The fluctuating price of dated Brent, the global benchmark for real-world barrels of crude, has prompted energy analysts warn to that acute stress in the physical oil market shows little sign of abating amid worries over a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East.

As energy market participants continue to monitor shipping disruption through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, an unprecedented gap has emerged between dated Brent and front-month Brent futures, suggesting supplies will remain tight for some time.

The spot price of dated Brent, which refers to physical cargoes that have been assigned delivery dates from 10 days forward to one month ahead, came in at $131.97 per barrel on Thursday afternoon, according to data compiled by Platts.

That’s up over 7% from the previous session but down from a record high of $144.42 on Tuesday, just before the U.S. and Iran announced a two-week truce.

Dated Brent is assessed based on bids, offers and trades in the open physical spot market, which means it reflects the real-world price tag of crude oil.

Brent crude futures for June delivery, meanwhile, were last seen trading 0.6% higher at $96.51 per barrel on Friday morning.

“Dated Brent at $144 is not just a price record. It’s the physical market telling you that real barrels are becoming scarce. The market is pricing in scarcity, not just risk,” Andrejka Bernatova, founder and CEO of Dynamix Corporation III, told CNBC by email.

“Even with the ceasefire bringing the number down, the underlying stress hasn’t gone away, and frankly, I think the market is getting ahead of itself,” Bernatova said.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains almost entirely blocked, and this ceasefire is fragile at best. Until those flows are actually moving again, the $144 print is less of a historical anomaly and more of a preview.”

Roughly 20% of global oil and gas typically passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime corridor that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Shipping and maritime experts have told CNBC that traffic through the critical energy artery will not normalize anytime soon.

“If refiners delay purchases in anticipation of further price declines while physical flows remain constrained, product tightness could worsen even amid de-escalation,” Janiv Shah, vice president of oil markets at Rystad Energy, said in a research note published Wednesday.

“The Brent flat price has fallen, but prompt physical differentials are likely to remain sticky, tanker rates stay elevated, and sour crude buyers continue to pay up for security of limited global supply away from the Gulf,” he continued.

“This goes to show that the perceived geopolitical risk can ease faster than operational risk,” Shah said.

Strategists at Morgan Stanley said the Strait of Hormuz disruption has prompted a much more violent shock in physical Brent-linked barrels compared to the main financial contract of Brent futures.

“Dated Brent is the market’s assessment of what a prompt physical seaborne barrel is worth in Northwest Europe. ICE Brent, on the other hand, is a standardized, centrally cleared futures contract whose final cash settlement is linked to the forward Brent cargo market through a defined expiry process,” Martijn Rats, commodities strategist at Morgan Stanley, said in a research note published Tuesday.

“Those two prices are connected, but they do not measure the same exposure in time or at the same point in the chain.”

The market dislocation shows the Brent system identifying where the shock is most acute and immediate, Rats said.

Pavel Molchanov, senior analyst at Raymond James Investment, said this latest episode of supply disruption had caused traditional trading patterns between various grades of crude to break down.

“This speaks to unprecedented stress and uncertainty in the oil market,” Molchanov told CNBC by email.

Among some examples of this, Molchanov said Brent crude futures typically traded $3 to $5 per barrel higher than U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures over the past decade, although WTI briefly surpassed a premium of more than $10 during the Middle East crisis.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is calling for a broad recommitment to American ideals as his bank navigates geopolitical uncertainty, a teetering economy and the revolutionary impact of artificial intelligence.

Dimon in his annual letter to shareholders, published Monday, noted the country’s 250th anniversary as “the perfect time to rededicate ourselves to the values that made this great nation of ours — freedom, liberty and opportunity.”

“The challenges we all face are significant. The list is long but at the top are the terrible ongoing war and violence in Ukraine, the current war in Iran and the broader hostilities in the Middle East, terrorist activity and growing geopolitical tensions, importantly with China,” Dimon said. “Even in troubled times, we have confidence that America do what it has always done — look to the values that have defined our singular nation and sustained our leadership of the free world.”

Dimon, the longtime leader of the world’s largest bank by market cap, is among the most outspoken of U.S. corporate leaders. His annual letter offers not only a matter of record for his firm’s performance, but also sweeping perspectives on the global state of affairs.

In Monday’s letter, Dimon noted headwinds including global conflicts, persistent inflation, private market upheaval and what he called “poor bank regulations.”

