Les Wexner Faces Fresh Scrutiny as Epstein-Era Files and New Depositions Converge in February 2026

Les Wexner, the Ohio retail billionaire best known for building the empire behind Victoria’s Secret, is back at the center of a widening accountability storm after newly unredacted Epstein-related documents reignited questions about his past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The renewed focus is not limited to headlines or political soundbites: Wexner is scheduled to sit for a congressional deposition on February 18, 2026 ET in Ohio, and a federal judge has separately ordered him to testify within the next 60 days in litigation tied to historic sexual abuse at Ohio State University.

The overlap is striking. In the span of days, Wexner is being pulled into two distinct legal and political arenas that both revolve around the same underlying issue: what powerful institutions knew, when they knew it, and whether influence delayed accountability.

What happened: congressional deposition moved to Ohio ahead of February 18

Congressional investigators plan to question Wexner on February 18, 2026 ET as part of a broader inquiry into the Epstein case records and the government’s handling of related investigations. The deposition had initially been framed as a Washington-based appearance, but it was later shifted to Ohio, with the exact time and specific location not publicly disclosed.

This logistical change matters. Moving a deposition out of Washington can reduce spectacle while still preserving the committee’s leverage. It can also indicate negotiations over security, privacy, health considerations, or witness-counsel logistics. Practically, it increases the likelihood that the testimony stays tightly controlled and less performative than a high-profile hearing.

The unredacted document wave: why Wexner’s name resurfaced now

The most recent burst of attention stems from newly unredacted Epstein-era records released by federal authorities, including internal investigative material written after Epstein’s death in 2019. Some documents referred to Wexner as a “co-conspirator” descriptor in the context of investigative notes, while also indicating limited evidence against him and no criminal charges. That combination tends to inflame public debate: one label carries weight in public imagination, while the absence of charges leaves room for competing interpretations about culpability versus proximity.

Separately, new reporting has also resurfaced details about Wexner’s financial entanglement with Epstein, including a prior dispute that ended in a large settlement payment from Epstein to Wexner. The episode reinforces what has long been the hardest fact pattern for Wexner to shake: Epstein held unusual access and authority over Wexner’s personal finances for years.

A second legal front: federal judge orders testimony in Ohio State abuse lawsuit

On February 11, 2026 ET, a federal judge ordered Wexner to testify in litigation involving Ohio State University and allegations surrounding former team doctor Richard Strauss, who is accused of abusing hundreds of students over decades. The judge rejected an effort to avoid the subpoena and directed that Wexner sit for a deposition within 60 days.

The plaintiffs’ theory is not about tabloid intrigue. It’s about institutional oversight: what the university’s leadership and board governance systems did to monitor compliance and respond to allegations. Wexner’s board service during part of the relevant period makes him a potentially important witness on how information flowed and how leaders reacted, if at all.

Behind the headline: incentives, stakeholders, and why this moment is sharper than past cycles

Wexner has faced scrutiny before, especially after Epstein’s 2019 arrest. What’s different in February 2026 is the convergence of three pressure sources at once:

Context
The Epstein files are being revisited in a more formal, document-driven way, not just through retrospective storytelling. Congress is treating the matter as an oversight question about government conduct, which expands the scope beyond individual wrongdoing.

Incentives
For lawmakers, a high-profile deposition delivers political value: it signals toughness, generates public interest, and frames the investigation as proactive. For plaintiffs in the Ohio State case, Wexner’s testimony is leverage for discovery and potential settlement dynamics. For Wexner, the incentive is risk containment: limit reputational damage, avoid misstatements, and keep testimony narrow.

Stakeholders
Survivors sit at the center of both storylines, with stakes that are personal and enduring: recognition, accountability, and institutional change. Ohio State faces financial and reputational exposure. Congress faces credibility tests about whether this is fact-finding or theater. Wexner’s philanthropic legacy in Ohio and in national Jewish community leadership also sits in the balance, as donors and institutions weigh how association affects trust.

What we still don’t know

Several missing pieces will determine whether this period becomes a brief flare-up or a lasting reckoning:

• What Congress is specifically seeking from Wexner beyond background chronology

• Whether deposition transcripts will be released, summarized, or kept largely confidential

• Whether investigators have new corroboration that changes prior interpretations of Wexner’s financial relationship with Epstein

• How narrowly the Ohio State deposition will focus on board governance versus broader institutional culture

• Whether any additional civil claims or discovery requests emerge from new document releases

It is also unclear whether any future legal exposure is on the table for Wexner personally. At the moment, the most concrete developments are testimonial: compelled or scheduled questioning, not new charges.

What happens next: realistic scenarios and triggers

1. Limited-impact testimony
   If Wexner provides guarded, consistent answers and no new documents surface, attention could fade quickly. Trigger: no significant revelations and no transcript release.

2. Expanded document requests
   Congress could pursue follow-on subpoenas for records tied to financial management, communications, or intermediaries. Trigger: gaps identified during questioning.

3. Reputational ripple across institutions
   Organizations bearing Wexner’s name may face renewed calls for transparency, governance reforms, or rebranding debates. Trigger: sustained public pressure after deposition summaries circulate.

4. Litigation acceleration at Ohio State
   Plaintiffs could use Wexner’s testimony to support broader claims about what leadership knew and how oversight failed. Trigger: testimony that contradicts prior institutional narratives.

5. A longer accountability cycle
   If additional unredacted material continues to appear, Wexner may remain a recurring figure in the Epstein accountability story for months. Trigger: ongoing releases or new corroboration from third parties.

Why it matters

This is not simply about one billionaire’s past associations. It’s about how power interacts with oversight: whether elite access to money, philanthropy, and institutional leadership can insulate people and organizations from scrutiny, or whether documentation and compelled testimony can finally close long-standing gaps in accountability. In February 2026, Les Wexner is positioned at the intersection of those two forces, with answers increasingly demanded in formal settings rather than in the court of public opinion.