The long-serving Oregon Democrat talks about his team’s Epstein investigation, tariffs and unmasking ICE.
Follow the money — the timeless words of Deep Throat, whisperer to the crusading investigative duo Woodward and Bernstein in the 1970s book and film All the President’s Men.
The phrase is now on the lips of the senior senator from Oregon, who lately has been making the media rounds to raise awareness in the financial dealings of Jeffrey Epstein, the mysterious billionaire who died in his prison cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges in 2019.
Three years ago, the Biden administration allowed Sen. Ron Wyden and members of his staff to view Treasury documents in the Epstein case. Wyden says what they found was alarming — thousands of wire transfers totaling more than $1 billion in just one account, and numerous payments to women and girls in eastern European and Asian countries.
Though aspects of the Epstein story have been public since his first arrest in 2006, interest in Epstein has heated up since Trump took office in January. He appointed several far-right media personalities — and proponents of Epstein-related conspiracy theories — to top law enforcement positions, including now-deputy FBI director Dan Bongino and now-Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Outcry reached fever pitch earlier this month when the Department of Justice announced it would close the Epstein case, saying no further charges would be filed and the infamous client list did not exist. The Wall Street Journal, the Miami Herald and others have drawn connections between Trump and Epstein. Earlier this month Trump sued the WSJ and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, after the paper reported on a birthday letter sent to Epstein in 2003 that included Trump’s signature and a cryptic message. Trump is seeking $20 billion in damages for libel, and has called the letter “a fake thing.”
Wyden is now calling for the release of evidence from the Treasury Department and a thorough Congressional investigation.
The senator met with Oregon Business last week to discuss his investigation into Epstein’s financial activities and the need for transparency despite political pushback.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The biggest political story in America right now is Jeffrey Epstein and the President’s ties to the billionaire sex trafficker. Your office has conducted its own investigation into Epstein’s financial activities. What are your main takeaways?
Well, let me tell you how we got into it. A big part of my interest in taxation has been looking at ways in which the ultra-wealthy can escape taxation almost completely. And when Wall Street billionaire Leon Black gave Epstein more than $158 million and said it was for tax help and estate planning, or some such thing, it looked really pretty implausible to me. And we started digging. And everywhere we went, we saw all kinds of matters linked to sex trafficking, both in the south, in Palm Beach, and in New York.
We asked for the SARS — suspicious activity reports — from [the[ Treasury — and you’re not allowed to take them away — but it was clear that these were very problematic. We saw from one bank alone, 4,700 wire transfers, some number of them linked to women and underage girls and the like.
So we just follow the money. That’s sort of my code word for these matters. It’s not very flashy. It’s not very sensational. But it really allows you to get into a paper trail — to accounts, to federal files. And you do it in a pretty methodical way, not a lot of shouting and screaming.
Why should Democrats care about the Epstein story?
Well, in my view, this is a portrayal of a rigged system. We’ve seen wealthy people put a lot of money into Epstein. There’s real questions about whether banks carried out their responsibilities.
Sex trafficking is one of the most abominable crimes, and I want to come out of this and make sure nobody can do this again.
We also have picked up some information in our investigations that some of Epstein’s henchmen — because he used several people in this — are still out there.
Do you worry that by focusing on this, you’re maybe supporting the MAGA argument that this is a Democratic witch hunt?
I don’t think that way. I was looking at this long before people were talking about this in the newspaper articles that we’re now seeing consume everybody’s attention, more than three years ago, after we saw what Leon Black was doing. The wire transfers also raise questions about other people on Wall Street.
We went systematically to look at the other considerations. And for all practical purposes, Leon Black has said that some of his money was used for sex trafficking. And the money he paid to lawyers, was used for sex trafficking.
So, as someone who’s been interested in this for years, you must wonder about what really happened here. There are questions like, Do you think Epstein had ties to intelligence agencies? Do you think he really killed himself?
