Drew Hendricks
Drew Hendricks: The Paid Forbes Byline in Jeffrey Epstein’s Reputation Campaign
The $600 placement, the prewritten copy, and the campaign that turned a Forbes article into a search asset
Summary
Drew Hendricks was a Forbes contributor who placed his byline on a favorable 2013 article about Jeffrey Epstein. Reporting by The New York Times established that a public relations firm supplied the article and paid Hendricks $600 to attach his name and publish it at Forbes.com. Hendricks said he had not known about Epstein’s criminal history.
The released Epstein records now show the machinery surrounding that placement in far greater detail. Epstein’s reputation team discussed obtaining a Forbes article to improve search results, prepared “Forbes content,” sent a draft through the campaign, notified Epstein when the article went live, celebrated its appearance on Google’s first page, and planned additional posts, Wikipedia placement, institutional links, press releases, and website links that pointed back to Forbes.
The evidence establishes a paid and undisclosed byline placement that became part of Epstein’s organized reputation campaign. It does not establish that Hendricks participated in Epstein’s sexual crimes, knew the full purpose of the campaign, communicated directly with Epstein, or remained involved after the article was posted.
Profile
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Name | Drew Hendricks |
| Role in 2013 | Forbes contributor and digital marketing writer |
| Contemporary business role | A 2014 industry profile identified him as president of AudienceBloom and a freelance social media strategist |
| Documented Epstein connection | Attached his byline to public relations copy and posted it at Forbes.com |
| Reported payment | $600, according to The New York Times and subsequent reporting |
| Article date | October 2, 2013 |
| Article title | “Science Funder Jeffrey Epstein Launches Radical Emotional Software For The Gaming Industry” |
| Hendricks’s stated knowledge | He said he did not know about Epstein’s history |
| Forbes response | Forbes later removed most of the article for failing its editorial standards |
| EpsteinWiki involvement level | Level 2 of 5: Documented, limited service to the reputation campaign |
Involvement level is an evidence classification, not a criminality rating. Level 2 means the records document a paid service or benefit to Epstein’s operation but do not establish continuing operational control or participation in Epstein’s crimes.
Why Drew Hendricks Matters
Hendricks matters because the value of the placement did not come only from the words in the article. It came from the Forbes name, the Forbes domain, and Hendricks’s access to the contributor platform.
To an ordinary reader or a search engine, the article looked like independent editorial coverage. It carried a named contributor’s byline and appeared on a prominent business publication. According to later reporting, however, the text came from a public relations firm and Hendricks received money to publish it under his name.
The EFTA records show why that distinction mattered to Epstein’s team. They treated the Forbes page as an authoritative link that could be amplified across other sites and used to improve the material appearing when someone searched for Epstein.
Professional Background and Identity Caution
Hendricks wrote about technology, business, social media, and digital marketing. A 2014 Search Engine Watch profile identified him as president of AudienceBloom, a freelance social media strategist, and a contributor to Forbes, HuffPost, and Technorati.
The name Drew Hendricks is shared by other professionals. EpsteinWiki has not established that every current profile using that name belongs to the former Forbes contributor involved in this article. Later biographies, companies, and social accounts should not be attached to this person without independent identity evidence.
The Planned Forbes Placement
The campaign was discussing a Forbes placement before the article appeared.
On September 23, 2013, Tyler Shears wrote to Epstein that the team had an opportunity to publish an article about him at Forbes. The writer needed a business oriented topic, and the team asked for a business or startup in which Epstein or his foundation had played a role.
In the same thread, Epstein complained that his search results looked bad and that his mug shot appeared on Wikipedia. Shears replied that the HuffPost and Forbes articles would address two unwanted listings and that new content was needed on campaign controlled domains. See EFTA00663248.
Another exchange said that the team expected the HuffPost and Forbes posts to improve the search picture. It also said that “Forbes content” would be prepared and could be reworked before it was sent onward. See EFTA00663251 and the duplicate production at EFTA01954960.
These records place the Forbes article inside the search campaign before publication. They do not identify Hendricks by name in the planning discussion or establish that he saw these internal messages.