Dimon said that while regulations like those put in place after the 2008 financial crisis “accomplished some good things … they also created a fragmented, slow-moving system with expensive, overlapping and excessive rules and regulations — some of which made the financial system weaker and reduced productive lending.”

He specifically cited negative consequences of capital and liquidity requirements, the current construction of the Federal Reserve’s stress test and a “badly handled” process at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Dimon also said JPMorgan’s reaction to revised proposals for Basel 3 Endgame and a global systemically important bank (GSIB) surcharge — issued by U.S. regulators last month — were “mixed.”

“While it was good to see that the recent proposals for the Basel 3 Endgame (B3E) and GSIB attempted to reduce the increase in required capital from the 2023 proposals, there are still some aspects that are frankly nonsensical,” Dimon said.

The CEO said the aggregate proposed surcharges of about 5%, the bank would need to hold “as much as 50% more capital across the vast majority of loans to U.S. consumers and businesses when compared with a large non-GSIB bank for the same set of loans.”

“Frankly, it’s not right, and it’s un-American,” he said.

Dimon identified geopolitical tensions as the primary risk facing his bank, namely the wars in Ukraine and Iran and their impacts on commodities and global markets — deeming war “the realm of uncertainty.”

“The outcome of current geopolitical events may very well be the defining factor in how the future global economic order unfolds,” he said. “Then again, it may not.”

He also cited a “realignment of economic relations in the world” brought on by U.S. trade policy. U.S. President Donald Trump has made tariffs a signature policy of his second term in office, introducing higher duties on dozens of trade partners and import categories.

Dimon also spoke to recent upheaval in the private markets, as fears around loans made to software firms spur massive redemption requests at private credit funds.

JPMorgan has been at the forefront of Wall Street firms introducing AI at every level of its business. Last year, JPMorgan Chief Analytics Officer Derek Waldron gave CNBC an early demonstration into how it’s using agentic AI to speed up work and improve results for customers and shareholders.

Deteriorating asset quality, collateral markdowns and a growing rush for the exits are rattling private credit markets and prompting comparisons to the Global Financial Crisis.

But a spike in loan defaults, while painful, could help shake out pockets of stress from the $3 trillion sector and provide what one industry pro calls a “healthy reset” after its first major liquidity test.

Ares Management on Tuesday opted to curb investor withdrawals from its $10.7 billion private credit fund, just a day after Apollo Global Management unveiled similar measures in one of its vehicles. Ares has capped redemptions in its Ares Strategic Income Fund at 5%, after withdrawal requests surged to 11.6%, according to a Bloomberg report.

Other managers, including Blue Owl Capital and Cliffwater, have also scrambled to halt or restrict withdrawals in recent weeks, as rising default fears spark an investor retreat from the sector.

Comparisons to the build-up to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis are now intensifying as concerns over underlying loan quality grow.

Morgan Stanley recently warned default rates in private credit direct lending could surge to 8%, well above the 2-2.5% historical average, with pressure concentrated in sectors vulnerable to AI disruption, such as software.

However, Morgan Stanley analysts led by strategist Joyce Jiang also said an 8% default spike would be “significant but not systemic,” pointing to lower leverage among private credit funds and business development companies compared with 2008.

So what would a default spike of that magnitude look like in practical terms?

“An 8% default rate takes private credit from a ‘zero loss’ fantasy to a more normal credit asset class — painful in spots, but ultimately a healthy reset that frees up capital for stronger businesses,” said Sunaina Sinha Haldea, global head of private capital advisory at Raymond James.

She said a normalization from ultra‑low defaults would be “painful for some funds” but “healthy for the asset class if it forces better underwriting and more realistic valuations.”

An 8% or 9% default rate would largely manifest through so-called “shadow defaults,” such as maturity extensions and covenant waivers, said William Barrett, managing partner at Reach Capital. Lenders use these “amend-and-pretend” tools to keep borrowers afloat and avoid immediate bankruptcy.

While payment-in-kind agreements delay cash returns, increase debt, and potentially signal greater stress in the system, they also act as an effective “release valve” that stabilizes companies and prevents outright failures, he added.

“For the real economy, this means capital becomes trapped in restructurings, leading to tighter future lending conditions,” Barrett told CNBC via email.

