Congress Presses Barclays Over Jes Staley’s Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein
Snapshot
Release date: July 23, 2026
Letter date: July 22, 2026
Subject: Barclays’ handling of former chief executive Jes Staley’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
Lawmakers: Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Ro Khanna, and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi
Recipient: Nigel Higgins, Group Chairman of Barclays
Response deadline: August 5, 2026
Primary issue: Whether Barclays adequately investigated Staley before and during his tenure and accurately informed regulators about his Epstein relationship
Document status: Congressional oversight request, not a criminal charge or judicial finding
Read the congressional press release
Read the complete seven page congressional letter
Overview
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representatives Ro Khanna and Raja Krishnamoorthi are demanding answers from Barclays about former chief executive Jes Staley and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The lawmakers sent a seven page letter to Barclays Group Chairman Nigel Higgins on July 22, 2026. Representative Krishnamoorthi publicly announced the inquiry the following day.
The letter questions how Barclays could have investigated Staley without discovering the extensive professional and personal relationship documented by regulators, court records, journalists, and the released Epstein files.
Congress is also investigating whether Barclays performed adequate due diligence before hiring Staley, whether the bank accurately informed British regulators, and why Staley continued receiving substantial compensation after leaving the company.
What Barclays Told British Regulators
In October 2019, Barclays sent a letter to the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority concerning Staley’s relationship with Epstein.
According to the congressional letter and the Financial Conduct Authority decision, Barclays told the regulator that Staley had confirmed he did not have a close relationship with Epstein.
The bank also said Staley was resolute that he had never seen anything suggesting Epstein’s criminal conduct. Barclays represented that Staley’s last contact with Epstein occurred well before Staley joined the bank in 2015.
Staley approved the letter.
The Financial Conduct Authority later concluded that the letter contained two misleading statements. One concerned the nature of the relationship. The second concerned the timing of Staley’s last contact with Epstein.
Read the Financial Conduct Authority decision notice
The Regulatory Findings Against Staley
The Financial Conduct Authority concluded that Staley recklessly approved misleading statements and acted without integrity.
The regulator initially proposed a penalty of £1,812,800 and an order prohibiting Staley from performing senior management or significant influence functions in the British financial sector.
Staley challenged the decision.
The Upper Tribunal upheld the prohibition in 2025. The financial penalty was reduced to £1.1 million.
Read the Financial Conduct Authority announcement concerning the upheld ban
These were regulatory findings about Staley’s statements and conduct. They were not criminal convictions relating to Epstein’s trafficking operation.
A Relationship Lasting Nearly Two Decades
The congressional letter describes Staley and Epstein as maintaining a close professional and personal relationship for nearly two decades.
Staley met Epstein while working at JPMorgan, where Epstein was a private banking client.
The lawmakers cite reporting that Staley repeatedly defended Epstein as bank employees raised concerns about suspicious activity. By 2011, Staley reportedly had a reputation for interfering on Epstein’s behalf inside JPMorgan.
Their relationship continued after Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction.
Staley later said he visited Epstein while Epstein was incarcerated because he considered himself loyal and wanted to show support.
Between 2008 and 2012, Staley and Epstein reportedly exchanged more than 1,200 messages.
Staley also traveled to Little Saint James, flew aboard an Epstein aircraft, visited Epstein’s New Mexico ranch, and admitted having sexual intercourse with one of Epstein’s adult assistants. The assistant later alleged that Epstein abused her and forced her and other women into commercial sexual encounters with selected friends.
Staley has denied knowing about Epstein’s trafficking conduct and has not been criminally charged in connection with Epstein’s operation.
Direct Evidence in the Epstein Files
Epstein Data preserves direct correspondence and scheduling records concerning Staley.
A July 2010 exchange includes Staley writing, “Say hi to Snow White.” Epstein responded by asking which character Staley wanted next. Staley answered, “Beauty and the Beast.”
An Epstein household record states that Staley would visit Epstein and asks whether the house had the white wine Staley preferred.
A January 2014 schedule lists Staley among the expected guests at an Epstein dinner.
An October 2013 schedule includes an appointment with Staley.
These records document continuing access and contact after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. They do not independently establish that Staley participated in or knew about Epstein’s trafficking operation.
Project Jes and the Barclays Position
The lawmakers are investigating whether Epstein attempted to help Staley become Barclays chief executive.
Records and court reporting describe an effort known as “Project Jes.”
In 2012, Epstein communicated with public relations executive Ian Osborne about promoting Staley’s candidacy for the Barclays position.
The congressional letter says Epstein and Osborne discussed potential influence involving George Osborne, Mervyn King, and former Barclays Deputy Chairman Mike Rake.
Barclays selected a different candidate in 2012. Staley eventually became chief executive in December 2015.
View the Project Jes evidence in EFTA01766728
Congress now wants to know whether any Barclays board member communicated with Epstein, Ian Osborne, George Osborne, Mervyn King, or anyone else about Staley’s candidacy.
Questions About Barclays’ Due Diligence
Reports connecting Staley with Epstein existed before Barclays hired Staley in 2015.
The lawmakers are asking what due diligence the Barclays board conducted before selecting him.
Congress requested the names of anyone who recommended Staley for the position. It also requested all written communications sent to Barclays board members about Staley’s potential appointment between January 2012 and December 2015.
The letter asks whether Staley disclosed his Epstein relationship before taking the job. If he did, Barclays must explain who received the disclosure, when it happened, and how Staley described the relationship.
The lawmakers also want to know whether board members questioned Staley about Epstein before approving his appointment.
Questions About Barclays’ Internal Investigation
Congress is asking whether Barclays conducted any internal review of the hiring process that placed Staley at the head of the bank.
