What do former Mar‑a‑Lago employees say in full about Epstein and Maxwell’s recruiting tactics?
Executive summary
Former Mar‑a‑Lago employees tell a consistent, specific story: Ghislaine Maxwell routinely visited the club and directly approached young spa workers to offer unauthorized “side jobs” — massages for her “friend” Jeffrey Epstein — and staffers say those house‑call assignments continued even as Epstein developed a reputation among employees for sexually suggestive behavior and sometimes exposing himself during appointments [1] [2] [3]. Virginia Giuffre’s account that Maxwell recruited her from Mar‑a‑Lago when she was a teenager is a central, corroborated example in the reporting [1] [4].
1. The recruitment pitch: unauthorized “side jobs” and extra cash
Multiple former employees told investigators that Maxwell personally solicited young spa staffers at Mar‑a‑Lago, offering them what were framed as unauthorized “side jobs” — extra‑pay massage appointments for a wealthy client — language that appears explicitly in the Wall Street Journal reporting and follow‑ups [1] [5]. Those recruits were told they could earn extra money by giving massages to Maxwell’s “friend,” and employees described these arrangements as not sanctioned by club management [1] [5].
2. House calls, teenage workers, and a troubling pattern
Reporting says the Mar‑a‑Lago spa sent workers — including teens, in at least some accounts — on house calls to Epstein’s Palm Beach home, and that this practice persisted for years despite staff warnings and awareness of Epstein’s behavior [6] [2]. The Journal and other outlets cite staff recollections that Epstein had an account at the spa and that Maxwell booked appointments on his behalf, creating a steady channel for recruitment and access [2] [1].
3. Staff warnings and descriptions of Epstein’s conduct
Former spa employees described warning one another about Epstein because he had gained a reputation for being sexually suggestive and, in some reports, exposing himself during appointments; those characterizations recur across the Journal, The Nation and other summaries of staff testimony [2] [3]. Some reporting indicates that even after concerns circulated internally, the practice of sending workers to Epstein continued until at least an incident that reportedly prompted Mar‑a‑Lago management to bar him in the early 2000s [5] [2].
4. The Virginia Giuffre account as a touchstone
Virginia Giuffre’s narrative — that Maxwell recruited her from the Mar‑a‑Lago spa in 2000 when she was a teenager and then arranged for her to give sexualized massages to Epstein — is repeatedly cited as the most consequential example of Maxwell’s recruitment at the club and is referenced in court filings, depositions and news coverage [1] [7] [4]. Giuffre herself did not accuse other Mar‑a‑Lago staff of criminality beyond the recruitment, and reporting makes a distinction between Maxwell and Epstein’s actions and other club personnel’s responsibilities [8] [4].
5. Pushback, denials, and evidentiary limits
The White House and Trump allies disputed the thrust of the reporting, calling it innuendo and emphasizing that Trump says he banned Epstein for “being a creep,” and the administration framed the claims as politically motivated [3] [9]. Independent fact‑checking notes that some documents released later include emails in which Epstein claimed Trump knew about recruitment from Mar‑a‑Lago, but fact‑checkers caution that the documentary record does not by itself prove what Trump did or didn’t know about Maxwell’s recruiting tactics [10]. Reporting thus presents firm employee recollections about Maxwell’s direct recruitment efforts and Epstein’s behavior, while also acknowledging disputes about institutional responsibility and what other Mar‑a‑Lago officials knew.
6. What the sources collectively do — and do not — establish
Taken together, the sourced reporting establishes a consistent allegation from multiple former Mar‑a‑Lago employees that Maxwell used the club’s spa as a recruiting ground, offering unauthorized side work to young attendants and routing appointments through Epstein’s account, and that staffers observed or warned about Epstein’s inappropriate conduct during those visits [1] [2] [5]. The record in the provided reporting does not, however, resolve broader questions about who at the club authorized specific house calls, what managers knew at each stage, or the full scope of any internal responses beyond anecdotal accounts and later bans asserted by club leadership [2] [3] [10].