Concerns over credit quality have spread through private markets following the high-profile collapses of First Brands and Tricolor within the U.S. auto parts sector last year. While those failures were tied to asset-based finance and bank-syndicated debt, rather than traditional middle-market direct lending, they thrust the broader question of risky debt in private markets into the spotlight.

A jury in California found that Elon Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders during the runup to his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company, according to a verdict issued on Friday.

Total damages could reach up to $2.6 billion, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

The class action lawsuit, Pampena v. Musk, was originally filed in October 2022, after Musk completed his purchase of Twitter for $54.20 per share. He later renamed the company X, before merging it with his artificial intelligence company xAI, and then with SpaceX, his reusable rocket manufacturer.

“This is a great example of what you cannot do to the average investor — people that have 401ks, kids, pension funds, teachers, firemen, nurses,” Joseph Cotchett, an attorney for the Twitter investors, told CNBC at the San Francisco courthouse. “That’s what this case was all about. This was not about Musk. It was about the whole operation.”

In an emailed statement, Musk attorneys with Quinn Emanuel said, “We view today’s verdict, where the jury found both for and against the plaintiffs and found no fraud scheme, as a bump in the road. And we look forward to vindication on appeal.”

After Musk bid to buy Twitter in April 2022, his sentiment towards the deal quickly soured as he cast doubt on the company’s claimed level of bots, spam and fake accounts on its platform. Musk wrote in a tweet the following month that his acquisition was “temporarily on hold” until Twitter’s CEO could prove its inauthentic account levels were around the 5% reported in the company’s SEC filings.

Musk’s tweets and additional comments sent shares of Twitter sliding by almost 10% in a single session. The jury deliberated for four days and unanimously found that Musk’s tweets on May 13 and May 17 were materially false or misleading.

Former Twitter shareholders, including retail investors and options traders, argued that Musk’s remarks amounted to a scheme to pressure the company’s board to sell to him for a lower price than his original offer. They claimed he was motivated by stock price declines at Tesla, which would require him to sell even more shares in the automaker than he’d intended in order to finance the buyout.

The plaintiffs in the suit said they sold shares below $54.20 following and in response to Musk’s posts and comments during press interviews. The potential damages figure is based on expert estimates of how much Musk’s flip-flopping affected the share price during the class period.

Attorneys for the Twitter investors said it will be about 90 days before claims administration is set up, and it will then take a couple of months for the government to process claims and for investors to begin to recoup some of their losses.

Musk’s attorneys argued their client’s remarks were based on well-founded concerns about bots, spam and fake accounts on Twitter, and did not amount to securities fraud or a scheme to depress the company’s stock price.

The jury said that though Musk had made false and misleading statements that harmed some Twitter shareholders, he did not engage in a specific scheme to defraud investors.

While the verdict marks a stinging rebuke for Musk, the financial implications are minimal considering his net worth, which currently sits at about $650 billion, according to Bloomberg.

WATCH: Why Tesla is pivoting

Sen. Tim Scott on Wednesday said he hopes the federal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell “goes away” so the Senate can take up the nomination of Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace the head of the U.S. central bank.

“That proceeding going away allows for us to get the Fed fully functioning, back on target,” Scott, who chairs the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said during an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has vowed to hold up any Fed nominees until a federal criminal investigation into Powell is resolved. Trump floated the idea of firing Powell last year and lashed out at the Fed chair for refusing to cut interest rates to the extent he desired. Powell has denied any wrongdoing and has said he is being targeted for refusing to accede to Trump’s demands.

Powell was expected to testify before Congress on Feb. 11, but missed that date because of the federal probe, Scott said.

“I had a conversation with Jay about his testimony,” Scott said. “I recommended that he come before the committee.”

“At this point he is more concerned about the criminal proceeding ,” he said. “And I get that.”

The Fed did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tillis is otherwise supportive of Warsh, who Trump nominated for the role in January, but doubled down on his blockade after meeting with the Fed nominee on Tuesday.

“This is not about people, it’s about process,” Tillis said. “I think this is a foul.”

“This is about this is bedrock principle of Fed independence,” Tillis told reporters Tuesday. “I have no earthly idea what the market reaction would have been if suddenly the perception is that the Fed chair serves at the pleasure of the president.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., another Banking committee member, told CNBC earlier Wednesday he sees no reason why some Democrats won’t support Warsh’s nomination.

