Jeffrey Epstein as Middleman: An Economic Analysis

Economic theory has always been more comfortable analyzing markets than the people who make markets possible. Textbook exchange is clean, synchronous, and explicit: a buyer meets a seller, a price clears supply and demand, and the transaction is complete. Yet much of real economic life proceeds otherwise. Buyers and sellers often do not meet directly. Information is fragmented. Trust is uneven. Transactions are staggered in time. Under such conditions, intermediaries—middlemen, brokers, fixers—emerge not as incidental features of exchange, but as central institutional actors.¹

The economics literature offers several ways of understanding why. In the theory of search and matching, intermediaries arise because finding a counterparty is costly and uncertain. Buyers and sellers may exist in the same economy but never meet at the same moment. A middleman, by standing ready and cultivating contacts on both sides of the market, increases the effective rate at which trades occur. In canonical models of intermediation, the middleman does not produce the good being traded; he produces access. His profit comes from reducing search frictions and exploiting his position as a node through which others must pass.²

---

This post is free and available to the public. The Glenn Show is almost entirely audience-supported. If you enjoy my essays, podcasts, livestreams, Q&As with John McWhorter, and all the other content you find here, consider becoming a full subscriber.

---

A related strand of work emphasizes that exchange need not be synchronous. Transactions can be separated in time, with obligations accumulating and being discharged later. This is where the language of “credit” becomes metaphorical but precise. An intermediary who performs favors—making introductions, smoothing conflicts, providing information—accumulates informal claims on others. These claims are not legally enforceable and often not even explicit, yet they are real. They are backed by reputation, repeated interaction, and the threat of exclusion from future opportunities. Economics describes this as relational contracting: cooperation sustained not by courts, but by expectations about the future.³

Network theory sharpens the picture further. Brokers occupy positions that bridge otherwise disconnected groups. Their value lies not simply in knowing many people, but in knowing people who do not know one another. By spanning these “structural holes,” intermediaries control the flow of information and opportunities. They decide who meets whom, in what setting, and on what terms. Such control confers power even when the broker owns little in the conventional sense. His capital is social rather than physical, positional rather than productive.⁴

These ideas are often illustrated with benign examples. Merchant houses in early modern trade facilitated long-distance exchange when communication was slow and legal enforcement weak. Real-estate agents match buyers and sellers who would struggle to find one another on their own. Financial intermediaries transform maturity, pool risk, and make illiquid assets tradable. In each case, the intermediary is welfare-enhancing, at least in principle, because he lowers transaction costs and enables mutually beneficial exchange.⁵

Yet the same theoretical tools also illuminate less comfortable cases. When transactions are informal, opaque, or morally ambiguous, intermediaries can do more than reduce search costs. They can reduce moral costs. This is a point emphasized by Kaushik Basu in his work on norms, corruption, and informal exchange. Many activities persist not because participants are ignorant of their dubious nature, but because intermediaries diffuse responsibility, normalize deviance, and make transgression feel routine. The broker allows each participant to tell himself that he is not really choosing; he is merely going along with how things are done.⁶

Once such a system is in place, it can become self-reinforcing. Individually, each participant may find it rational to rely on the intermediary. Collectively, the arrangement can be destructive. The intermediary becomes indispensable precisely because he sits at the intersection of multiple relationships, none of which fully sees the whole. No single actor has enough information—or incentive—to dismantle the system. Economics describes this as a norm-based equilibrium: stable, persistent, and resistant to reform, even when widely suspected to be rotten.⁷

It is against this theoretical backdrop that the Epstein scandal acquires its deeper significance. Treated narrowly, it is a story of horrific sexual abuse and criminal failure. Treated analytically, it is also a case study in extreme relational intermediation. Jeffrey Epstein’s economic role was never easy to specify. He was not a conventional financier, nor simply a socialite. His apparent value lay in his position as a connector across domains that ordinarily remain separate: finance, philanthropy, academia, politics, and private life. He brokered access. He made introductions. He hosted, facilitated, and normalized encounters whose purpose was often left conveniently vague.

