Balderas stands his ground, the shadow of a federal blockade hangs over the Epstein investigation

A former attorney general who won't let go

Former New Mexico attorney general Hector Balderas continues to insist that federal officials asked him to suspend his state investigation into the Zorro Ranch back when he was building a case in 2019. This allegation, repeated publicly on several occasions in early July 2026, still has no clear official response from the U.S. Department of Justice.

According to Balderas, his office was six months into its investigation, had just interviewed a first survivor, when a call from the Southern District of New York asked him to pause his work, citing the risk of interference with a parallel federal proceeding.

A promise of coordination never kept

Balderas says he complied, convinced the feds held the "bigger hammer" at the time, in exchange for a promise of coordination and information-sharing that, he says, was never honored by the federal authorities involved in the case.

Seven years without a single federal search

Despite suspicions documented for years, no federal agency, neither the FBI nor the DOJ, had searched the 7,600-acre property before March 2026, when New Mexico's Department of Justice finally carried out the very first ground search in the history of this case.

A federal email dated December 2019, made public as part of the release of the Epstein files, explicitly confirmed that federal agents had "not searched the New Mexico property," an admission that now fuels suspicions of deliberate negligence.

David Bowdich and the FBI's uncomfortable silence

According to emails obtained by Scripps News, former FBI deputy director David Bowdich himself acknowledged, as early as August 2019, the growing media attention around the failure to search the Zorro Ranch, writing he was "sure there was a good reason" for this inaction, without ever specifying what it was.

An unprecedented investigative mechanism in New Mexico

Faced with this persistent silence, the New Mexico House of Representatives unanimously voted, 62 to 0, to create a Truth Commission with subpoena power and a $2 million budget, tasked with investigating alleged criminal activity at the Zorro Ranch.

This commission has already issued at least 14 subpoenas targeting the FBI, the DOJ, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, as well as several federal prosecutors' offices across multiple states and the U.S. Virgin Islands district, according to Reuters and The Hill.

Andrea Romero, a chair determined to break through the wall of silence

The commission's chair, representative Andrea Romero, confirmed that nine additional subpoenas had been sent to federal prosecutors' offices in several districts, as well as to state agencies, as part of an investigation due to produce an interim report by July 31, 2026.

"The first signs of a cover-up"

In testimony given to the Scripps News Group, Balderas described this sequence of events as possibly the "first signs of a cover-up," saying his office could have helped obtain a search warrant if the feds had simply reached back out to him, something he says never happened.

Balderas also revealed he followed up with federal authorities by letter in September 2019, without ever receiving a response, then again after Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest in 2020, once more offering his resources, again without success.

A case closure with no notice to the state

According to emails cited by several American outlets, the Southern District of New York closed its Epstein case barely a week after internal exchanges about the failure to search the ranch, without ever directly informing New Mexico's attorney general's office.

Torrez still denied complete documents

New Mexico's current attorney general, Raúl Torrez, who reopened the criminal investigation in February 2026 after the release of new federal files, still has not received the complete unredacted Justice Department documents concerning the Zorro Ranch.

This persistent withholding of documents, months after the case officially reopened, fuels criticism over the lack of real cooperation from federal authorities toward state investigators, despite repeated requests from Torrez's office.

Balderas doubts the full truth will ever be public

Balderas himself said he is convinced the true ins and outs of the Zorro Ranch investigation will probably never be fully made public, a weighty statement coming from a former senior official who had direct access to the case in its early days.

Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase in the subpoenas' crosshairs

Among the institutions targeted by the Truth Commission's subpoenas are two banking giants, Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase, both already singled out in earlier lawsuits for maintaining business relationships with Jeffrey Epstein long after internal warning signs had been raised.

According to Time, part of the investigative commission's funding even comes from a settlement reached between New Mexico's attorney general and financial institutions sued for failing to detect the alleged trafficking of minors at the Zorro Ranch, a detail that shows just how much bank money is now funding the search for truth about the banks' own past failures.

The Santa Fe Institute, an unexpected target of the investigation

Even more surprising, the Santa Fe Institute, a respected scientific organization that received donations from Epstein in the past, is also among the entities subpoenaed, illustrating the extent of the financial and social network Epstein had built far beyond his direct criminal circles.

Don Huffines, a buyer with political ambitions

The Zorro Ranch has since changed hands: it now belongs to Don Huffines, a Dallas real estate developer and former Texas state senator, now running for Texas comptroller, which further complicates investigators' access to the original property.

This change of ownership, which took place in 2023, raises additional questions about whether physical evidence on the site could have been preserved, years after the alleged events and well before the first official search carried out in March 2026.

Allegations of clandestine graves never confirmed

An anonymous informant, claiming to have worked at the ranch, suggested Epstein may have concealed the deaths of two young victims by ordering their burial in the surrounding hills, a serious allegation that no official investigation has to date definitively confirmed or ruled out.

A one-way model of cooperation

Balderas's experience illustrates a structural imbalance between federal and state authorities in high-profile cases: the state is asked to defer to federal priority in the name of coordination, without always getting reciprocal access to the information gathered by those same federal authorities.

This imbalance raises a broader institutional question: how many other sensitive state investigations have been shelved in the name of federal coordination that, in practice, never actually followed through?

A lesson for future state investigations

The Zorro Ranch precedent could now push other state attorneys general to think twice before agreeing to suspend their own investigations at a simple federal request, especially in cases involving allegations as serious as those tied to the trafficking of minors.

A case that cannot stay sealed forever

Seven years after Epstein's death in custody, Balderas's allegation of possible federal interference shows just how far the promise of total transparency on this case remains, to this day, largely unfulfilled. The interim report expected from the Truth Commission by July 31, 2026 will be a first test of authorities' real willingness to shed full light on this case.

Without full access to the DOJ's unredacted files, neither New Mexico's commission nor the public will be able to establish with certainty whether this was a simple inter-agency coordination failure or a more deliberate decision to limit the scope of prosecutions tied to the Zorro Ranch.

What this case says about the cost of transparency

This case is a reminder that transparency on the Epstein files is not simply granted: it is wrenched out, subpoena after subpoena, from federal institutions that clearly prefer silence to public explanation.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.