I think that’s just speculation, which I don’t do. What I do is stay at it until we get the facts — the paper trail with these wire transfers and accounts and federal files — that’s what we deal in.
Do you think that somewhere, there’s an actual “list” of clients?
We don’t use that word. We talk about “documents.”
We presented one to the Trump administration, one of these files. And you know, you’re not allowed to have access to SARS, but we had asked the Biden administration to let us see them. They did. We asked if we could take them away. They said, you can’t. We tried to work with the Republicans on the committee. They had no interest in that. We’re just going to keep pushing the rock up the hill.
Were the DOJ to turn over more of these documents, what might they show? Do you think they’d show evidence of a cover-up?
What I would say is that we know we’ve had slow-walking agencies. We’ve had these large wire transfers. We have millions passing through what looked like Russian sanctioned banks. There’s a lot here.
II’ll tell you what really started this round. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, said, “There’s nothing to do here. There’s no there there.” And I said, “There’s 4,000 lines of investigation with the wire transfers alone, just with one bank.”
Have you followed up with AG Bondi?
Yes, we sent the second letter yesterday [July 24].
I gave a floor speech where we outlined the case. And yesterday, we sent the second letter saying, here are the seven steps you can take to have a real investigation.
When we spoke last in December, you were warning about the potential impacts of tariffs in Oregon, and now—
We still are. We’ve got a big date for Oregon coming up —Aug. 1. Now, maybe Trump will, as he’s done in more than 50 instances, change his mind again.
I went to Canada a couple days ago and led a delegation. And they’re very concerned. Donald Trump has consistently misled the public on this for the better part of two years. He said in his campaign that foreigners are going to pay the tariffs. That’s just not true. Tariffs are being paid by Oregonians. And they said (tariffs) were going to lower costs. And they’re raising costs. That’s what tariffs do.
So we have a big day coming up, and that’s why I wanted to go up. And we actually made some progress. I talked about two big Oregon issues.
I asked [Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney] about digital taxes, which are really important to our technology companies. I said you agreed not to collect them, but will you go the next step? I said, my constituents care a lot about this. And he said he’d pursue it in the fall.
I also asked him about softwood lumber, which has long been an irritant to us in the Pacific Northwest. And he talked about his openness to a quota system, which has some potential to maybe end this.
You’ve pushed to prohibit ICE officers from wearing masks. Why is that important?
I think it is authoritarian — authoritarian on steroids. And that reminds me of my parents, who fled the Nazis in the 30s. Not all got out. This is what those kinds of countries do.
The President’s budget will seemingly do significant damage to clean energy programs in Oregon. How should the state respond?
I think we should push back at every opportunity, which is why I was at that hearing leading the questioning of a number of these executives. We ought to push back constantly on why we need a new approach to promote technological neutrality, like what we passed into law in 2022. Everybody gets to compete. The more you reduce carbon, the bigger your tax savings.
Trump is basically dissing that, reducing the number of choices. And I said at the hearing a couple days ago, “What planet are we on?” I thought Republicans were in favor of choices and markets and competition and the like. And here I am doing all the speaking about that, and you’re not.
You were in office during the first Trump administration. Has he gotten more effective as a lawmaker?
Well, he certainly is more inclined to just say, “The rules are what I say they are.”
Look at what he’s done with crypto. He’s basically making the rules.
Has the Senate changed in response to Trump — how it operates and who’s elected?
Well, I’ll let the Republican senators speak for themselves. But he has been able to basically say to his caucus, It’s my way or the highway. And I think that’s not how you get good legislation.
You’ve said you’ll run for re election, and you’re going to be 79 —
Whoa — hold on a sec, because everybody is asking about this. First thing, I have said again and again and again: My top priority is working for Oregonians now. And that means stopping these flawed Trump policies that we’re talking about.
You all have repeatedly asked, “What are your plans? What are your plans?” So finally, I said, “I intend to run.” And that’s the only thing I’ve said. And that’s all.
Click here to subscribe to Oregon Business.