Here the reporting by DropSite News adds crucial texture. Rather than presenting Epstein as a lone operator, it reconstructs a dense web of interactions sustained over decades: repeated visits to multiple properties, overlapping social circles that included financiers, scientists, politicians, and university administrators, and philanthropic or advisory arrangements whose concrete deliverables were often ill-defined. DropSite documents how Epstein inserted himself into institutional spaces—elite universities, research initiatives, charitable projects—by offering himself as a conduit to donors, prestige, or influence, even when the precise source of his own wealth or authority remained opaque.⁸

---

---

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein released a Super Bowl–timed PSA produced by World Without Exploitation that ends with the message, “Tell Attorney General Pam Bondi: It’s Time for the Truth,” renewing attention on the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein Files. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required searchable public releases, leading to December batches and a Jan. 30 publication covering about half of the more than 6 million pages identified. Members of Congress have begun reviewing unredacted files at the Department of Justice, while the department says withheld records protect victim privacy, a stance defended by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Left-leaning coverage called the ad “powerful,” while right-leaning outlets described it as “heartfelt,” with agreement on the call for truth but sharp divisions over political accountability and scrutiny of figures like President Trump.

That detailed analysis is exactly why I rely on Ground News. Instead of taking any single narrative at face value, Ground News helps you step back from the noise and see how the same story is being shaped across the media landscape.

Here’s why I recommend it:

• See the full picture: Compare how left, center, and right sources cover the same story

• Reveal blindspots: Instantly see what one side covers and the other side ignores.

• Dig deeper: See insights including headline comparisons, outlet reliability, and even the ownership behind publications

If you care about cutting through narrative spin and seeing the full picture, Glenn Show readers can get 40% off the unlimited access Ground News Vantage plan at ground.news/glenn.

---

---

For instance, leaked emails from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak reveal Epstein’s near-daily coordination from 2013 to 2016, including logistical support for Barak’s international travels and business ventures. Epstein arranged discreet meetings at his New York mansion, such as an April 2013 session to prepare Barak for a trip to Mongolia, and facilitated wire transfers, including a $1 million loan in March 2015 to Barak’s Israeli startup Reporty Homeland Security—a surveillance tech firm co-founded by a Unit 8200 alumnus and tied to military intelligence.

This investment blurred lines between philanthropy and geopolitics, as Epstein’s support positioned the firm for deployment in foreign regimes like Mongolia, where a May 2016 investor presentation noted it as a “new region coming soon.”

Similarly, Barak’s senior aide and Israeli intelligence officer Yoni Koren stayed for weeks at a time at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment during this period— including stretches in February 2013, October 2014 (two weeks), and September 2015 (ten days)—using it as a base for operations that involved coded communications, potential dead drops (like a February 2015 package pickup with a bank card), and wire transfers handled by Epstein.

These repeated, routinized interactions normalized Epstein’s role in elite intelligence and political circles, with obligations accumulating asynchronously through favors like travel coordination and financial logistics. Epstein’s brokerage extended to international diplomacy, where he bridged structural holes between disconnected geopolitical actors. In Côte d’Ivoire, amid post-2010 civil unrest and coup attempts, Epstein helped shepherd surveillance proposals from Israeli firms to President Alassane Ouattara’s inner circle. He arranged introductions, such as meetings with Ouattara’s niece Nina Keita in September 2012 and November 2013, and with Chef de Cabinet Sidi Tiémoko Touré in September 2013, while Barak met Ouattara and key ministers like Hamed Bakayoko in Abidjan in August 2013.

Emails show Epstein commenting on the “perfect” timing of unrest for opportunities, with Barak noting the challenge of converting it to “cash flow.”

Proposals included a SIGINT system for mass eavesdropping on communications, drawn from Unit 8200 expertise, and used philanthropy—like hospital-building projects—as a cover to navigate export restrictions.

