The Epstein Files, Conspiracy Theories, and the Limits of Elite Power

Over the past two to three days, a single sentiment has appeared to dominate the global public sphere. Since the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)—the rough equivalent of an Attorney General’s Office in many countries—released the Epstein Files to the public, social media timelines seem to have found a momentum of their own.

Phrases such as “I told you so,” “this was always dismissed as conspiracy theory,” and “now everything has been proven” have circulated widely. For some, this is not merely news, but a moment of validation: long-held beliefs once ridiculed now appear to have received official confirmation.

For those who have not followed the case closely, the Epstein Files refer to a collection of documents, email correspondence, photographs, victim testimonies, and internal records related to Jeffrey Epstein—an American billionaire with extensive connections to political elites, major business figures, royalty, celebrities, and global power brokers.

In 2019, Epstein was arrested and charged with human trafficking, particularly the sexual exploitation of underage girls involving members of the elite. However, before the legal process could reach a verdict, Epstein was found dead in federal custody under circumstances that, to this day, continue to raise serious questions.

The official version describes his death as a suicide. The version more widely believed by the public suggests the opposite: that Epstein was “silenced” because he knew too many secrets capable of bringing down powerful figures.

Since his death, a widespread belief has circulated that crucial evidence—client lists, recordings, and internal communications—was in fact in the possession of the FBI and the DOJ, but deliberately withheld to protect elite interests. The issue quickly became a political commodity.

Republicans accused Democrats of refusing to release the documents out of fear that senior figures and major donors would be implicated. Democrats made similar accusations in return. Yet the fact remains that from the Trump 1.0 era, through the Biden administration, and now into Trump’s return to power, the Epstein Files were never fully disclosed.

This vacuum fueled further speculation: that both Trump and Biden were either directly involved or at least threatened by the contents of the files. Even Elon Musk—amid his public dispute with Trump—once claimed that Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein Files, though ironically Musk’s own name also surfaced.

One crucial point must be emphasized from the outset: appearing in a document does not automatically imply guilt. In many cases, a name may appear merely as a reference, an invitation, or within a particular social context. Without a comprehensive reading, premature conclusions are not only misleading but dangerous.

Alongside this, more expansive theories emerged. Some claimed Epstein was a Mossad asset, allegedly used to entrap global elites through sexual scandals for political leverage. Others promoted a Russian version, linking Epstein to alleged kompromat on Trump, which purportedly explains Trump’s seemingly cautious posture toward Vladimir Putin.

Ultimately, on 19 November 2025, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act—427 votes in favor, with only one opposing. President Trump signed the act, and the files were officially released.

Their contents were indeed disturbing: networks of elite connections, victim testimonies exposing the dark underbelly of power, and allegations of involvement in deviant rituals, including elements associated with Satanism. It is therefore unsurprising that segments of the public—particularly those who have long adhered to “conspiracy theory” narratives—viewed this as definitive proof that the world is controlled by secret, malevolent groups.

Yet this is precisely where we must pause and reflect more calmly.

What, in fact, is a conspiracy theory?

In its most general sense, a conspiracy theory is the belief that major world events are entirely planned, controlled, and determined by a hidden group of actors who almost never fail.

It is important to clarify: criticizing conspiracy theories does not mean denying elite wrongdoing. Nor does it mean rejecting the existence of power networks, deviant groups, or illicit practices among the upper echelons of society. The Epstein Files themselves confirm that such realities exist.

The problem lies in the claim of absolute control.

Global politics is fundamentally anarchic in nature. There is no world government. There is no “final boss” who determines everything. What exists instead is a balance of power—constantly shifting, colliding, and never fully stable.

Planning is not the same as total domination.

Consider, for example, the conspiracy narratives surrounding the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, which are referenced in the Epstein Files. That event did indeed alter Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation, trigger Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and plant the seeds of the ongoing war.

But more than a decade later, what has actually been achieved? Russia has not collapsed. Ukraine’s future remains uncertain. The Western bloc has become increasingly divided, while alternative global powers have grown more prominent. This demonstrates that even carefully designed conspiracies do not necessarily translate into full control over reality.

This is the fundamental difference between critically engaging with reality and accepting conspiracy theories wholesale.

Acknowledging the existence of influential elites does not mean believing they are omnipotent. It is true that certain elite networks—including Jewish elites—have exercised historical and political influence. The fact that the Rothschild family supported Zionism is well established. Yet the extent to which such influence shapes geopolitics in practice always depends on tangible power: military strength, economic capacity, technological advantage, and legitimacy.

If the world were truly under total control, how could the U.S. Congress itself pass legislation exposing the internal corruption of elites? If everything were meticulously orchestrated, how could Epstein be arrested, charged, and ultimately exposed despite the protection he allegedly enjoyed?

All of this points to the inherent limits of conspiracy itself.

Conspiracies do exist, but they are never absolute. The world is not shaped by those with the most cunning plans, but by those who possess the most tangible power—and that power is always contested.

The greatest danger of totalizing conspiracy theories lies in their psychological and social consequences: they cultivate passivity and fatalism. The belief that “everything is already controlled” ultimately paralyzes the will to build strength, improve conditions, and take responsibility for change.

History, however, is written by those who struggle to build capacity—economic, political, cultural, and moral—not by those who merely point to an invisible hand.

If the world today appears dark, unjust, and corrupt, that is not a reason to surrender. On the contrary, it is a call to responsibility. For anyone—and especially for Muslims—the challenge is not merely to expose elite crimes, but to construct alternative sources of power that embody values, justice, and a new moral light.

In the end, the Epstein Files do not prove that the world is ruled absolutely by a single secret group. Rather, they reaffirm that power is always limited, fragile, and contested.

To understand geopolitics and global conflict, a realist perspective grounded in power and balance remains far more relevant—and far more honest—than the seductive appeal of all-encompassing conspiracy theories.