“There’s really no reason by anything from he’s ever said or that he’s done that, that Democrats shouldn’t support his nomination,” Cramer, who was scheduled to meet with Warsh on Wednesday, said. “They’re going to be rigorous, of course, in their interviewing of him and and the cross examination … when his hearing takes place. But I think we should be on track to get him across the finish line so that there’s no gap between … the end of Jay Powell’s term and the beginning of the new term.”

The investigation into Powell is in part based on testimony Powell gave to the Senate Banking committee last year. Scott has said in the past that he did not believe Powell committed a crime in his testimony, sentiment he repeated Wednesday. He said the Senate would begin confirmation hearings for Warsh “as soon as possible.”

“At the end of the day … when he was before the committee he definitely was unprepared,” Scott said of Powell. “I think he was woefully unprepared. But he did not commit a criminal act when he was before the committee.”

President Donald Trump on Wednesday officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Warsh, if confirmed by the Senate, would replace Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, for a four-year term.

Trump’s nomination was transmitted to the Senate, the White House said in a statement posted online on Wednesday.

That transmittal came more than a month after Trump first publicly announced he wanted Warsh as the Fed chairman.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, has said he would block Warsh’s nomination from proceeding in the Senate until a federal criminal investigation of Powell by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., is dropped.

Tillis’ stance could prevent the nomination from being considered by the full Senate.

Powell said in mid-January that he was under investigation in connection with the $2.5 billion renovation of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters in Washington, and his testimony about that project to the Senate.

The chair also said that “the threat of criminal charges” against him is directly due to him and other Fed governors refusing to bow to Trump and his demands that they cut interest rates more quickly than the president has demanded.

Last summer, Trump tried to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, who sided with Powell on interest rate decisions. Trump, at the time, cited an allegation by a housing official he had picked that Cook had committed mortgage fraud, but his move to terminate her was seen as motivated by his ire over her stance on interest rates.

Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, has remained on the Fed pending the outcome of a lawsuit against Trump challenging her removal.

The Supreme Court in January heard oral arguments in that case. The court has yet to issue a ruling on whether Trump can fire Cook.

There were plenty of reasons for investors to be on edge in the current setup for stocks even before the U.S. and Israel launched a major military campaign against Iran over the weekend.

The month of February, and midterm election years in particular, have a history of being bad for stocks. The cash drain among the mega-cap tech stocks that have led the market for years has been stressing heady market valuations, with Amazon headed back to a negative free cash flow situation and Alphabet dipping deeply into the bond market to finance its data center buildout — and it is far from alone in seeking debt market financing related to AI. The threat from AI to sectors across the market was walloping companies from software to trucking to commercial real estate as new worst-case scenarios were theorized on an almost daily basis.

All of that resulted in an S&P 500 that has gone nowhere this year, with a return of less than one-half of one percent for an index that is likely to see more volatility in the week ahead. But after three years of gains — and even before the uncertainty of a prolonged war in the Middle East and the prospect of $100 oil tipping the global economy into recession — a few months of sideways trading was not a shock to investors. They have been increasingly moving away from bonds as the primary hedge against the stock market and it’s not just gold, up another 20% this year, that has boomed. Investors have been turning to options-based exchange-traded funds in increasing numbers over the past few years as a result of fears about the sustainability of the stock market’s run combined with the need to generate income among many older Americans.

According to ETF Action founding partner Mike Akins, one of the most notable splits in the ETF world is between the heavy use of “the big box categories,” core stock and bond index funds, by institutional investors — where as much as 60-70% of ownership is institutional — versus the ownership of “non-traditional” ETFs in areas that have now grown to include many options-based ETF strategies and has been one of the biggest product development trends in recent years. There has been an estimated $170 billion invested in “synthetic income” ETFs which use options to focus on generating income, and $100 billion in “buffer” ETFs that use options to focus on downside protection — with most of the assets coming from retail investors or investment advisors for their individual investor clients, Akins said on the most recent episode of CNBC’s “ETF Edge.”

According to Tidal Financial Group senior vice president of product development Aga Kuplinska, the market is in the “overlay everything” phase as issuers take any underlying asset class or strategy and layer on options for income and hedging. It’s no longer just in areas where the search for income has long been a focus, such as dividend stocks, but for areas of the market long associated more typically with the search for growth, like tech stocks. “Income has been the No. 1 selling point and will remain so going into future because the demand for yield just doesn’t go away and during uncertain market conditions the added benefit of income seems to resonate well with investors,” she said on “ETF Edge.”