Epstein even traveled to Côte d’Ivoire in October 2012, facilitating deals that culminated in a 2014 Israel-Côte d’Ivoire security pact.

Communications were opaque, using initials and cryptic subject lines to avoid scrutiny. In Mongolia, Epstein recruited economists like Lawrence Summers for advisory roles on a Presidential Advisory Board on global peace and security, formalized in 2013 with Epstein participating remotely and members receiving $100,000 annually from the International Peace Institute (IPI).

---

---

He hosted dinners at his home in September 2015 with Barak, Mongolian President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, and diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen, paving the way for a 2017 Israel-Mongolia agreement on emergency tech.

Epstein’s efforts included suggesting Summers to Barak in September 2013, noting synergies for advising “Sovereign Heads,” and handling payments like redirecting funds to himself in January 2016.

Epstein also nurtured ties between Israel and emerging powers. Before the 2020 Abraham Accords, he leveraged his friendship with UAE’s DP World chairman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem to pitch Israeli cybersecurity investments, such as Carbyne for Dubai’s 911 and seaport security in August 2018.

Emails expressed gratitude, like Sulayem’s “Praise Allah, there are still people like you” in 2007, illustrating accumulated obligations through introductions and favors without explicit contracts.

Similarly, Indian billionaire Anil Ambani, close to Narendra Modi, tapped Epstein in March 2017 for help connecting with U.S. figures like Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon ahead of Modi’s visits to the U.S. and Israel, with Epstein arranging alternatives like Tom Barrack and praising Modi’s Israel performance as having “WORKED.”

DropSite’s reporting is useful here not because it resolves every factual dispute, but because it documents patterns of interaction rather than isolated acts. What emerges is a picture of asynchronous exchange. Favors are performed without immediate return. Access is granted without explicit price. Obligations are left open-ended. Epstein introduced people to one another, offered hospitality, facilitated meetings, and positioned himself as someone who could “make things happen,” often without specifying when or how any return might be expected. In economic terms, this is not spot exchange but relational contracting at scale. Epstein’s power derived from his ability to remember who owed what to whom, and from the widely shared belief that future access flowed through him.

The reporting also underscores how this system depended on repetition and routinization. Interactions that might have raised alarms in isolation became normalized through frequency and social embedding. Being present at a dinner, a conference, a private meeting, or a flight was rarely framed as a decisive act; it was one more node in an ongoing relationship. The intermediary structure allowed participants to treat each encounter as marginal, even as the cumulative pattern was anything but.⁹

This helps explain a puzzle that has long surrounded the case: why so many institutions and individuals tolerated proximity to someone widely rumored to be dangerous. The answer need not be mass depravity or collective blindness. It can be the quieter logic of intermediation. Each actor interacted with Epstein for reasons that, taken in isolation, seemed defensible or banal: a donation discussed, an introduction offered, a connection maintained. DropSite’s reporting shows how responsibility was dispersed across institutions and across time, making disengagement costly and coordination against the intermediary difficult. The intermediary structure ensured that no one had to confront the system as a whole. Moral costs were lowered by diffusion, ambiguity, and routine.

In this sense, the Epstein scandal exposes the dark underside of informal exchange. The same mechanisms that allow trade to flourish in the absence of formal contracts—trust, reputation, favors, and brokers—can also shield exploitation. When intermediaries operate in the shadows, when their capital consists of secrets and access rather than transparent prices, the line between facilitation and corruption blurs. The intermediary becomes not just a market maker, but a norm-manager, shaping what participants come to regard as acceptable.

DropSite’s contribution is to show how deeply embedded such an intermediary can become before the system collapses. The reporting makes visible how institutions that otherwise prize transparency and ethical conduct can nonetheless rely on informal channels when those channels appear to deliver scarce resources—money, access, influence—at low apparent cost. What economics predicts, and what the Epstein case tragically confirms, is that such arrangements can persist long after warning signs accumulate.

