EPSTEIN'S $25 MILLION EMAIL
Kathy Ruemmler, Ariane de Rothschild, and the Edmond de Rothschild DOJ Settlement: A document-by-document analysis of the federal exhibit record
About This Report This report is based on exhibits produced in federal proceedings and identified by EFTA production numbers. Quoted passages reflect statements made by the participants as they appear in the cited exhibits. The analysis is limited to the contents of the documentary record and does not purport to make findings of fact, law, or misconduct. No party named in this report was contacted for comment.
Emails produced in federal proceedings reveal that Jeffrey Epstein was paid $25 million to negotiate a Department of Justice settlement on behalf of Edmond de Rothschild bank, that he recruited former White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler for the engagement, and that the relationship between all three parties continued for years after the deal closed. On February 13, 2026, Goldman Sachs confirmed Ruemmler’s departure as the bank’s General Counsel amid the fallout from these disclosures. But the coverage that forced her out focused on the personal relationship. The $25 million deal at the heart of it has received little or no mainstream reporting.
View and share the X post dedicated to this story.
View the entire Epstein Files series here.
The Deal
On the night of December 10, 2015, Jeffrey Epstein sent an email to Ariane de Rothschild — the chairwoman of Edmond de Rothschild Group, one of Europe’s oldest private banking dynasties. The subject line was blank. The message was not.
“i think you will find that 45.5 penalty legal ( kathy plus pillsbury around 10. me 25 ) all less than 80 pretty good.” (EFTA00669908)
The email did not exist in isolation. Two months earlier, on October 5, 2015, Epstein’s company Southern Trust Company, Inc. had signed a formal Letter of Agreement with Ariane de Rothschild and Edmond de Rothschild Holding, S.A. (EFTA00584904). The contract explicitly stipulated a $25 million fee to STC “for Work specifically relating to outstanding matters between Edmond de Rothschild Holding, S.A. and the United States,” payable within three days of EDRH making payment to the U.S. government. The December 10 email was not Epstein characterizing an arrangement — it was him reporting the execution of one already contractually fixed.
In a single line, Epstein described what he characterized as the financial breakdown of a DOJ settlement. The Edmond de Rothschild bank had been under investigation for helping wealthy American clients evade taxes — part of a sweeping DOJ campaign that had already produced landmark penalties against Credit Suisse ($2.6 billion in 2014) and UBS ($780 million in 2009). Now, the Rothschild settlement was done. The breakdown, per Epstein’s own words:
$45.5 million — penalty paid to the Department of Justice
~$10 million — legal fees to Kathy Ruemmler and the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
$25 million — to Jeffrey Epstein
Total: under $80 million — which Epstein characterized as “pretty good”
The figures above reflect Epstein’s description in EFTA00669908. The exhibit does not independently verify payment execution, allocation mechanics, or regulatory approval.
Rothschild’s reply came hours later, at 1:55 AM Paris time:
“Yes, congratulations and a giant thk u !! I m relieved that it s settled and over. Now we can start moving fwd.”
And then, in a final message: “Yes ... And deep thks for your amazing help.”
The exchange is documented in EFTA00669908, an exhibit produced in federal proceedings from Epstein’s estate. It is one of nearly twenty emails, flight records, and scheduling documents reviewed for this report that together reveal the full scope of Epstein’s role as a paid intermediary between the Rothschild banking family and the United States Department of Justice.
The Recruitment
The story begins in the summer of 2014, when Kathy Ruemmler had just departed the White House. As Counsel to President Obama from 2011 to 2014, she had been the most senior lawyer advising the President of the United States — overseeing judicial nominations, executive orders, and the administration’s legal strategy. She was widely reported to be on the shortlist for Attorney General after Eric Holder announced his resignation in September 2014.
On August 26, 2014, Epstein sent a two-word email to Ariane de Rothschild:
“kathy ruemmler, maybe.” (EFTA02588508)
Two weeks later, on September 11, 2014, Epstein sent a joint email to Rothschild and Ruemmler:
“now you have each others contact.” (EFTA02587869)
The introduction had been made. Then, on October 24, 2014, Epstein sent Rothschild a message that would prove to be among the most significant in the entire document set:
“kathy will decline attny general job today. she will be able to finish your job, estimate 1st quarter 15.” (EFTA02592865)
In an October 24, 2014 email, Epstein wrote that Ruemmler would “decline attny general job today” and “finish your job.” The exhibit reflects his statement; it does not independently establish the reasons for any nomination decision. (EFTA00669908)
The speed of the recruitment is noteworthy. Ruemmler left the White House in mid-2014. By August, Epstein was floating her name. By September, she had been introduced. By October, Epstein was telling Rothschild that Ruemmler would decline the AG nomination. By December 2014, Rothschild was asking Epstein to relay scheduling questions about board meetings to Ruemmler — and Epstein was making the decisions.
