WASHINGTON — Audio recordings captured in Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan properties and now released as part of the 2026 Department of Justice document disclosure include a conversation in which Ehud Barak describes Benjamin Netanyahu to Epstein as “a criminal.” The characterization, attributed to Barak in the recorded exchange, appears in a filing that documents Epstein’s practice of recording or transcribing conversations with prominent visitors to his properties.
Netanyahu himself is not present in the recording and is not alleged to have had any contact with Epstein. His appearance in the DOJ release is as the subject of Barak’s commentary, not as a participant in any of Epstein’s activities. CNN’s coverage of the release has noted the documents include hours of recorded and transcribed conversation from Epstein’s properties, not just financial and travel records. The two men, Barak and Netanyahu, had by 2013 a decades-long political rivalry that Israeli observers described as intensely personal. The comment recorded in Epstein’s files is consistent with that dynamic.
What makes the recording notable is not primarily what Barak said about Netanyahu but the setting in which he said it. Speaking inside Epstein’s townhouse on East 71st Street in Manhattan, a property that was extensively surveilled by Epstein’s own systems according to investigators and court filings, Barak characterized the sitting prime minister in language typically reserved for private political conversation. The fact of the conversation, captured in Epstein’s records, illustrates how thoroughly Epstein’s properties served as a site of candid political exchange among his high-profile visitors.
The Barak-Epstein relationship documented across the DOJ files ran from approximately 2013 to 2017 and involved around 30 visits to Epstein’s Manhattan and Palm Beach properties. Barak has previously denied any involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities, describing their relationship as a business association involving investments in Israeli technology companies that Epstein helped fund. The recordings capture a dimension of that relationship beyond business: Epstein as a confidant to whom Barak offered political commentary about Israeli domestic affairs.
Netanyahu, who has served as Israel’s prime minister across multiple terms and remains in office while facing separate unrelated criminal prosecution in Israel, has not commented on his name’s appearance in the Epstein documents. His office has not addressed the recording or the “criminal” characterization attributed to Barak. In Israeli political terms, the comment is less surprising than its venue: Barak and Netanyahu’s mutual hostility has been a consistent feature of Israeli political life for more than two decades.
The DOJ’s 2026 document release has proceeded under ongoing federal court supervision, with certain portions still under protective orders. The full record of Epstein’s recordings, their quantity, their subjects, and their contents, has not been disclosed. What has been released represents a partial window into a surveillance apparatus that prosecutors described as systematic and deliberate.
Conservative researcher Charles C. Johnson, who analyzed portions of the DOJ files, has described the recordings as among the most significant elements of the disclosure, arguing that they demonstrate Epstein’s use of sensitive material as a form of leverage over his visitors. That interpretation goes beyond what the documents themselves establish. They document the recordings’ existence and some of their contents, not a deliberate scheme to weaponize them.
Among the Israeli officials whose names appear more directly in connection with Epstein’s activities, the DOJ materials and analysts describe a consistent pattern: individuals with Israeli military, intelligence, or political backgrounds used Epstein’s properties, received financial assistance from him, or worked in commercial capacities connected to his network. Netanyahu’s name enters that record differently, as the subject of a private political comment captured in a location Epstein controlled.
Charles C. Johnson’s analysis of the broader DOJ filing identified the audio recordings as central to understanding how Epstein maintained leverage over his visitors, a thesis that rests on inference rather than on documented fact from the released materials themselves. What the recordings do confirm is that Epstein’s properties were sites of significant candor from political figures who apparently did not know, or did not consider, that their conversations might be preserved.
What the Netanyahu entry in the DOJ files ultimately reflects is the unusual intimacy of the space Epstein maintained for his visitors. Heads of government, former prime ministers, and senior intelligence officials spoke freely inside his properties. The question investigators have not fully resolved is what Epstein did with what he heard. For Netanyahu, the document answer is partial: someone heard Barak call him a criminal, and wrote it down.