Economics does not absolve anyone of responsibility. But it does insist that behavior is structured by institutions, including informal ones. The lesson of the Epstein affair is not merely that monsters exist, but that certain forms of brokerage create environments in which monsters can operate for a long time without being confronted. The scandal forces into view a world of informal exchange that is usually hidden behind euphemism and discretion—a world that standard economic models acknowledge only abstractly, but which, when illuminated, raises uncomfortable questions about how much of elite social and economic life depends on intermediaries whose value lies precisely in their opacity.

Seen this way, the Epstein case is not an anomaly. It is a pathological extreme of a general phenomenon. Middlemen make markets possible. They also make some abuses easier to sustain. The challenge, for economics as much as for society, is to understand when relational intermediation serves cooperation—and when it becomes the infrastructure of moral catastrophe.

What the Epstein scandal ultimately exposes is not merely individual depravity, but an institutional vulnerability. Informal exchange is powerful precisely because it operates below the threshold of formal scrutiny. When access, favors, and reputation substitute for contracts and prices, accountability becomes diffuse and responsibility evaporates. Economics teaches that such systems can be efficient under constraint—but it also teaches that efficiency is not innocence. The deeper warning is that elite institutions, confident in their norms and insulated by prestige, may be especially prone to relying on opaque intermediaries, mistaking discretion for trustworthiness. Epstein’s role, as illuminated by investigative reporting, forces a reconsideration of how much of modern economic and social life still depends on shadow markets of access and obligation—and how easily those markets can turn predatory when brokerage becomes unmoored from moral constraint.

My argument is not that Epstein created no value; it is about how whatever value he created was institutionally organized. Even highly valuable expertise is ordinarily embedded in transparent, replicable, and professionally accountable forms—firms rather than individuals, contracts rather than open-ended obligations, compliance rather than discretion. What is analytically striking to me in Epstein’s case is that his role consistently took the form of personalized, opaque, cross-domain brokerage, persisting even after his criminal conviction, and operating outside standard governance structures.

Intermediaries can be efficient under constraint while simultaneously generating serious moral hazard. The question I am raising is not whether Epstein was smart, but why so many elite actors relied on an intermediary whose comparative advantage lay in discretion, access, and relational insulation rather than in formal professional accountability—and what institutional vulnerabilities that reliance exposed.

---

1. Ronald H. Coase, “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica 4, no. 16 (1937): 386–405; Oliver E. Williamson, Markets and Hierarchies (New York: Free Press, 1975).

2. Ariel Rubinstein and Asher Wolinsky, “Middlemen,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, no. 3 (1987): 581–593.

3. Avner Greif, Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

4. Ronald S. Burt, Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).

5. Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

6. Kaushik Basu, Prelude to Political Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Kaushik Basu, “Why, for a Class of Bribes, the Act of Giving a Bribe Should Be Treated as Legal,” Economics Letters 111, no. 1 (2011): 72–75.

7. Kaushik Basu, Beyond the Invisible Hand (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).

8. DropSite News, “Epstein and Israel” series, 2025–2026, including Murtaza Hussain and Ryan Grim, “Jeffrey Epstein Helped Broker Israeli Security Agreement With Mongolia,” Sep. 28, 2025; “Israeli Spy Stayed for Weeks at a Time With Jeffrey Epstein in Manhattan,” Nov. 11, 2025; “Jeffrey Epstein Helped Israel Sell a Surveillance State to Côte d’Ivoire,” Nov. 7, 2025; “‘Praise Allah, There Are Still People Like You’: Jeffrey Epstein Nurtured Israel-Emirates Ties Before Abraham Accords,” Jan. 14, 2026; and “‘Leadership Would Like Your Help’: Indian Billionaire Tapped Jeffrey Epstein Before Modi’s Visits to U.S. and Israel,” Jan. 2026.

9. Jens Beckert and Frank Wehinger, “In the Shadow: Illegal Markets and Economic Sociology,” Socio-Economic Review 11, no. 1 (2013): 5–30.