As of March 2026, no charges have been filed against Wexner. The FBI internally labeled him a co-conspirator and secondary coconspirator in 2019 documents, but the Assistant U.S. Attorney told his lawyers he was neither a co-conspirator nor a target. The discrepancy between these positions has not been publicly explained.
What did the FBI mean by labeling Wexner a “secondary coconspirator”?
An August 2019 FBI document used this term while noting there was “limited evidence regarding his involvement.” The distinction between a co-conspirator and a “secondary” coconspirator is not clearly defined in the public record. It may reflect the FBI’s assessment that Wexner’s role was indirect or financial rather than direct participation in criminal acts.
Why was Wexner questioned at his estate rather than in Washington?
The House Oversight Committee sent five members to Wexner’s estate in New Albany, Ohio, for the February 18, 2026 deposition. The specific reason for this arrangement has not been publicly stated, though Wexner is 88 years old and accommodations for elderly witnesses are not uncommon.
Did Wexner admit to any wrongdoing?
No. Wexner maintained he “did nothing wrong” and had “nothing to hide.” He characterized himself as having been deceived by Epstein, stating he was “naive, foolish, and gullible.” He did admit to visiting Epstein’s private island and acknowledged a personal friendship, but denied any knowledge of criminal activity.
Why was Wexner’s name redacted and then unredacted in the DOJ files?
Wexner’s name was redacted in DOJ files released in late January 2026. It was unredacted on February 10, 2026, after Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) publicly called for the disclosure. The original redaction may have been related to the fact that Wexner was not formally charged, though the criteria for redaction in these releases have been a subject of ongoing debate.
How long did Epstein manage Wexner’s finances?
Epstein managed Wexner’s personal finances for over a decade, from the 1990s into the early 2000s. During this period, Epstein accumulated significant wealth and assets, including the private island and aircraft that became central to his trafficking operation.