# Kash Patel again tells Congress the Epstein "list" has zero names on it > Introduction: a line that keeps coming back, again and again - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Column - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/kash-patel-repete-devant-le-congres-que-la-liste-epstein-compte-zero-nom ## Introduction: a line that keeps coming back, again and again ### The number **zero** as the only **official answer** Some numbers, repeated often enough, start to ring hollow. **FBI** Director **Kash Patel** once again told **members** of **Congress**, in late June 2026, that the number of additional people charged with **sex trafficking** in the **Jeffrey Epstein** case remains **zero**. Not one name beyond those already known for years: **Epstein** himself and his convicted accomplice, **Ghislaine Maxwell**. This statement is not new. It repeats, almost word for word, what Patel had already said at a **Senate hearing** in the fall of 2025. But its reaffirmation, months later, before a new set of **lawmakers** and under renewed **political pressure**, deserves the same rigor this case has always demanded. ### An active **subpoena**, a promised **transparency** What's different this time is the **FBI director's** confirmation of an **active subpoena** the agency says it is actively working through with the **U.S. Congress**. In other words: a formal process is underway to obtain or hand over **documents** tied to the case, and the **federal agency** says it is cooperating rather than resisting. It's this double message, the zero and the **subpoena**, that frames the entire current controversy. On one side, a firm denial of any new charges. On the other, an admission that a **documentary battle** is far from over between the American executive and legislative branches. *I'll say it upfront: I don't believe for a second that this case is closed, but I equally refuse to pretend I hold some secret list I've never actually seen.* ## Timeline: from the 2025 **hearing** to the 2026 resumption ### What was said last fall To understand the weight of this latest appearance, we need to go back to the **hearing** held before congressional committees in the fall of 2025. **Kash Patel**, then newly installed at the head of the **Federal Bureau of Investigation**, stated that the **FBI** had **no credible information** indicating Epstein had trafficked minors to anyone other than himself. That claim, already controversial at the time, came alongside a systematic refusal to name any alleged associates, even as lawmakers, including some from his own political camp, pressed him to do so in public testimony. ### The **June 2026** reaffirmation Nine months later, the scenario repeats almost identically. Questioned again, Patel holds his position: **zero additional names**, no new charges for **sex trafficking** tied to the Epstein network. This response, identical almost word for word to last year's, fuels both the theory of a genuinely exhausted **investigation** and the theory of a carefully maintained political blockage. What's certain, documented by several American outlets that covered both hearings, is that the **FBI's official line** hasn't shifted an inch in nine months, despite constant pressure from **Democratic lawmakers** and a handful of dissident Republicans. *An identical answer repeated twice nine months apart proves nothing on its own, but it's worth noting: either the investigation truly found nothing new, or nobody dug any further.* ## The **evidence** according to the FBI: **a hundred thousand documents**, no new charges ### The scale of the documentary record According to an unsigned memorandum from the **FBI** and the American **Department of Justice** dated July 2025, the review of the **Epstein file** covered roughly **one hundred thousand documents** and more than **300 gigabytes of data**. This colossal volume, authorities say, turned up no evidence deemed solid enough to justify any new charges. This figure is used by Patel and his defenders as proof of thorough, exhaustive work. His critics see it instead as a way to drown the question in impressive statistics, without ever directly answering the more precise questions raised by lawmakers. ### What the memorandum says, and doesn't say The memorandum states that no incriminating **"client list"** exists that would justify prosecuting third parties. It does, however, confirm the existence of an **index** of documents related to the case, without publicly detailing its full contents. It's precisely this gray zone, between the acknowledged existence of an **index** and the refusal to reveal its contents, that fuels distrust. A document exists, we're told, but its content remains largely sealed from the public. *Saying a document exists without ever showing it is the surest way to feed every possible suspicion, even the most exaggerated ones.