Les Wexner Says He Was 'Naive' and 'Conned' by Jeffrey Epstein as He Faces House Oversight Questions

les wexner told US lawmakers he was "naive, foolish and gullible" for trusting Jeffrey Epstein, saying he had been conned by the financier in opening remarks to a closed-door deposition. The testimony, provided to a House committee probing Epstein's activities, is a central focus of renewed oversight about how Epstein amassed wealth and influence.

Les Wexner: What happened and what’s new

The former CEO of a major lingerie brand gave a closed-door deposition to the House Oversight Committee, beginning with a prepared opening statement in which he called himself "naive, foolish and gullible" for placing trust in Jeffrey Epstein. In that statement he also said Epstein stole "vast sums" of money from his family while acting as his financial adviser.

He denied any personal involvement in Epstein's crimes and reiterated that he had no knowledge of the convicted offender's abuse. He said he had visited Epstein's private island for "a few hours" with his family. Members of the committee traveled to the witness's home state for the session, and the questioning lasted for an extended period. A spokesperson for the man said he answered every question and again denied participating in illegal conduct.

Lawmakers on the Democratic side pressed the witness about the scope of his relationship with Epstein, with some arguing that Epstein's wealth and ability to traffic victims would not have been possible without the support he received. The witness has been described in a past law enforcement document as a potential co-conspirator, though no charges were ever filed.

Behind the headline

This appearance comes amid a broader congressional probe that was prompted by the release of thousands of documents related to Epstein's wrongdoing. The committee's focus is on the financial and personal relationships that surround a convicted sex offender who operated across jurisdictions and used resources that enabled his criminal conduct.

Key stakeholders here include the witness, lawmakers conducting oversight, and the lawmakers' staff who attended the session. The witness's public posture is defensive: he has described himself as duped and has sought to deny knowledge of abuse or participation in wrongdoing. Democratic members of the committee are using the testimony to press questions about facilitation and financial enablement. Some members of the opposing party did not attend in person, though staff were present.

What we still don’t know

• Exact financial details: the full scope and movement of the "vast sums" the witness says were stolen remain unspecified.
• Extent of knowledge: whether the witness had awareness of the criminal conduct beyond his denial is unresolved.
• Documentary record: which specific documents were discussed in the deposition and what new evidence, if any, surfaced has not been disclosed.
• Follow-up actions: whether the committee will seek additional testimony, documents, or referrals remains unclear.
• Political dynamics: motivations behind who attended or declined to attend the deposition have not been explained in detail.

What happens next

• Ongoing committee review: the panel may continue to examine released documents and call additional witnesses to fill gaps revealed by the deposition; a decision to seek further testimony would likely be triggered by inconsistencies or unanswered questions from this session.
• Public disclosure options: the committee could choose to release more of the witness's opening statement or parts of the deposition record if it deems that necessary to explain its findings; such a release would be triggered by internal committee votes or pressure for transparency.
• Targeted document requests: lawmakers might issue subpoenas for financial records or correspondence tied to the relationship, prompted by leads from the deposition or newly surfaced materials.
• Political follow-up: opposition members or allied staff could use testimony outcomes to press for policy changes in oversight of fiduciary relationships or private advisers; momentum for such steps would follow clear evidence of facilitation or enabling behavior.

Why it matters

The testimony touches on wider questions about accountability for powerful figures who surround criminal actors and the mechanisms by which alleged enablers may have provided access to money, assets and mobility. For the witness personally, the deposition is an attempt to rebut allegations and set the record straight publicly. For lawmakers, the session is part of a larger effort to document how a convicted offender could accumulate resources that facilitated abuse.

Near-term implications include intensified scrutiny of past financial arrangements and renewed public attention to the relationships that allowed the convicted offender to operate. The answers that emerge from follow-up document reviews or additional testimony will shape whether policymakers and investigators see gaps that merit further action.