Which individuals named in the Epstein files have been formally investigated or charged since the January 2026 release?
Executive summary
The January 2026 DOJ release of roughly 3–3.5 million Epstein-related pages has triggered a wave of reputational damage, resignations and new probes, but the public record in these sources shows only a small number of confirmed formal investigations launched after the release — most notably a criminal probe by London’s Metropolitan Police into Lord Peter Mandelson — while other named figures have faced scrutiny, resignations or professional consequences rather than new criminal charges as of the reporting here [1] [2] [3].
1. Lord Peter Mandelson: the clearest, newly opened criminal inquiry
British press and the documents themselves prompted Metropolitan Police to open a criminal investigation into Lord Peter Mandelson after banking records and emails in the DOJ release suggested he passed market-sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein and showed payments connected to him and his partner, Reinaldo Avila da Silva; Mandelson announced he would resign from the House of Lords the day the Met confirmed the probe [1] [2] [3].
2. Resignations and reputational fallout that stopped short of charges
The files precipitated a string of resignations and removals from public roles that are documented in the reporting: Miroslav Lajčák resigned as a Slovak national security adviser and former U.N. General Assembly president after pressure tied to the files [2], and Joanna Rubinstein stepped down from a UNHCR partner role amid the fallout [2]; these actions are described as political and institutional consequences rather than criminal charges in the sources available [2].
3. Professional consequences: stepped-down executives and shaken institutions
Beyond government posts, some prominent professionals faced career consequences after their names appeared: Brad Karp, chairman of law firm Paul Weiss, stepped down from his role when the released materials showed numerous email exchanges with Epstein, including apparent discussions about Epstein’s plea deal — a development reported as a professional exit, not as a criminal charge or public criminal investigation [1].
4. DOJ’s posture and congressional access: limits on new prosecutions disclosed in official statements
The Department of Justice provided the documents pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act and publicly characterized the release as the final tranche of previously withheld materials; reporting indicates Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche or his office stated there would be no additional prosecutions related to Epstein in the immediate term, a claim that sits alongside the emergence of new local probes and political inquiries [4] [2] [5]. Separately, Congress was given access to unredacted files under the law, creating another formal venue for oversight but not by itself a criminal charge [6].
5. Allegations, public scrutiny and names that generated headlines but no confirmed post‑release criminal charges
The reporting documents many high-profile mentions — from emails involving tech executives to members of royalty and U.S. political figures — but these accounts largely represent contacts, unproven allegations, or contextual material in the files rather than evidence that has yet produced new indictments in the sources cited; outlets cautioned that some summaries in the files themselves suggested investigators had not found corroboration for certain sensational theories, and that some FBI slides characterized earlier public assumptions as misconceptions [7] [8].
6. Where the record is clear and where it is not: an evidence-first view
From the materials and contemporaneous coverage provided, the only clearly documented post-release formal criminal inquiry named in multiple sources is the Metropolitan Police investigation into Lord Mandelson, while other outcomes reported so far are resignations, professional departures, internal reviews and political requests for testimony — all significant but distinct from criminal charging [1] [2] [3]. The sources also show that the DOJ and federal investigators had earlier compiled summaries and timelines and that some senior officials publicly framed the release as comprehensive, but they do not, in these excerpts, document additional new indictments emerging directly from the January 2026 release [5] [8].
Conclusion: measured tally to date
Based on the available reporting cited here, the post‑January 2026 public record confirms at least one newly opened criminal investigation tied to a named individual — Lord Peter Mandelson — while other named figures have experienced resignations, professional consequences or enhanced scrutiny but have not, in these sources, been publicly charged or formally criminally accused since the files’ release [1] [2] [3]. If further indictments or formal investigations are opened, primary-source DOJ statements and formal police announcements will be the definitive record; the current reportage emphasizes reputational and institutional fallout more than a cascade of new prosecutions [5] [2].