* ## The refusal to name names: department policy or calculated avoidance ### The **justification** Patel invokes Faced with persistent questions from several lawmakers demanding he reveal the names of Epstein's alleged associates, Kash Patel has consistently refused, citing **Justice Department policy** that bars publicly naming individuals without sufficient evidence to support a credible prosecution. This position, defensible on strictly legal grounds, nonetheless runs up against the expectations of part of the public and many lawmakers who demand full **transparency** on a case involving minor **victims** and influential public figures. ### Questions that remain without a clear answer Lawmakers such as Republican senator **John Kennedy** and representative **Thomas Massie**, along with Democrats like **Jamie Raskin** and **Eric Swalwell**, each tried to obtain more concrete **clarification** during successive hearings. None received an answer going beyond the already-known official line. This frustrated unanimity, coming from opposing political camps, shows just how much this case cuts across the usual partisan divides in **Washington**. No one, left or right, seems fully satisfied with the answers obtained so far. *When **Republican** and Democratic lawmakers ask exactly the same questions without getting an answer, that's no longer a partisan squabble, it's an institutional alarm bell.* ## The name looming over every question ### **Donald Trump** directly questioned Asked point blank whether American President **Donald Trump** appears in a compromising way in the Epstein documents, Patel answered no, stating that **"based on the totality of evidence we have, absolutely not"** would Trump be involved in criminal activity tied to this case. That answer, however categorical in its wording, wasn't enough to quiet the questions, especially after reports surfaced of an earlier communication from Attorney General **Pam Bondi** informing the **White House** that the president's name appeared in certain case documents. ### What the **sources** actually allow us to say It's essential here to separate what is reported from what is proven. Media outlets have reported the existence of this internal communication cited by **Democratic lawmakers**; Patel, for his part, denies any criminal involvement by the president. No source consulted allows us to state with **certainty** the exact content of the documents in question. This column refuses to go beyond what the sources allow us to establish. Saying Trump is named in an administrative document is not the same as demonstrating guilt, and asserting one never proves the other. *This is exactly the kind of nuance **social media** hates and that serious journalism cannot afford to ignore.* ## The Democrats' cover-up accusation ### A **letter** that reignites the controversy A **letter** dated early June 2026, signed by **Democratic lawmakers** including **Robert Garcia** and **Adam Schiff**, claims that **Pam Bondi's** earlier testimony directly implicates Kash Patel in reviewing and **redacting** FBI files related to Epstein before they were handed over to the **Department of Justice**. This accusation, if confirmed, would considerably change the scope of the case: it would suggest that the **FBI director** himself actively participated in **filtering information** before it was made public or passed on to the relevant authorities. ### Calls for subpoenas against Patel himself These same Democratic lawmakers are now demanding **subpoenas** aimed directly at Kash Patel and acting Attorney General **Todd Blanche**, to compel them to testify in greater detail about their exact role in handling this explosive case. At this stage, it remains a political demand, not a settled **judicial decision**. But it illustrates the steady **escalation** of a case that, far from cooling down over time, seems instead to grow more heated as new procedural details emerge. *A subpoena demand against the **FBI director** himself isn't something you make up in a normally functioning democracy, and it should alarm people well beyond partisan circles.* ## The shadow of the past: the **2008** **non-prosecution agreement** ### The "original sin" Patel cites Kash Patel himself has pointed to the **non-prosecution agreement** reached in **Florida** in **2008** as the true starting point of today's legal difficulties. That agreement, extremely lenient toward Epstein at the time, allowed him to avoid far heavier **federal prosecution** in exchange for a **minimal sentence** served locally. Patel argues that this original agreement, along with three separate federal **court orders** issued since, now legally limit what the FBI can publicly disclose, even to members of Congress who are otherwise empowered to oversee federal agencies. ### An explanation that doesn't convince everyone This legal explanation, while technically plausible, hasn't quieted critics who believe the **transparency** promised for years on this case still hasn't concretely materialized. For many, invoking old **legal constraints** looks like a convenient pretext to avoid more embarrassing revelations. The fact that this 2008 agreement continues, nearly two decades later, to weigh on the federal government's ability to fully inform the public says a lot about the lasting consequences of a poorly calibrated initial **judicial decision**. *A scandalously lenient agreement signed nearly twenty years ago is still blocking the **truth** today: that's one of the most underrated scandals in this entire case.