Bill Gates Says Epstein Considered Blackmailing Him

Sworn testimony, not a rumor

On June 10, 2026, Bill Gates testified before the House Oversight Committee in Washington, as part of a closed-door hearing later reported by Bloomberg News. According to the transcript released in late June, the Microsoft co-founder said Jeffrey Epstein had likely considered blackmailing him using information about his extramarital affairs.

This fact deserves to be established with precision before any interpretation. Gates did not say he was successfully blackmailed. He said Epstein appeared to be moving in that direction, without ever following through.

The exact quote, without rounding it off

Before committee members, Gates stated: "I was not a victim of blackmail," but added that, looking at emails Epstein had apparently written to himself, "it appears that Mr. Epstein's brainstorming was going in that direction," according to the transcript relayed by Bloomberg News.

Nothing in the record made public so far establishes that a blackmail attempt was carried through. This precise nuance is what this fact-check must preserve.

What the statement posted on Gates Notes says

In his prepared statement, published on his personal site Gates Notes, Bill Gates writes: "I learned that Epstein had become aware of sensitive information about my personal life, including the fact that I had been unfaithful in my marriage." He notes that these affairs "had nothing to do with" his interactions with Epstein, but that they had been "painful" for his family.

Gates adds, still in that statement: "Epstein worked to use information about my infidelities — on top of numerous lies he layered on it — to try to pressure me into reengaging with him." He concludes that the attempt "did not work."

What Gates explicitly denies

The written testimony states unambiguously: "I never witnessed or had any indication that Epstein was engaged in ongoing criminal conduct." Gates also specifies that he "never went" to Epstein's island, his ranch, or his Florida residence.

These denials appear in black and white in the official document filed before the committee. A serious fact-check must report them with the same rigor as the accusations, neither amplifying nor minimizing either side.

From the 2011 introduction to the 2014 break

According to his own statement, Gates was introduced to Epstein in 2011 by trusted contacts in his professional and philanthropic work. He describes three meetings in 2011 and two in 2012, followed by "more extensive conversations" in 2013 and 2014.

Gates states he cut off all contact in December 2014, four years before new press reporting and unsealed court documents revealed the scope of Epstein's crimes. No charitable vehicle was ever created and no funds were ever raised with him, he specifies.

The moment the tone shifted

Gates recounts concluding that Epstein "would never follow through" on his philanthropic promises and telling him they would not go any further. According to The Financial District, citing the transcript reported by Bloomberg News, Gates says he responded directly to language he describes as "veiled" — of the sort "we should all want to be friends" — by telling Epstein: "if you think you're going to get more money out of this, it's not going to happen."

This direct confrontation, as reported, precedes the final break in contact in late 2014. This is a key chronological detail for understanding the exact nature of the exchange described.

Meetings after Epstein's release from prison

Documents released by the Department of Justice this year, cited by the Independent, indicate that Gates and Epstein met on several occasions after the prison sentence Epstein served in 2008, to discuss expanding Gates's philanthropic efforts. These documents also included partially redacted photographs of Gates with women.

These elements come from official judicial sources, not anonymous allegations. That distinction is what allows this information to be described as verified rather than a mere rumor circulating online.

The Gates Foundation's response

The controversy grew in January, when emails exchanged between Epstein and staff at the Gates Foundation were made public. In response, the foundation launched an external review in April of its past ties to Epstein, with results expected this summer according to the Independent.

A foundation spokesperson confirmed that Gates had "taken responsibility for his actions" during a staff-wide meeting in February. This public acknowledgment, however partial, is now part of the factual record.

A usually automatic record gift, this time on hold

According to the Wall Street Journal, relayed by the Independent, Warren Buffett, 95-year-old chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, is reportedly withholding his usual mid-year billion-dollar gift to the Gates Foundation. Buffett has contributed more than 47 billion dollars in shares of his conglomerate to that foundation over the past two decades.

The delay is reportedly tied to the outcome of the foundation's internal review of its ties to Epstein. According to sources close to his thinking cited by the Wall Street Journal, Buffett would make his decision later this year, possibly around the time of his traditional Thanksgiving letter.

What this move does not prove

This freeze does not amount to a formal accusation from Buffett against Gates. Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor the Gates Foundation responded to requests for comment, the Independent notes, and Reuters was unable to immediately verify this report independently.

A rigorous fact-check must resist the temptation to turn financial caution into a disguised moral verdict. The documented facts are more than enough without needing to be exaggerated.

No evidence of knowledge of crimes against minors

At no point in the available sources is Bill Gates accused, by any judicial document or competent authority, of having direct knowledge of the sex-trafficking crimes Epstein committed against minors. Gates himself explicitly denies this in his written statement, and no source consulted contradicts this point based on tangible evidence.

Claiming otherwise without proof would cross the line between factual journalism and outright disinformation. That is not a line this piece will cross.

No confirmation of a completed blackmail

No primary source consulted — not Gates's statement, not Bloomberg News's coverage, not the Independent's — establishes that a blackmail attempt was carried out successfully. Gates explicitly states the opposite: "I was not a victim of blackmail."

The distinction between "perceived intent" and "an act carried out" is at the heart of this record. Blurring it, in either direction, would betray the very principle of fact-checking.

A committee holding multiple hearings

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is conducting a broader investigation into the Department of Justice's handling of files tied to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Representative James Comer had requested, in a March letter, that Gates appear for an in-person transcribed interview.

According to the Independent, Gates reportedly hired Jake Greenberg, a former lead investigator for the committee, to prepare for his appearance. A committee spokesperson said it had not worked with Greenberg since his departure.

Why this institutional transparency matters

A Congress that questions powerful public figures under oath, regardless of their wealth or influence, is performing exactly the democratic oversight role expected of it. This institutional mechanism, more than any rumor, is what should remain the center of attention.

Demanding the full release of the Epstein files is not a conspiratorial reflex: it is a legitimate demand for justice, voiced for years by victims and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.

A precedent for other public figures

Bill Gates's case is not isolated. Several other wealthy figures who crossed paths with Epstein are undergoing similar scrutiny from Congress and the press, particularly as part of the broader House Oversight Committee investigation into the Department of Justice's handling of the file. This precedent sets a standard: no fortune and no philanthropic influence should shield anyone from rigorous public scrutiny.

It is precisely this standard that separates a functioning democracy from a system where economic power buys immunity from hard questions. Gates's testimony, however uncomfortable for him, is part of that accountability mechanism.

The role of philanthropic foundations under scrutiny

Beyond the individual case, this affair reopens a broader debate over how major philanthropic foundations vet their donors, partners and intermediaries. The external review launched by the Gates Foundation could, if its results are made fully public, serve as a reference for other organizations facing similar situations.

This institutional transparency, if it fully materializes, would be a net gain for the philanthropic sector as a whole, well beyond the case of Bill Gates and his foundation alone.

An established fact, surrounded by remaining gray areas

What we know with certainty: Bill Gates testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee, on June 10, 2026, that Epstein appeared to want to use information about his infidelities as leverage. What remains unknown: the final findings of the Gates Foundation's external review, expected this summer, and Warren Buffett's final decision regarding his donation.

This case shows how institutional transparency sometimes moves slowly, through successive hearings and partial documents, rather than through a single definitive revelation.

Vigilance remains warranted

Until the foundation's review and Congress's investigation are concluded, this case remains open. Rigor requires continuing to track new developments without anticipating a verdict that neither the courts nor Congress have yet delivered.

This discipline, not excitement, should guide any future follow-up on this affair.

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.