If a review occurred, the lawmakers want the findings and any resulting policy changes.
If no review occurred, Barclays must explain why.
The lawmakers also requested the names and titles of everyone who wrote, reviewed, or approved the October 2019 disclosure to the Financial Conduct Authority.
This request could establish whether the misleading disclosure resulted solely from Staley’s statements or whether broader failures occurred within Barclays’ leadership and compliance systems.
Nigel Higgins and the Missing Board Discussion
The letter directly questions Higgins about his conclusion that Staley’s Epstein relationship did not require a board discussion in 2019.
The Financial Conduct Authority asked whether Barclays had satisfied itself about the nature of the relationship.
After speaking with Staley, Higgins reportedly said he did not think the matter required discussion by the full board.
Higgins later acknowledged that he had not asked Staley when his last contact with Epstein occurred.
Congress is now asking how Higgins reached his conclusion and whether any directors raised concerns between 2019 and 2021.
Possible Federal Investigation
The congressional letter also cites released records suggesting federal prosecutors reviewed allegations involving Staley in 2019.
An FBI record documents that an attorney contacted law enforcement about two women who had accused Staley of violent rape.
Other Epstein Data material includes a federal investigative reference to allegations involving Staley.
These files establish that allegations were communicated to federal authorities. They do not prove that the allegations were substantiated or that prosecutors decided to charge Staley.
Congress is asking whether Staley or the Department of Justice ever informed Barclays that Staley was under federal investigation.
Staley’s Resignation and Compensation
Staley left Barclays in November 2021 after the bank received preliminary conclusions from British regulators.
Barclays did not terminate him for misconduct. It allowed him to resign.
According to the congressional letter, Staley continued receiving compensation and contractual benefits for another twelve months.
The lawmakers cite approximately £2.4 million in fixed salary, a £120,000 pension allowance, and £107,000 in repatriation expenses.
Congress wants all communications and records concerning Staley’s resignation and compensation.
The letter also asks whether the board considered any discipline beyond accepting his resignation.
Barclays’ American Banking Operations
Barclays maintains an extensive regulated presence in the United States.
The congressional letter says Barclays US LLC holds approximately $200 billion in assets.
The lawmakers argue that American bank charters and licenses depend on the character and fitness of management and the ability of the institution to operate safely and responsibly.
Congress therefore treats Barclays’ handling of Staley as a matter of American regulatory interest, not merely an internal British corporate dispute.
The Eight Principal Congressional Requests
Congress asked Barclays to explain its due diligence before hiring Staley.
It requested any internal review of the executive hiring process.
It asked who prepared and approved the October 2019 disclosure to British regulators.
It requested an explanation for Higgins’ decision that the matter did not require a board discussion.
It asked whether Staley or the Department of Justice notified Barclays about a federal investigation.
It requested records concerning Staley’s resignation and compensation.
It asked whether Barclays considered disciplinary action beyond resignation.
It asked whether the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or Office of the Comptroller of the Currency contacted Barclays after additional Epstein records became public.
Barclays was asked to respond by August 5, 2026.
What the Congressional Letter Establishes
The letter establishes that Congress has opened a formal inquiry into Barclays’ handling of Staley.
It establishes that lawmakers requested specific board, hiring, compliance, compensation, and regulatory records.
It establishes that Staley approved a disclosure later found misleading by the Financial Conduct Authority.
It establishes that Barclays allowed Staley to resign and continue receiving compensation and benefits.
It establishes that Barclays must answer questions about its American banking operations and corporate governance.
What the Letter Does Not Establish
The letter does not establish that Barclays committed a crime.
It does not establish that every allegation against Staley is true.
It does not establish that Staley participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation.
It does not prove that Barclays directors knew the full extent of the relationship before hiring Staley.
It does not reveal how Barclays will answer the questions or whether regulators will take additional action.
Key Takeaways
Congress is examining the institution, not only Staley: The inquiry focuses on Barclays’ hiring, investigation, compliance, compensation, and disciplinary systems.
Barclays repeated claims that regulators later rejected: The Financial Conduct Authority found that Staley approved misleading statements about the relationship and their last contact.
The relationship was extensive: Correspondence, travel, meetings, and more than 1,200 reported messages contradict the description of a distant association.
Project Jes is now part of the inquiry: Lawmakers want records showing whether Epstein or his associates promoted Staley’s Barclays appointment.
The compensation arrangement requires explanation: Staley continued receiving millions in compensation and benefits after resigning.
Federal records document serious allegations: Those records prove allegations reached investigators but do not prove the allegations themselves.
The August 5 deadline matters: Barclays’ response could reveal what its directors knew and how seriously they investigated their chief executive.
Related EpsteinWiki Research
- Search EpsteinWiki for Jes Staley
- Search EpsteinWiki for Barclays
- Search EpsteinWiki for JPMorgan
- Search EpsteinWiki for Project Jes
- Search EpsteinWiki for Ian Osborne
- Search EpsteinWiki for Little Saint James
Sources
- Representative Krishnamoorthi’s congressional press release
- Complete congressional letter to Barclays
- Financial Conduct Authority decision notice
- Financial Conduct Authority announcement concerning the upheld ban
- Barclays announcement concerning Staley’s departure
- Reuters reporting on Barclays’ 2019 board review
- Epstein Data file EFTA00090717
- Epstein Data file EFTA00029358
- Epstein Data file EFTA01300650
- Epstein Data file EFTA01815523
- Epstein Data file EFTA01300651
- Epstein Data file EFTA01766728
- Epstein Data file EFTA02075848