* ## Epstein, an intelligence asset? The question that refuses to die ### The FBI's direct answer Asked by Senator **Chuck Grassley** whether **Jeffrey Epstein** may at some point have been a source or an asset for an American **intelligence agency**, Kash Patel categorically answered that **"Mr. Epstein was not a source"** for the FBI. That clarification, framed strictly from the FBI's own point of view, does not, however, close the question for other federal intelligence agencies, which the FBI has neither the authority nor the mandate to speak for. ### A persistent **theory**, never confirmed by evidence The **theory** that Epstein may have served the interests of an **intelligence agency**, American or foreign, has circulated for years in journalistic circles and on **social media**. No primary source consulted for this column offers tangible proof confirming this hypothesis. This column will therefore assert nothing beyond what the evidence allows: the question remains open, the **official answer** is a partial and limited denial, and no verifiable element today allows for a definitive conclusion either way. *I'm resisting the temptation of easy **sensationalism** here: saying Epstein was a spy would be spectacular, but nothing in my sources lets me honestly claim it.* ## The **victims**, largely absent from the political debate ### A case turning back into a battle of **press releases** As this case turns into a political battle between **Republican** and Democratic lawmakers, one observation stands out: the **victims of the Epstein network** are gradually disappearing from the center of media and political attention, replaced by debates over procedure, subpoenas, and respective communication strategies. This shift isn't unique to this particular case, but it remains especially troubling in one involving victims who were minors at the time, several of whom have publicly demanded, repeatedly, full **transparency** on all the documents. ### What the **survivors** have been demanding for years Several **survivors** of the Epstein network have, in the past, publicly demanded the full release of documents related to the investigation, believing that the **truth** is owed to them after years of **institutional silence** and long, grueling legal proceedings. Their demand remains, to this day, largely without a concrete answer, drowned out in a political standoff where each side accuses the other of manipulating the case for electoral purposes rather than pursuing genuine **accountability**. *While **Washington** argues over subpoenas, it's the **survivors** who are still waiting, year after year, for a transparency they keep being promised but never truly delivered.* ## Kash Patel's promise of transparency ### "Everything that is legally permitted" Kash Patel has publicly committed to releasing **"everything that is legally permitted"** regarding the **Epstein case**, while emphasizing his agency's active cooperation with the subpoena issued by the U.S. Congress. This wording, cautious by nature, leaves considerable room for interpretation about what will actually be made public in the end. It commits the **FBI director** to the principle, without setting a precise deadline or a binding guarantee on the final content of this promised disclosure. ### A **credibility** test to come The real measure of this promise won't play out in the words spoken during a hearing, but in the documents actually released in the months ahead. Congress, through its active subpoena, now has a **concrete lever** to demand this **commitment** be honored. That will be the true test: either this promised transparency materializes in documents the public can examine, or it joins the long list of political promises never fully kept in a case that has dragged on for nearly two decades. *I don't trust any government promise of transparency until I've seen the documents with my own eyes, and this case is certainly no exception.* ## Past administrations and their own reviews ### A case examined **multiple times** Kash Patel has noted that the Epstein case has been reviewed by several **successive administrations**, none of which produced any new charges beyond the original prosecutions of Epstein in **2019** and of Maxwell before that. This consistency in the outcome, despite changes in government and political priorities, is presented by Patel's defenders as further proof that no usable evidence against third parties actually exists. ### A consistency that doesn't erase **legitimate questions** But this consistency can also be explained differently: by the persistence of the same legal constraints inherited from the 2008 agreement, by a shared institutional reluctance to reopen a politically explosive case, or by a mix of both factors at once. None of these alternative explanations is proven with **certainty** by the available sources, but their sheer plausibility is enough to justify lawmakers, and the public, continuing to ask questions rather than accepting a premature closing of the case. *The fact that several different administrations reach the same conclusion can be as reassuring as it is troubling, depending on whether you see it as proof of rigor or a system locked from the start.* ## What this case reveals about trust in institutions ### A widespread **climate of distrust** Beyond the specific facts of this case, the Epstein affair has become, over the years, a broader symbol of the **growing distrust** of the **American public** toward its **federal institutions**. Every new hearing, every answer deemed evasive, feeds this already fragile climate. This climate isn't unique to the United States, but it takes on particular intensity in an already deeply **polarized** political context, where each side interprets the same facts through radically opposing lenses. ### The price of incomplete transparency The cost of this incomplete transparency isn't measured only in abstract loss of **institutional trust**. It's also measured in the growing difficulty, for the **average citizen**, of distinguishing between **rigorously established information** and a **rumor** amplified by social media. It's precisely in this murky space that the wildest theories thrive, for lack of an official statement clear and complete enough to effectively defuse them at the source. *Every **institutional silence** left unfilled by verified facts sooner or later becomes fertile ground for the worst conspiracy theories, and this case is a perfect example.