While institutions have long used similar strategies, the availability of the options-based strategies in an ETF wrapper has made it more efficient for retail investors to access this approach, and Akins warned that “in some respects, with synthetic income in particular, we’ve gotten to the Wild West in terms of what we can do.”

The ETF experts said there are successful examples of fund companies generating both maximum income for investors from these strategies and those generating a more conservative level of income. In the tech stock-concentrated Nasdaq 100 synonymous with the Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ), for example, there are options-based ETFs that have performed well amid the tech tumult and have been a “nice solution for investors to generate income off a more volatile strategy while still getting upside,” Akins said.

Nevertheless, Kuplinska added that investors need to start from the understanding that “there is no free lunch in options income. The more income, the more upside you typically give up.”

Akins said that some of the yields on offer are so high investors need to understand what it means for a fund’s net asset value. With some ETFs indicating yields or distribution rates at almost 100%, in effect that means almost equivalent erosion of the fund’s net asset value — otherwise known as a “yield trap.” The range of yields in this growing strategic ETF niche is wide — with some ETFs targeting 5-8% and others 8-12%, as well as those verging on 100% — but it is a signal that “lots of education has to be done,” Akins said.

Kuplinska said with any derivatives-based income or hedging ETF strategy, what is taking place behind the scenes at the investment manager running the fund is very important, from regulatory and compliance protocols to the sophistication level of the trading desk. “These are incredibly difficult strategies to back test,” she said on the podcast portion of “ETF Edge.” She noted these ETFs are all subject to regulatory requirements to calculate risk on a daily basis, but she added, “Anything can be a weapon of mass destruction if not used as intended or properly.”

After the the past few years of rapid launches within this ETF category, “white space is much harder to find,” Kuplinska said. Options-based investing has “been done on everything out there,” she added. But she does think one more wave of options-based ETFs is coming and it will be less about the chase for maximum yield levels and designed more to focus on income stability and risk control. 

You can watch their conversation from the most recent “ETF Edge” above to learn more about proper use of options-based ETFs.

Disclaimer

Salesforce shares tumbled 5% in extended trading on Wednesday after the customer service software maker reported healthy results, although its fiscal 2027 revenue view trailed Wall Street projections.

Here’s how the company did in comparison with LSEG consensus:

• Earnings per share: $3.81 adjusted vs. $3.04 expected
• Revenue: $11.20 billion vs. $11.18 billion expected

Salesforce’s revenue grew 12% year over year in its fiscal fourth quarter, which ended on Jan. 31, according to a statement. It’s the company’s fastest growth rate in two years.

The company has allocated $50 billion for new share buybacks, “because these are some low prices,” CEO Marc Benioff said on a conference call with analysts. As of Wednesday’s close, Salesforce shares had fallen about 28% so far in 2026, while the S&P 500 index had gained 1%.

Net income of $1.94 billion, or $2.07 per share, increased from $1.71 billion, or $1.75 per share. Adjusted earnings per share excludes stock-based compensation expense, amortization of purchased intangible assets and restructuring costs.

Current remaining performance obligation, a sum of contracted but unrecognized revenue and unbilled amounts that will be recognized as revenue over the next year, came in at $35.1 billion. The figure was higher than StreetAccount’s $34.53 billion consensus.

Guidance for the fiscal first quarter included $3.11 to $3.13 in adjusted earnings per share on $11.03 billion to $11.08 billion in revenue. Analysts surveyed by LSEG were looking for $3.00 per share and $10.99 billion in revenue.

For the 2027 fiscal year, Salesforce called for $13.11 to $13.19 in adjusted earnings per share on $45.8 billion to $46.2 billion in revenue, which implies 10% to 11% growth. The LSEG consensus had $13.12 per share on $46.06 billion in revenue.

In recent weeks, investors have become increasingly worried that generative artificial intelligence models might dampen major software companies’ growth opportunities.

On Monday, IBM stock dropped 13% in its worst daily performance since 2000 after Anthropic published a blog post saying its Claude Code AI tool for developers can assist with modernizing code written in the Cobol programming language.

During the quarter, Salesforce released an AI-enabled Slackbot assistant in its Slack team communication app for paying clients. The company also completed its $8 billion Informatica acquisition and announced plans to buy marketing company Qualified. Informatica, a data management software company, contributed $399 million in revenue during the quarter.