The professional relationship was not merely informal coordination. On July 31, 2015, Kathryn Ruemmler, then a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP, sent Epstein a formal retention letter confirming his engagement as a consultant on behalf of EDRH. (EFTA00582812) The letter, signed by Epstein and countersigned by EDRH as “reviewed and agreed,” was written on Latham & Watkins letterhead and addressed directly to Epstein at Southern Trust Company in St. Thomas. Ruemmler closed it: “Thank you very much for agreeing to act as a consultant in this matter.” Epstein was not a contact she had inherited. He was someone she formally retained.
“Hi Jeff,” Rothschild wrote on December 5, 2014, “I was told that Yves and Kathy had agreed to have the board beg of Jan. I have asked to have it the 17th dec and it seems too few people will be there. Either we do it the 13th jan in the morning before my holding strategic board (B will not be there as he leaves the 10th hunting) or I insist on the 17th Dec. Could you pls tell me what Kathy prefers?” (EFTA01002935)
Epstein’s reply: “lets do the 13th, jan. i’ll explain later when you feel better.” (EFTA01002935)
The emails show Rothschild communicating scheduling matters through Epstein.
The Negotiation
Through 2015, the emails show Epstein functioning as the central node in the DOJ negotiation — not as a passive introducer who had collected his fee and stepped away, but as an active strategist directing the process.
In May 2015, Epstein reported to Rothschild on internal bank dynamics: “yves seemed surprised by the number though he had it under his control for months. he could have discovered whenever he wanted.” The message suggests Epstein was monitoring how senior Rothschild bank executives were reacting to the DOJ’s findings — and building a case that at least one of them, “Yves,” had been negligent or willfully ignorant. (EFTA00686026)
Days later, on June 4, 2015, Rothschild wrote to Epstein with intelligence about a competing settlement: “I heard that the cousins paid 11.5mio to the Doj. Did u hear the same?” “The cousins” is an apparent reference to another branch of the Rothschild family that had reached its own DOJ settlement. Rothschild was benchmarking — and using Epstein as her primary intelligence channel on DOJ matters, not just for her own case but across the family’s various legal exposures. (EFTA00686026)
The June 2015 emails are particularly revealing about Epstein’s hands-on role. On June 11, 2015, Rothschild described Yves as physically battered — “really looks bad ... as if coming from an intense bar fight. Thank god he doesn’t have to go to see Doj.” Epstein immediately proposed a narrative: “we can say it happened as a result of him showing you the statement of facts?” He was suggesting they attribute Yves’s condition to the emotional shock of seeing the DOJ’s formal findings — suggesting an explanation that could be provided. (EFTA00708380)
Later that same day, Rothschild asked Epstein: “Did Kathy give u our slight chgs — esp numbers?” (EFTA00708380) She was confirming that Ruemmler had passed along substantive edits, particularly to numerical figures in a DOJ-related document, through Epstein. The workflow was clear: Rothschild communicated changes to Ruemmler; Ruemmler relayed them to Epstein; Epstein coordinated and approved. The exhibits reflect Epstein participating in discussions involving numerical edits to DOJ-related materials. The record does not clarify the formal capacity in which he was acting.
Flying Together to Geneva
On July 2, 2015, Epstein emailed a passenger list for a charter flight to Geneva — the city where Edmond de Rothschild Group is headquartered:
“passenger me, ariane rothschild. kathy ruemmler. princess [redacted].” (EFTA00644548)
The flight was arranged through Alireza Ittihadieh, who coordinated with Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Limited for a Hawker 800XP charter at a cost of €11,000. The purpose of the Geneva trip was to view an aircraft at Jet Aviation maintenance, with a duty crew and Captain William Christophe standing by. Departure at 2:30 PM, return at 7:30 PM. (EFTA00644548)
A separate email from the same period, sent by Epstein’s pilot Larry Visoski, confirms the same passenger manifest for a Sunday flight to Geneva. Epstein replied: “me and kathy and [redacted].” (EFTA02498117)
The Aftermath
The settlement did not end the relationship. Within hours of confirming the deal on December 11, 2015, Epstein was already pivoting to a seven-point post-settlement action plan:
“good luck today . . 1 lets get this closed 2. have kathy meet with david and his people 3. review rockefeller. . 4 hire asset woman, 5. do we use doj and its harsh language to remove benjamin . . 6. begin family plan. susswein, . 7. look for partners , ?” (EFTA00669908)
Point five stands out. Epstein was proposing to use the DOJ settlement language — its “harsh language” about the bank’s conduct — to remove someone named “Benjamin” from a position within the Rothschild organization. The record excerpt does not establish the identity of that individual. Ariane de Rothschild's husband, Benjamin de Rothschild, held the controlling interest in the Edmond de Rothschild Group until his death in 2021. Whether he is the "benjamin" referenced in the email is not confirmed by the exhibit. If so, the implication is that Epstein was advising the wife on how to use an American government enforcement action as leverage against her husband in an internal corporate power struggle.