The Draft Supplied Through Epstein’s Campaign
On September 25, 2013, an email with the subject “Forbes content” sent an attached document to Tyler Shears. The message said the attachment contained the content for Forbes and referred to additional technical material about the artificial intelligence project. See EFTA01952955.
The attached working draft appears in EFTA01952956. It presents Epstein as an unusual hedge funder with a serious scientific interest, describes him as a leading supporter of science, and contains promotional claims about his giving.
The draft also includes unfinished notes directing the writer to add technical material and mention specific researchers. Those notes demonstrate that the document was not an independently completed article delivered by a journalist. It was working publicity copy that remained under development.
The final Forbes article used the same central framing, subject, examples, quotations, and promotional claims. Copies of the published text are preserved in EFTA01954174 and EFTA01955725.
The EFTA sequence therefore independently supports the later reporting that Hendricks did not originate the article. The available documents do not identify the author of every sentence or reveal the complete path by which the final copy reached Hendricks.
The Forbes Article
On October 2, 2013, Forbes published “Science Funder Jeffrey Epstein Launches Radical Emotional Software For The Gaming Industry” under Hendricks’s byline.
The article promoted Epstein as a financial and scientific figure connected to artificial intelligence research. It described him as a major supporter of advanced science and linked him to OpenCog, Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel, Harvard, and other scientists and institutions.
It did not disclose:
- Epstein’s 2008 conviction
- Epstein’s sex offender status
- The public relations origin of the article
- The payment to Hendricks
- The article’s role in Epstein’s search campaign
The article also repeated inflated claims about Epstein’s philanthropy. It said Epstein had created Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics with a $30 million gift.
Harvard’s later official review found that Epstein’s 2003 gift to establish the program was $6.5 million, not $30 million. See Harvard’s Report Regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to Harvard.
The $600 Byline Payment
In 2019, The New York Times reported that a public relations firm supplied the article and paid Hendricks $600 to attach his byline and post it at Forbes.com.
Hendricks told the newspaper that he had not known about Epstein’s history:
“All I knew was, this is a guy doing a science thing. If I had known otherwise, I wouldn’t have done it.”
See “Jeffrey Epstein Pitched a New Narrative. These Sites Published It”.
The account was also summarized by Nieman Journalism Lab and TheWrap.
No payment record reviewed by EpsteinWiki identifies Epstein as the person who directly transferred the $600. The responsible wording is that a public relations firm paid Hendricks for the placement. The precise payment chain and the firm’s identity remain unresolved in the records reviewed for this article.
Hendricks’s statement addresses his knowledge of Epstein’s history. It does not resolve the separate editorial issue created by accepting money to publish supplied copy under a personal byline without disclosure.
“Forbes Live”
The article immediately entered Epstein’s internal reputation workflow.
On October 2, 2013, Tyler Shears emailed Epstein with the subject “Forbes live” and sent the article’s URL. See EFTA01953260.
The same exchange is preserved in EFTA01754551.
Another copy of the thread records the reaction that the article was already on Google’s first page and expresses hope that it would remain there. See EFTA01954059.
That response is important. It shows that the campaign evaluated the article as a search result, not simply as science coverage.
Turning One Forbes Article Into a Network of Signals
On October 3, 2013, Shears described plans to reinforce the Forbes listing with additional posts that would point back to it. He also proposed seeking links from institutions connected to Epstein’s donations.
Another participant said the article would be added to Wikipedia and Epstein controlled websites. OpenCog, Harvard, and other organizations would be asked to link to it. See EFTA01956081.
On October 8, Shears wrote that he would send signals to encourage Google to find the new links quickly. He said he was pursuing coverage on several smaller business and technology sites while continuing work on HuffPost.
The attached thread asked researchers whose work appeared in the article to post the Forbes link in their websites’ press sections. See EFTA00675646.
On October 10, a campaign email said the Forbes article had been embedded in a press release. Shears asked for the list of sites where the link had been posted so that those pages could be submitted for rapid discovery and a “swap out” in the Forbes search result. See EFTA01953438.