The company now sees $63 billion in fiscal 2030 revenue, up from a target of over $60 billion it presented in October. Analysts polled by LSEG had been looking for $59.07 billion. The new number includes a contribution from Informatica.

Five customers of ServiceNow moved to Salesforce’s competing product for information technology service management during the quarter, Benioff said on the TBPN podcast on Wednesday.

Salesforce has been working to expand adoption of its Agentforce AI technology for automating customer service and other corporate functions.

The company said annualized Agentforce revenue exceeded $800 million in the quarter.

Morgan Stanley analysts, with the equivalent of a buy rating on Salesforce stock, said in a Monday note to clients that conversations with partners “continue to indicate we are in the early innings.”

Meanwhile, Salesforce is seeing a benefit from its stake in Anthropic, generating an $811 million gain on strategic investments in the quarter. That’s up from $96 million in the year-ago quarter.

“I think we just put another $100 million into the new round,” Benioff said. We’re [at] about $330 million into Anthropic invested. It’s almost about 1% of Anthropic. And believe me, I wish we had invested a lot more.”

Benioff said the company isn’t doing all that it can with debt.

“We’re just very under-leveraged on our balance sheet,” he said.

WATCH: Investors are paying less and less for software earnings these days, says Jim Cramer

The recent release by the Department of Justice of millions of pages of emails and other documents related to the notorious sex predator Jeffrey Epstein has led to a wave of resignations and other uncomfortable fallout for high-profile people around the world whose dealings with him have been exposed.

Those individuals include the top lawyer at the major investment bank Goldman Sachs, the CEO of Dubai’s largest port, a former president of Harvard University, a former U.S. president and ex-secretary of State, and the chairman of a leading American corporate law firm.

The fallout from the Epstein files and people mentioned in them has even imperiled the government of United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, even though the Labour Party leader never knew the convicted sex offender.

Epstein, who cultivated relationships with many rich and powerful men and women, pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to state criminal charges related to soliciting prostitution, with one charge related to a girl under the age of 18.

He ended up serving 13 months in prison in that case, but was allowed to go to his office many days for work.

In August 2019, Epstein killed himself in a jail in New York City, weeks after being arrested on federal child sex trafficking charges.

A number of the people who have resigned their jobs in recent weeks had friendly dealings with Epstein after his 2008 conviction, which was widely publicized at the time.

Being mentioned in the Epstein files does not mean that someone was implicated in any of the crimes that he previously pleaded guilty to, or was later charged with. No one on the list of names compiled by CNBC of those affected by their association with Epstein has been charged for such conduct.

Here are some high-profile figures who have been burned by their appearances in the Epstein files:

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem: CEO of DP World

Sulayem resigned as CEO of Dubai’s largest port operator on Feb. 13, after leading the company for 10 years. Documents showed Epstein once referring to Sulayem as one of his “most trusted friends.” CNBC has reached out to the government of Dubai Media Office and DP World, seeking comment from Sulayem, who to date has not issued a statement on the situation.

Kathryn Ruemmler: Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel at Goldman Sachs

Ruemmler, a former White House counsel under then-President Barack Obama, announced her resignation from Goldman Sachs on Feb. 12, effective at the end of June. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Ruemmler was one of three people Epstein called when he was arrested in July 2019. She once thanked Epstein after receiving luxury gifts from him, calling him “Uncle Jeffrey.” Ruemmler told the Journal in January: “As I have said, I regret ever knowing him, and I have enormous sympathy for the victims of Epstein’s crimes.” 

Brad Karp: Chairman of Paul Weiss

Karp resigned as chairman of Paul Weiss on Feb. 4, after leading the major corporate law firm since 2008. Files show Karp thanking Epstein for a “once in a lifetime” evening in 2015, and asking if he could help his son land a job on a Woody Allen film in 2016. Days before he resigned, Paul Weiss issued a statement to The New York Times saying, “Mr. Karp attended two group dinners in New York City and had a small number of social interactions by email, all of which he regrets.”

David Gelernter: Yale University computer science professor

Gelernter was barred from teaching classes at Yale on Feb. 11 as the university conducts a review of his relationship with Epstein. Gelernter had extensive email communications with Epstein, which included one 2011 missive in which the professor recommended a Yale student for a project, referring to her as a “small goodlooking blonde.” Gelernter has not responded to CNBC’s requests for comment after Yale took action.