The emails from 2016 and beyond show the three-way relationship continuing with no apparent disruption. In March 2016, Epstein reported to Rothschild that Ruemmler was returning to the U.S. and that the “only high priority is to modify communication strategy.” (EFTA02467215) In June 2016, all three met for a casual dinner (“dress casual its raining hard. see you at 730?”). (EFTA02459851) In October 2016, Epstein and Ruemmler planned a trip to Paris and invited Rothschild to join. (EFTA02447153) In December 2016, Epstein alerted Rothschild that Ruemmler would be in Zurich. (EFTA02667727)
The relationship continued into 2018. Epstein’s detailed daily calendar for March 2018, prepared by his assistant Lesley Groff, shows two entries involving Ruemmler. On March 4, 2018: “3:00pm Appt w/Kathy Ruemmler and Arian de Rothschild.” (EFTA00285556) On March 24, 2018: “2:00pm LUNCH w/Kathy Ruemmler, Miro and Steve Bannon.” EFTA00285556)
The March 4 appointment is corroborated by a separate email chain in which Groff wrote: “Ariane wants Kathy to join her and her girls for brunch today…therefore Kathy and Ariane will now both come see you around 3pm now.” (EFTA02239107) The subject line of that email was simply: “Kathy and Ariane.”
The relationship extended beyond Ariane de Rothschild. A December 2018 email chain (EFTA02270219) shows Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff coordinating directly with the personal assistant to Baron and Baroness Benjamin de Rothschild at Edmond de Rothschild Holding, arranging a hotel stay in Megève for Epstein’s companion Karyna Shuliak. Epstein’s original message, forwarded by Groff, reads: “i would like karyna to see your hotel in majeve... I pay of course. just so that she is well looked after.” The exchange took place in December 2018 — seven months before Epstein’s arrest. The sender’s institutional signature identifies her as assistant to both the Baron and Baroness at EDRH, placing Epstein in operational contact with Benjamin de Rothschild’s household staff at the holding company level. The article’s earlier speculation about whether “Benjamin” in Epstein’s post-settlement email referred to Benjamin de Rothschild cannot be resolved by this exhibit. But it establishes that the relationship was not limited to Ariane, and that it remained active until very nearly the end.
The March 24 lunch is notable for its participants: Ruemmler, the former Obama White House Counsel, dining at Epstein’s Manhattan residence alongside Steve Bannon, the former Trump chief strategist. That same calendar page shows Epstein’s schedule for the surrounding days included breakfast with Leon Black (the Apollo Global Management founder who, according to public reporting, later acknowledged paying Epstein $158 million in fees), a phone call with Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, dinner with Woody Allen, and meetings with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister. This was the world Epstein operated in — and Ruemmler was in it. (EFTA00285556)
The Questions That Remain
These documents raise several questions that have not been publicly addressed.
What did the DOJ know? The Department of Justice was negotiating a tax-evasion settlement with Edmond de Rothschild bank. Did DOJ officials know that the communications depict Epstein as actively involved in coordination among participants? Did they know that the former White House Counsel had been recruited into the engagement by Epstein? Would that knowledge have affected the outcome or the terms? The exhibits reviewed do not address this point.
Did Ruemmler comply with ethics rules? Former White House Counsel are subject to post-government ethics restrictions on communicating with their former agencies. Ruemmler left the White House in mid-2014. She was introduced to Rothschild by Epstein in September 2014 — weeks later. The timeline of when she began engaging with DOJ officials on behalf of Rothschild, and whether any applicable cooling-off period had expired, has not been publicly examined.
More concretely, EFTA00582812 shows that Ruemmler did not merely work alongside Epstein — she formally retained him as a consultant on Latham & Watkins letterhead on behalf of EDRH, with EDRH countersigning the agreement. The ethics question is therefore not limited to her communications with DOJ. It extends to whether a former White House Counsel, at a major law firm, should have been formalizing a consulting engagement with a convicted sex offender on behalf of a regulated banking client.
Was Epstein’s role lawful? Epstein was not a licensed attorney. Yet these emails show him directing board decisions, editing DOJ submission documents, crafting narratives about key witnesses, gathering competitive intelligence on parallel settlements, and formulating post-settlement strategy including the use of government findings for internal corporate advantage. Whether this crossed the line from “consulting” into the unauthorized practice of law is a question that the relevant bar authorities have not publicly addressed.
Was the $25 million fee properly authorized? Epstein’s fee — larger than the combined legal fees paid to Ruemmler and the Pillsbury Winthrop law firm — was disclosed to Ariane de Rothschild in the emails. Whether it was disclosed to and approved by the Edmond de Rothschild bank’s board, its shareholders, or its regulators is unknown. A $25 million payment to a convicted sex offender from a regulated financial institution would ordinarily attract significant compliance scrutiny.
