Warren presses Barclays for answers over Jes Staley’s Epstein links
US Senator Elizabeth Warren has demanded urgent answers from Barclays over what she called the bank’s failure to properly examine former chief executive Jes Staley’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The request puts fresh pressure on the British lender over how it handled one of the most sensitive hiring and oversight questions in global banking.
In a private letter seen, Warren told Barclays chair Nigel Higgins that it remained “deeply unclear” how the bank, while looking into Staley’s connection to Epstein, missed what she described as a decades-long relationship. Warren is the most senior Democrat on the US Senate banking committee.
Two weeks to respond
The letter, sent jointly on behalf of fellow members of Congress Ro Khanna and Raja Krishnamoorthi, gave Barclays two weeks to answer detailed questions about the matter. Among the issues raised: whether the bank reviewed any weaknesses in its executive hiring process after Staley was appointed chief executive.
Warren said those checks should have examined how the board was able to hire a CEO who held extensive professional and personal ties to Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges. The senator’s criticism goes to the heart of governance at a major international bank. If a board misses warning signs at the top, the damage can spread fast.
Governance questions widen
The intervention reflects a broader scrutiny of banks’ handling of risk, conduct and reputation when senior executives have controversial links outside the business. In this case, the focus is not on markets or lending, but on judgment. On who checked what. And when.
Barclays has not yet publicly answered the questions raised in the letter, according to available reports. The bank now faces a short deadline to explain how it assessed Staley’s relationship with Epstein and whether its hiring process needed a deeper review.
Warren’s final warning was blunt: it was “deeply unclear” how the bank could have failed to uncover the extent of the relationship. That line now hangs over Barclays as the clock runs on its response.