This was a coordinated amplification process:
- Obtain a favorable article on a high authority publication.
- Use the article as a link target.
- Create additional posts and press releases that point back to it.
- Place the link on controlled websites.
- Seek links from outside institutions.
- Pursue placement on Wikipedia.
- Encourage Google to discover the new links.
- Monitor whether the favorable result rises in Google.
The result was not independent corroboration. Multiple pages could appear to confirm the same favorable narrative while tracing back to one supplied article.
Reuse on Epstein Controlled Websites and Press Material
The Forbes article continued to function as campaign infrastructure after publication.
Website editing instructions directed that the first article on an artificial intelligence media page link to the Hendricks article. See EFTA01192374.
A duplicate production of those instructions appears in EFTA02709914.
A January 2014 message forwarded a foundation press release that linked the Forbes article while presenting Epstein as a supporter of artificial intelligence research and prominent scientists. See EFTA02580083.
These records show that the Forbes placement was reused as a credential and citation inside Epstein’s publicity system. They do not show that Hendricks controlled or approved those later uses.
Forbes Removed Most of the Article
Following a 2019 inquiry by The New York Times, Forbes removed most of the article for failing its editorial standards.
Forbes retained the headline, Hendricks’s byline, and the opening paragraphs for context. The page now identifies Hendricks as a former contributor.
TheWrap reported that Forbes, HuffPost, and National Review all removed favorable Epstein articles during the same period.
Forbes chief content officer Randall Lane told The New York Times that the publication had strengthened its screening of outside contributions since 2013.
Nieman Journalism Lab used the episode to examine the risks created by contributor systems that gave outside writers publishing access with limited editorial review.
The institutional failure does not erase Hendricks’s individual responsibility for the paid byline. It does explain how a public relations placement could acquire the appearance and search authority of Forbes journalism.
Timeline
| Date | Event | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| September 23, 2013 | Epstein’s team discusses a Forbes opportunity, asks for a business oriented topic, and connects the planned article to unwanted search results and Wikipedia imagery. | EFTA00663248 |
| September 23 to 24, 2013 | Campaign participants say the Forbes and HuffPost articles should improve search results and discuss preparing Forbes content. | EFTA00663251, EFTA01954960 |
| September 25, 2013 | An email titled “Forbes content” sends a draft to Tyler Shears. | EFTA01952955 |
| September 25, 2013 | The attached working draft presents Epstein as a major science patron and contains instructions for completing the article. | EFTA01952956 |
| October 2, 2013 | Forbes publishes the article under Drew Hendricks’s byline. | Forbes article |
| October 2, 2013 | Tyler Shears sends Epstein the Forbes URL with the subject “Forbes live.” | EFTA01953260 |
| October 2 to 3, 2013 | The team notes that the article is on Google’s first page. | EFTA01954059 |
| October 3, 2013 | The team plans additional posts, backlinks, Wikipedia placement, controlled website placement, and outreach to institutions. | EFTA01956081 |
| October 8, 2013 | Shears discusses Google discovery signals, smaller media placements, and links pointing back to Forbes. | EFTA00675646 |
| October 10, 2013 | The Forbes link is embedded in a press release and the team plans additional indexing work. | EFTA01953438 |
| Late 2013 | Website instructions direct a media page to link to the Hendricks article. | EFTA01192374 |
| January 8, 2014 | A foundation publicity message reuses the Forbes link as support for Epstein’s science narrative. | EFTA02580083 |
| July 2019 | The New York Times reports the $600 payment and supplied authorship. Forbes removes most of the article. | New York Times, Forbes article |
What the Evidence Establishes
- Hendricks’s byline appeared on a favorable Forbes article about Epstein.
- A public relations firm supplied the article and paid Hendricks $600 to post it, according to The New York Times and Hendricks’s account.
- Epstein’s reputation team planned a Forbes placement as part of its effort to alter search results.
- The EFTA archive contains an internal “Forbes content” email and a working draft that closely tracks the published article.
- Tyler Shears sent the live Forbes link directly to Epstein.
- The campaign tracked the article’s Google position.