The Letter of Agreement (EFTA00584904) establishes that the fee was not informal — it was a drafted, signed contract with indemnification clauses, liability disclaimers, and governing law provisions specifying U.S. Virgin Islands jurisdiction. The sophistication of that drafting raises a further question: who prepared it?
What did Goldman Sachs know? Kathy Ruemmler served as General Counsel of Goldman Sachs from 2020 until February 13, 2026, when the bank confirmed her departure amid the fallout from the Epstein document releases. Reporting by Mix Vale and other outlets noted that the disclosed emails revealed personal intimacy with Epstein — including pet names such as “uncle Jeffrey” and “older brother,” invitations for trips and gifts, and advice Ruemmler provided to Epstein on managing his public image. (EFTA01020438) CEO David Solomon initially defended her but ultimately relented under pressure from partners and shareholders. Her exit is scheduled for June 30, 2026. Yet the coverage that ended her Goldman career focused almost entirely on the personal relationship. The underlying transaction documented here — a $25 million fee for brokering a DOJ settlement, the recruitment of the former White House Counsel at his direction, and the claim that she declined the Attorney General nomination to complete the work — has not been the subject of mainstream reporting. Goldman’s due diligence when hiring Ruemmler in 2020, and whether the bank was aware of her role in the Rothschild-Epstein engagement, remain open questions.
What the Documents Show
Taken together, the documents reviewed for this report — spanning August 2014 to March 2018, comprising emails between the participants, flight records, passenger manifests, and Epstein’s personal calendar — reveal a relationship that was deeper, longer, and more operationally significant than a simple introduction or consulting arrangement.
Epstein did not merely connect Ruemmler with Rothschild and collect a referral fee. He was the central coordinator throughout the engagement: vetting and recruiting the lawyer, managing the client relationship, directing the strategy, editing documents, gathering intelligence, crafting narratives, making scheduling decisions, and planning post-settlement corporate maneuvers. The $25 million figure referenced in EFTA00669908 exceeds the approximately $10 million figure attributed to legal fees in the same email.
The documentary record raises several factual questions. It is about how a convicted sex offender, with no law license, no lobbying registration, and a criminal record, could position himself at the intersection of a European banking dynasty and the American justice system — and possibly collect $25 million for doing so. It is about a system in which the former top lawyer to the President of the United States could be recruited by that same sex offender, reportedly decline the Attorney General nomination to complete his assignment, and continue socializing with him for years afterward. And it raises questions about whether the Department of Justice knew — or inquired — who was coordinating the other side of the negotiation.
As Epstein wrote to Rothschild on the night the deal was struck: “all less than 80 pretty good.”
View and share the X post dedicated to this story.
View the entire Epstein Files series here.
On February 13, 2026, Goldman Sachs confirmed Ruemmler’s departure as General Counsel, effective June 30, 2026. The bank stated that Epstein was never a direct client of the institution or of Ruemmler during her tenure. Media reports, including coverage by Mix Vale (February 17, 2026), attributed the departure to the disclosure of private messages revealing personal intimacy with Epstein. The present report is based on EFTA exhibits produced in federal proceedings and focuses on the underlying financial transaction — the $25 million Rothschild-DOJ settlement brokerage — which has not been the subject of prior mainstream reporting.
What’s compelling here is not the tone; it’s the document-first method and the very specific claim: a written record that (a) Epstein had a formal agreement for a $25M fee tied to a DOJ settlement outcome, and (b) he communicated that breakdown directly to Ariane de Rothschild, with identifiers (EFTA file numbers) that allow readers to audit the trail. 
From a physician-scientist lens, a few thoughts that might add value (and keep this epistemically clean):
1. This is “chain-of-custody” journalism: exhibit numbers, verbatim quotes, and a constrained scope (“documentary record,” not adjudication). That’s the right posture when allegations are serious and narratives get weaponized. 
2. The most important unanswered question isn’t whether the email is shocking, but it’s whether the payment and authorization mechanics are independently confirmed: board/regulator awareness, compliance sign-offs, and how/when money moved. The post itself notes those limits, which is a strength, not a weakness. 
3. If mainstream coverage has focused on the “relationship” angle, your point is fair: the alleged financial/settlement intermediary role is the part that should trigger the most serious, boring follow-up questions (internal controls, conflicts, revolving doors). 
The multi levels of corruption just keeps getting deeper and deeper. I guess I’m not surprised that MSM, who rely on pharma and associates money, are not digging into this. It’s all so depressing as regular folks, humanity matters not. We are just things to manipulate to keep their scams free and clear whilst they get wealthier and wealthier at our expense. Thank you for all of your hard work and determination.