Bill Clinton: Former U.S. president

Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times in 2002 and 2003, and was photographed in casual social settings with Epstein and the sex offender’s now-convicted procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell. Clinton initially resisted a subpoena by the House Oversight Committee to testify about Epstein, but agreed to appear after it threatened to hold him in contempt of Congress. Clinton is due to testify on Feb. 27. Clinton’s spokesman in 2019 issued a statement saying, “President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York.” Clinton on Feb. 7 retweeted a post on X from his spokesman that said, “What DOJ has released thus far, and the manner in which it has done so, makes one thing clear: someone or something is being protected. We don’t know who, what, or why. We do know this: we need no such protection. It’s why only the Clintons have called for a public hearing.”

Hillary Clinton: Former secretary of State

Hillary Clinton, who is married to the former president, has said she does not recall ever speaking to Epstein. Despite that, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed her to testify for its inquiry into the predator. Like former President Clinton, the former secretary of State initially refused to appear, but then agreed to testify on Feb. 26 after being threatened with a contempt finding. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, Clinton again called for the release of all of the Epstein files, saying, “It is something that needs to be totally transparent,” The Independent reported. “I’ve called for many, many years for everything to be put out there so people can not only see what’s in them but also, if appropriate, hold people accountable. We’ll see what happens,” she said.

Peter Mandelson: UK ambassador to the U.S.

Mandelson was fired by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sep. 12 and resigned from the Labour Party on Feb. 2 over his ties to Epstein. Mandelson wrote a note in Epstein’s 50th Birthday Book, addressing him as “my best pal,” and has been accused of sending Epstein market-sensitive government information following the 2008 financial crisis. Mandelson, in comments to the Financial Times in February 2025, said, “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.” He also said, “I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women. I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all f— off. OK?”

Morgan McSweeney: Chief of Staff to the U.K. prime minister

McSweeney resigned Feb. 11, taking responsibility for Starmer’s appointment of Mandelson as ambassador. McSweeney told reporters, “The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong,” adding that the former ambassador “damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself.”

Larry Summers: OpenAI board member and former Harvard University president

Summers announced in November that he would step back from public commitments, including serving as a board member at the artificial intelligence company OpenAI and teaching classes as a professor at Harvard. The former Treasury secretary was named as a backup executor in a 2014 version of Epstein’s will. Summers, in a statement in November, said, “I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein.”

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: Former prince, Duke of York

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, was stripped of his titles and mansion in a statement from Buckingham Palace on Oct. 30. Mountbatten-Windsor settled a lawsuit filed by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre in 2022 without admitting wrongdoing, and is being investigated by authorities in London for claims that he sent Epstein confidential trade documents. In a 2019 statement, Mountbatten-Windsor said, “I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.”

Sarah Ferguson: Former Duchess of York

Ferguson’s charity, Sarah’s Trust, which focused on improving the lives of women and children, announced on Feb. 2 that it would be shutting down. The ex-wife of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor described Epstein as “a legend” and “the brother I have always wished for” in emails long after his first conviction in 2008. In a statement to the Guardian last September, a spokesperson for Ferguson said, “The duchess spoke of her regret about her association with Epstein many years ago, and as they have always been, her first thoughts are with his victims.”

Jack Lang: President of the Arab World Institute and former Culture minister of France

Lang, the highest-profile figure in France affected by the files, resigned as president of the Arab World Institute on Feb. 7 after leading the cultural center since 2013. Lang was mentioned more than 600 times in newly released files dating back to 2012 when he was introduced to Epstein by their mutual friend Woody Allen, according to The New York Times. French authorities have said they are investigating reports of financial connections between Lang and Epstein, with the financial prosecutor’s office probing Lang and his daughter, Caroline, on suspicion of “aggravated tax fraud laundering.” Lang has called the allegations against him “baseless,” and said the investigation “will bring much light on to the accusations that are questioning my probity and my honour.” His daughter denies any wrongdoing.

Mona Juul: Norwegian ambassador

Juul resigned on Feb. 8 after Norway’s foreign ministry suspended her earlier in the week. She resigned after reports that her children and husband, Terje Rød-Larsen, were left $10 million in a will written by Epstein two days before his suicide. Juul said in early February that she had contact with Epstein through Rød-Larsen, but also said that she “should have been much more careful.”