- Epstein’s team deliberately built links, additional posts, press releases, website placements, and proposed Wikipedia placement around the article.
- Forbes later removed most of the article for failing its editorial standards.
What the Evidence Does Not Establish
- It does not establish that Hendricks knew about Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking crimes when he posted the article.
- It does not establish that Hendricks participated in those crimes.
- It does not establish direct communication between Hendricks and Epstein.
- It does not identify every public relations intermediary involved in delivering the copy or paying Hendricks.
- It does not prove that Hendricks knew how the article would later be used for search manipulation, Wikipedia efforts, institutional links, or press release amplification.
- It does not establish that Hendricks wrote the supplied draft or controlled any later republication.
- It does not establish that every later professional profile bearing the name Drew Hendricks refers to the same person.
Unresolved Questions
- Which public relations firm paid Hendricks?
- Who approved the $600 payment?
- Where is the corresponding invoice or payment record?
- Who first contacted Hendricks and negotiated access to his Forbes contributor account?
- Did Hendricks see the original internal draft preserved in EFTA01952956 or only a later edited version?
- Did anyone disclose to Forbes that the article was supplied promotional content?
- Were other articles posted through the same contributor account under similar arrangements?
- Did Hendricks communicate with Tyler Shears, Christina Galbraith, Reputation Changer, Integrity Defenders, or another contractor involved in Epstein’s campaign?
- Did Forbes preserve contributor account records, messages, IP logs, editorial communications, or payment related complaints connected to the placement?
Editorial Assessment
Drew Hendricks was not shown by the reviewed evidence to be a core member of Epstein’s criminal or financial network. His documented role was narrower but still important. He supplied the byline and publishing access that allowed public relations copy to appear as Forbes editorial content.
The larger significance lies in what happened next. Epstein’s staff used the Forbes page as a high authority search asset. They tried to multiply its influence through links, derivative posts, Wikipedia, institutional websites, controlled domains, and press releases.
A $600 placement acquired value because the Forbes brand made the article look independent.
Hendricks’s claim that he did not know Epstein’s history should be included in any fair account. It does not resolve the underlying transparency failure. Accepting payment to place supplied copy under a personal byline deprived readers and Forbes of the information needed to evaluate the article’s origin and purpose.
Primary Epstein Data Evidence
- EFTA00663248: Prepublication discussion connecting Forbes content to search results and Wikipedia.
- EFTA00663251: Discussion of preparing Forbes content and expecting search improvement.
- EFTA01954960: Duplicate production of the September 2013 campaign exchange.
- EFTA01952955: “Forbes content” email sending working material to Tyler Shears.
- EFTA01952956: Working draft and editorial notes that preceded the published article.
- EFTA01954174: Preserved copy of the published Forbes text.
- EFTA01955725: Additional preserved copy of the article.
- EFTA01953260: Tyler Shears sends Epstein the live Forbes URL.
- EFTA01754551: Expanded “Forbes live” thread.
- EFTA01954059: Campaign participant notes that the article is on Google’s first page.
- EFTA01956081: Plans for additional posts, Wikipedia placement, controlled websites, and institutional links.
- EFTA00675646: Google discovery work, smaller media placements, and requests for links to Forbes.
- EFTA01953438: Forbes link embedded in a press release and indexing strategy.
- EFTA01192374: Website instructions directing a media page to the Forbes article.
- EFTA02709914: Duplicate production of the website instructions.
- EFTA02580083: Later foundation publicity reusing the Forbes article as support.
Independent Sources
- The New York Times: “Jeffrey Epstein Pitched a New Narrative. These Sites Published It”
- Forbes: “Science Funder Jeffrey Epstein Launches Radical Emotional Software For The Gaming Industry”
- Nieman Journalism Lab: “By Running Unwitting PR for Jeffrey Epstein, Forbes Shows the Risks of a News Outlet Thinking Like a Tech Platform”
- TheWrap: “3 Publishers Delete Pro Jeffrey Epstein Stories After NY Times Inquiry”
- Harvard University: Report Regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to Harvard
- Search Engine Watch: “37 SEO Experts You Should Be Following on Twitter”