In a stunning White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a cold, clear shutdown that stunned many watching the Epstein saga unfold: pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell is simply not a priority for President Trump. Just one day after Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during a tense House Oversight Committee deposition—refusing to answer questions unless granted clemency—Leavitt revealed the administration hasn’t even discussed the matter recently with the president. She emphasized Trump’s focus remains squarely on the everyday struggles of Americans, not on clemency for the convicted sex trafficker tied to Jeffrey Epstein. While Trump had previously left the door cracked open, saying he’d “have to take a look” at any request, this blunt dismissal feels like a door slamming shut. Or does a flicker of possibility still linger in the shadows?
In a stunning White House briefing on February 10, 2026, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a blunt and unequivocal message that has reverberated through political circles and the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein saga: pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell is simply not a priority for President Donald Trump.
The statement came just one day after Maxwell, serving a 20-year federal sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a closed-door virtual deposition before the House Oversight Committee. Appearing from a low-security prison camp in Texas, Maxwell repeatedly responded to questions with variations of “I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence,” refusing to address her involvement with Epstein or any knowledge of high-profile figures linked to his crimes.
Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, swiftly issued a statement framing the refusal as conditional cooperation. He declared that Maxwell was “prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump.” Markus went further, asserting that Maxwell could clarify that both Trump and former President Bill Clinton “are innocent of any wrongdoing” in connection with Epstein, adding that “the public is entitled to that explanation.” The remarks were widely interpreted as a direct appeal—or strategic leverage—to secure presidential intervention in her sentence.
The deposition, subpoenaed months earlier as part of the committee’s probe into Epstein-related files (including newly accessible unredacted documents), yielded no new revelations. Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released portions of the video footage, highlighting Maxwell’s consistent invocations. Democratic members, including Reps. Melanie Stansbury and Suhas Subramanyam, accused her of “campaigning” for a pardon rather than cooperating, with some blaming the administration for not explicitly ruling out clemency.
Leavitt addressed the speculation head-on during the February 10 briefing. When pressed on whether Trump would rule out a pardon, she stated firmly: “This is not something I’ve discussed with the president recently because, frankly, it’s not a priority.” She added that the last time the topic arose, Trump indicated it was “not something he’s considering or thinking about.” Redirecting focus, Leavitt emphasized the administration’s commitment to “the real struggles facing everyday Americans,” such as economic pressures, border security, and domestic priorities—implicitly distancing the White House from the politically radioactive Epstein-Maxwell case.
This position marks a clear shift from Trump’s earlier ambiguity. In October 2025, when asked about a potential pardon request, he had responded that he would “have to take a look at it,” leaving room for speculation among conspiracy theorists and those hoping for more disclosures from the Epstein files. The latest comments appear to slam that door shut, at least publicly.
The development has intensified scrutiny of the congressional investigation. Without Maxwell’s testimony, lawmakers face continued obstacles in extracting fresh details from the Epstein network, despite recent releases of unredacted files. Victims’ advocates and critics argue that tying cooperation to clemency undermines justice and accountability. Supporters of the administration view the rejection as prudent avoidance of a no-win controversy.
Does this definitively end any prospect of clemency for Maxwell, or could private channels or shifting political calculations keep a flicker of possibility alive? For now, the White House has drawn a firm line: the convicted sex trafficker’s fate ranks far below the pressing concerns of ordinary citizens. The Epstein chapter remains unresolved, with Maxwell’s silence—and the administration’s disinterest—ensuring the shadows linger.
Leave a Reply