Miroslav Lajčák: National security advisor to the prime minister of Slovakia and former president of the UN General Assembly

Lajčák resigned Jan. 31 after serving four Slavic governments. Messages from 2018 show Lajčák discussing women with Epstein, writing, “Why don’t you invite me for these games? I would take the ‘MI’ girl.” Lajčák reportedly told Radio Slovakia, “When I read those messages today, I feel like a fool.” He said in the same interview that he had shown “poor judgment and inappropriate communication … Those messages were nothing more than foolish male egos in action, self-satisfied male banter.” He added, “There were no girls … the fact that someone is communicating with a sexual predator does not make him a sexual predator.”

David Ross: Chair of New York’s School of Visual Arts

Ross, formerly the director of the Whitney Museum, resigned as the chair of the Master of Fine Arts in art practice at SVA on Feb. 3. Ross called Epstein “incredible” after he suggested an exhibit featuring girls and boys aged 14-25 titled “Statutory.” Ross told The New York Times that he regretted being “taken in” by Epstein’s claim that he had been the victim of a political frame-up because of his connection to Bill Clinton. “I continue to be appalled by his crimes and remain deeply concerned for its many victims,” he told the Times.

Joanna Rubinstein: Chair of Sweden for the UN Refugee Agency

Rubinstein announced her resignation on Feb. 2 from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees after documents unveiled a 2012 family visit to Epstein’s private island. In an email, Rubinstein thanked Epstein for “an afternoon in paradise” on behalf of her children and herself. “I was aware of the verdict at the time of the visit. What has subsequently emerged about the extent of the abuse is appalling and something I strongly distance myself from,” Rubinstein told the Swedish newspaper Expressen.

Casey Wasserman: Founder, Chairman and CEO of Wasserman talent agency; Chairman of the LA28 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Wasserman, owner of a high-profile talent and marketing agency and the chairman of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic and Paralympic Games, began the process of selling his company after emails between him and Maxwell from over 20 years ago were made public. Following the revelations, several clients, including Grammy winner Chappell Roan, announced they were leaving the agency. Wasserman said he “never had a personal or business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein” and that he’d “become a distraction” in a memo to his staff, which was reported by The Wall Street Journal. The Journal also reported, citing people familiar with the situation, that the committee organizing the LA Olympic Games had voted unanimously to keep Wasserman as chairman.

Steve Tisch: Chairman and co-owner of the New York Giants

The National Football League announced Feb. 2 that it will look into Tisch, a former film producer who has been the Giants’ executive vice president since 2005. Tisch was named over 400 times in the files, with one document showing that he asked Epstein whether women were “pro or civilian.” In a January statement to ESPN, Tisch said, “We had a brief association where we exchanged emails about adult women, and in addition, we discussed movies, philanthropy, and investments.” Tisch added, “I did not take him up on any of his invitations and never went to his island. As we all know now, he was a terrible person and someone I deeply regret associating with.”

Thorbjørn Jagland: Former prime minister of Norway

Jagland was charged with “aggravated corruption” on Feb. 12 after a police probe into his ties with Epstein. Jagland, who served as Norway’s prime minister from 1996 to 1997, is being investigated to see whether “gifts, travel and loans were received in connection with his position,” according to investigators. A 2014 email shows a planned visit for Jagland and his family to Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Jagland’s lawyers have said he “denies all the charges.”

Jes Staley: CEO of Barclays

Staley served as CEO of Barclays from October 2015 until his resignation in late 2021. Staley’s departure followed a probe by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority into his relationship with Epstein. The regulator fined him more than $2 million and permanently banned him from holding a management role in the sector in 2023. In 2020, Staley said, “Obviously I thought I knew him well and I didn’t. For sure, with hindsight with what we know now, I deeply regret having any relationship with Jeffrey.”

Alex Acosta: U.S. Labor secretary

Acosta announced his resignation in a letter to President Donald Trump on July 12, 2019, following controversy over his striking a federal non-prosecution deal with Epstein in 2008 when he was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Acosta defended that deal — which had required Epstein to plead guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution — in six hours of testimony in September to the House Oversight Committee. “I testified for six hours. I’ll let the record speak for itself,” Acosta said after the hearing.

— CNBC’s Garrett Downs contributed to this report.

WATCH: Commerce Sec. Howard Lutnick admits visiting Epstein island during family vacation