* ## What this column refuses to assert ### No list, no names, no invented certainty It would be easy, and probably more likely to go viral, to add my voice to the many **speculations** circulating about the identities of public figures allegedly named in the Epstein documents. This column categorically refuses to do so, for lack of verifiable evidence and primary sources solid enough to support such a claim. What I can state with certainty is that the **FBI director** has publicly repeated, months apart, the exact same account of events, and that an active congressional subpoena testifies to a **documentary battle** still ongoing between the American legislative and executive branches. ### Transparency remains to be proven, not proclaimed The difference between proclaiming transparency and concretely demonstrating it through public documents is enormous, and it's precisely that difference this case has illustrated for nearly two decades of repeated promises rarely fully kept. Until the full documents are made accessible, or until a credible, verifiable explanation is given for why they cannot be, the public's **skepticism** will remain, in my view, entirely justified and legitimate. *I would much rather honestly admit the limits of what I know than manufacture a comfortable but false certainty to satisfy an appetite for **sensationalism**.* ## What Congress can still do ### The **subpoena** lever The **active subpoena** confirmed by Kash Patel represents, at this stage, the most concrete tool the U.S. Congress has to force a fuller disclosure of documents related to the Epstein case, beyond the verbal statements delivered during public hearings. Its effectiveness will depend heavily on the political will of lawmakers, from both parties, to keep the pressure on the executive branch rather than letting this case fade from media attention once public focus shifts to other priorities. ### A **precedent** that goes beyond this one case How this standoff between the FBI and Congress gets resolved will, whether we like it or not, set an important precedent on the real limits of legislative **oversight power** when facing federal agencies that invoke historical **legal constraints** to justify their reluctance to disclose everything. This is an issue that reaches well beyond the Epstein case alone: it touches directly on the **balance of powers** that, in theory at least, defines how American democracy functions. *This fight over documents goes beyond Epstein himself: it's a real-world test of Congress's ability to enforce its oversight authority against a reluctant **federal agency**.* ## Conclusion: between the displayed zero and the expected truth ### A number that is no longer **enough** The number zero, repeated by Kash Patel with remarkable consistency since the fall of 2025, is no longer enough on its own to close a case with such heavy human and political consequences. It represents only a partial answer to a question far broader than a simple tally of additional charges. This case will remain open, in the public mind as much as in the halls of Congress, as long as the fundamental documents remain inaccessible or the precise reasons for their continued confidentiality aren't explained in a fully convincing way. ### Transparency, the only real measure of seriousness The real test doesn't lie in the words spoken at a televised hearing, but in the concrete actions that follow: the actual release of documents, **precise answers** to the congressional subpoena, and a genuine will to end years of sustained institutional ambiguity. Until then, this column will keep to a simple but non-negotiable rule: report what is proven, flag what remains uncertain, and categorically refuse to invent certainties that the facts themselves don't yet allow us to establish. *If this case has taught me one thing, it's that public patience has limits, and those limits are getting dangerously close for institutions that have repeated the same number for nearly two years now.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### 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. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Kash Patel's testimony before the U.S. Congress — full video testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp46zuP55r4) - [Kash Patel's second hearing on the Epstein case — video testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdEHiHB9bTw) - [Official U.S. Department of Justice page on the Epstein case](https://www.justice.gov/epstein) ### Secondary sources - [Key takeaways: Kash Patel Senate testimony on Epstein files — Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/3809875/key-takeaways-kash-patel-senate-charlie-kirk-investigation-jeffrey-epstein-files-fbi-staffing/) - [FBI director questioned on Epstein files — BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dxq8dn4xdo.amp) - [FBI director Kash Patel to face questions from House committee — ABC News](https://abcnews.com/Politics/fbi-director-kash-patel-face-questions-house-committee/story?id=125640494) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/kash-patel-repete-devant-le-congres-que-la-liste-epstein-compte-zero-nom