Inside the Les Wexner Deposition: The Money Trail Behind Epstein’s Power
On February 18, 2026, billionaire retail founder Leslie “Les” Wexner sat for a closed-door congressional deposition at his New Albany, Ohio estate—roughly five hours of questioning focused on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
And here’s the reason the moment mattered: the Epstein story has always had two plotlines running at the same time. One is about predation—how Epstein abused and trafficked girls and young women. The other is about infrastructure—how the money, the access, and the credibility formed a kind of protective shell around him for years.
Congress came to Ohio to interrogate that second plotline.
A deposition in a mansion, run like an investigation
This wasn’t a public hearing. It wasn’t “televised accountability.” It was sworn testimony, structured like a deposition. Legal experts quoted locally noted that congressional depositions are typically closed-door, can run long with time split between sides, and a witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment. Wexner, according to Democrats who participated, did not invoke the Fifth but often answered by saying he didn’t remember.
WOSU reported he was questioned for roughly five hours by Republican committee staff and five Democratic members.
Wexner’s opening stance: “I was duped.”
Before and during the deposition, Wexner’s team pushed a consistent narrative: he was “naïve,” “foolish,” and “gullible” to trust Epstein, but he did nothing wrong and had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
In a three-page statement released ahead of questioning, Wexner said:
He cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago after learning Epstein was “an abuser, a crook, and a liar.”
He granted Epstein power of attorney so transactions could move quickly, and alleges Epstein later abused that trust.
He says he was never on Epstein’s plane, and visited Epstein’s island only once—briefly, with his family, during a cruise stop.
He says he revoked Epstein’s power of attorney and severed ties in 2007, before Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea in Florida.
This is the heart of Wexner’s defense: I was conned; I didn’t participate; I didn’t know; I ended it when I learned.
The Democrats’ reaction: “Not credible.”
After a break in questioning, several Democratic members went to reporters and said, essentially, they weren’t buying it.
Ranking Member Robert Garcia called Wexner’s insistence that he didn’t have a close personal relationship with Epstein “bogus,” and Rep. Dave Min said Wexner’s posture was basically “see no evil, hear no evil”—not credible given the repeated proximity.
And they framed their suspicion around one point that keeps coming up in every serious retelling of Epstein’s rise: money made the machine possible. Garcia argued that Epstein’s wealth—and the infrastructure around it—could not have existed without Wexner’s support, estimating the total as more than $1 billion in cash or stock holdings (his estimate, not a court finding).
In other words: even if you debate criminal culpability, the committee is chasing a moral and financial accountability trail—who financed the world Epstein operated in?
“Co-conspirator” language, “limited evidence,” and why Congress is still pushing
Part of what reignited scrutiny is the steady drip of “Epstein files” disclosures. In February 2026, WOSU reported that documents written shortly after Epstein’s 2019 death named Wexner among alleged co-conspirators—while also stating there was “limited evidence” against him.
Two things can be true at once:
Wexner has not been charged with a crime, and public reporting repeatedly notes that status.
Federal investigators and now Congress still see enough smoke—enough unanswered financial and access questions—to keep pulling the thread.
That tension—not charged, but repeatedly named in investigative documents and central to the money story—is exactly why the deposition became a flashpoint.
The question behind all the questions: how does power “launder” a predator?
There’s a reason Epstein’s story keeps returning to the same mechanics:
Credibility by association. If you are “the money guy” for a major American billionaire, doors open. Doubts soften. Warnings turn into gossip. People assume someone else vetted you.
Paperwork as a weapon. Power of attorney isn’t just an administrative detail; it is the ability to move money, sign, transact, and build a life that looks legitimate from the outside. Wexner says he gave it; he says Epstein abused it.
Silence as an asset. The longer a predator operates, the more people quietly benefit from the same ecosystem—introductions, donations, prestige, proximity.
This is what Congress is trying to map: not simply “did Wexner witness a crime,” but “what systems of wealth and reputation made Epstein untouchable for so long?”
What the deposition revealed—and what it didn’t
What we know from reporting so far:
The deposition happened February 18 in New Albany and lasted about five hours.
Republican staff questioned Wexner alongside five Democrats; no Republican members attended, per Democrats’ statements.
Wexner’s prepared statement reiterates total denial of knowledge/participation and frames Epstein as a con man who stole from him.
Democrats left unconvinced, emphasizing money and credibility as the core of Epstein’s power.
What remains opaque (for now):
The specifics of financial transfers, documentation, and corroborating records discussed behind closed doors.
Whether the committee will produce additional subpoenas, public hearings, or referrals based on what they learned.
Why this matters beyond Ohio
Wexner isn’t just “a rich guy from Columbus.” He’s a symbol of how American prestige gets built: brands, philanthropy, institutions, naming rights, civic development. In that kind of ecosystem, relationships are currency. Trust is currency. Even rumored proximity can become a protective cloud. That’s why the Democrats kept returning to the same principle in their press comments: there’s “one rule of law,” and money can’t buy exemption.
And that may be the real takeaway of the Wexner deposition: it marks a shift from treating Epstein as an isolated monster to treating him as the product of a network—financial, social, institutional—whose incentives rewarded silence until it couldn’t