BREAKING: Former CIA Official Says Jeffrey Epstein Likely Had Videos Of…
A years-old interview with a former CIA case officer has gone viral again this week, reigniting public frustration over how much of the Jeffrey Epstein story remains hidden from the American people even as the government continues releasing pieces of the so-called Epstein files.
The clip comes from a 2017 interview given by Robert David Steele, a former CIA clandestine operations officer and co-founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, who died in 2021. In the conversation, an interviewer suggested Epstein likely had video of “every major” American politician doing something terrible, probably involving a child. Steele did not push back on the premise.
The clip has spread rapidly across social media platforms this week, amassing hundreds of thousands of views and reigniting a debate that has simmered for years about what, exactly, Epstein’s operation was designed to accomplish and who, if anyone, was caught on tape.
It is important to be precise about what this actually is and is not. Steele made a sweeping, general allegation nearly a decade ago. He offered no documents, no named individuals, and no independently verifiable evidence to support the claim at the time, and none has surfaced since. It is speculation from one source, not a confirmed finding.
Steele himself was, by his own description, a career intelligence officer who later became a prominent advocate of open-source intelligence and a vocal critic of what he called deep state corruption. He was also, by the account of mainstream reference sources including Wikipedia, widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist in his later years, having promoted a range of other unsubstantiated claims before his death.
None of that means his broader point about Epstein’s operation should be dismissed outright. Epstein was, after all, a convicted sex offender later charged federally with sex trafficking of minors, whose circle of contacts spanned finance, academia, entertainment, and the highest levels of American and international politics.
The scale of Epstein’s access to power is not in dispute. His known associates and acquaintances over the decades included business titans, media figures, royalty, and elected officials from both political parties, a fact that has fueled years of public suspicion regardless of one’s views on any individual conspiracy claim.
That suspicion has only deepened as the government has slow-walked full disclosure. In November 2025, the House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Senate approved it unanimously, and President Trump signed it into law, a bipartisan acknowledgment that the public deserved more answers than they had been given.
Yet the release process has been anything but smooth, and plenty of Americans, including many conservatives who have pushed hardest for transparency, remain convinced that key names and details continue to be shielded from public view even under the new law.
It is that broader climate of distrust that has allowed a nine-year-old clip like Steele’s to resurface and spread so widely. When institutions withhold information for years, speculation tends to rush in to fill the vacuum, whether or not that speculation is ultimately accurate.
To be clear, no public evidence has ever demonstrated that Epstein possessed footage of every major American politician, and no specific sitting or former official has been credibly tied to the blackmail-tape theory Steele described. Treating a nearly decade-old, unsupported claim as established fact would be irresponsible, and this report does not do that.
What can be reported responsibly is that public frustration over the pace and scope of Epstein-related disclosures remains real and bipartisan, and that claims like Steele’s tend to gain traction precisely because official transparency has, for years, lagged behind public demand for answers.
Recent developments have kept that demand in the headlines. Overseas, the relationship between former British Ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson and Epstein triggered a political firestorm in the United Kingdom last fall after newly released court documents and private emails showed a far closer friendship than previously acknowledged, ultimately costing Mandelson his post and his party membership.
That episode is a reminder that Epstein’s web of associations was real, extensive, and not confined to any one country or party, even if the darkest theories about what may have been recorded on his properties remain unproven.
Congressional Republicans have argued for years that full transparency is the only way to put speculation like Steele’s to rest once and for all. If nothing incriminating exists, they argue, releasing everything should pose no threat to anyone with nothing to hide.
Trump Says He Would ‘Absolutely’ Ban Sharia Law
President Donald Trump made headlines this week with massive remarks about Sharia Law.
The president delivered an emphatic message Wednesday on the place of Sharia law in America, saying he would “absolutely” support prohibiting attempts to establish the Islamic legal system in the United States and insisting that the country must remain governed by a single constitutional framework.
Trump made the remarks during a live interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, who pressed the president about ideological threats he believes are gaining ground inside the United States.
The exchange came as Sharia law has emerged as a flashpoint in national politics, including in the closely watched Michigan Senate race, where Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed has faced Republican criticism over previous remarks concerning Islamic law.
Beck raised what he described as a “Red-Green Alliance,” referring to an alleged convergence between far-left political movements and Islamist ideology.
He specifically cited the Democratic Socialists of America and Islam before asking Trump whether he would support federal action against Sharia law.
Trump left little doubt about where he stands.
“On Sharia law, I would absolutely say that’s not this country. There’s no Sharia law. And you do have pockets of it, as you know,” Trump replied.
The president then pointed overseas, arguing that developments in major European cities should serve as a warning for Americans.
“I would say no, and you go to London, you go to Paris. It’s almost like a second way of life. It is ridiculous,” Trump said.
“And I would absolutely be on your side on that, on a lot of other people’s side too, because, you know, you and I have people that, I think, we’re more based upon common sense than we are on ideology,” Trump added.
WATCH:
Trump went on to make his position even clearer, telling Beck that he would support stopping any effort to establish Sharia as a competing legal authority inside the United States.
“Good politics is all about common sense anyway but i would absolutely prohibit the Sharia law thing and it is happening in this country a little bit and when we see it we take it out and you have to take it out,” he continued.
“You have one system, we have a great system, sometimes it’s very frustrating but it’s the best there is, that I can say,” the president concluded.
Trump’s remarks arrive amid a growing conservative debate over Islamic law and whether additional legislation is needed to ensure foreign or religious legal systems cannot supersede American constitutional protections.
Under the Constitution, federal law and constitutional protections already take precedence over religious codes.
Muslims, like Americans of other faiths, remain free to observe religious practices privately so long as those practices comply with U.S. law.
Any federal proposal specifically targeting religious practice would also face significant First Amendment questions.
But conservatives pushing anti-Sharia measures have argued their objective is not restricting private religious belief.
Instead, they say they want explicit safeguards to ensure that no religious or foreign legal code imposes itself when it conflicts with constitutional rights.
The issue has gained additional political attention because of El-Sayed’s campaign in Michigan.
Vice President JD Vance recently hammered the Democratic Senate nominee over remarks El-Sayed delivered during a 2022 Council on American-Islamic Relations banquet in Oklahoma.
“The same exact forces that drove native peoples from their land two centuries ago, destroyed Black Wall Street a century ago, bombed a building decades ago and tried to ban Sharia law not a decade ago, those forces are alive and well today,” El-Sayed said at the time.
“The reason I wanted to go all the way back to the 1830s is because you can’t understand a Sharia ban without understanding the Trail of Tears,” El-Sayed continued.
“You can’t understand the efforts to uproot Muslim Americans without understanding the Tulsa massacre. You cannot understand the challenges we face today without understanding White supremacy,” El-Sayed added.
