A tranche of nearly 1,000 pages of court records unsealed in New York has resurfaced a 2016 deposition that places billionaire Tom Pritzker, a leading figure in one of America’s wealthiest families, in the orbit of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking network. The excerpt, drawn from Virginia Giuffre’s defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, is already fueling renewed scrutiny of elite connections to Epstein while reviving familiar tensions over what, exactly, the public can prove—and what remains allegation.

The deposition at the center of this latest wave is dated May 3, 2016. In it, Giuffre, whose allegations helped catalyze the broader Epstein saga, testifies that she had sexual relations with Tom Pritzker. Pressed by attorney Laura Menninger—“If I were to ask you the question how many times you have had sex with Tom Pritzker, do you know what that question means?”—Giuffre responds that she believes she was with him “once.” The exchange is straightforward, sparse, and striking because of who Pritzker is: executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation, CEO of The Pritzker Organization, and a cousin of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. The family’s name is synonymous with hotel fortunes, philanthropy, and political influence, particularly within Democratic circles.

The newly unsealed records come from the Southern District of New York in a case that sought to test the truthfulness of public statements around Epstein’s alleged crimes. Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate, was later convicted on federal charges related to sex trafficking and abuse. Giuffre’s testimony, however, is not a conviction; it is an allegation sworn under oath, part of a larger legal mosaic that includes denials, competing accounts, and, in some cases, no charges at all. A spokesperson for Tom Pritzker has publicly denied Giuffre’s claims, calling them false and defamatory. Another deposition released the same day, from witness Johanna Sjoberg, indicated she had not met Tom Pritzker personally, underscoring how uneven and often contradictory the witness terrain can be.

The documents also include a separate account from Giuffre in which she recalls being dispatched by Maxwell to have sex with “the owner of a large hotel chain” during a trip to France around the time of supermodel Naomi Campbell’s birthday celebration. In that telling, the encounter occurred in a “cabana townhouse” attached to a hotel where Epstein, Maxwell, and others were staying. Giuffre does not name Pritzker in that exchange. Still, the description inevitably invites readers to draw inferences given his role at Hyatt. Here is where careful reading matters: context can align, but speculation is not fact. Responsible coverage draws bright lines between what is alleged, what is denied, and what remains uncorroborated.

Governor J.B. Pritzker, whose political profile ensures that any ripple around the family name becomes a political headline, has said he was unaware of any relationship between his cousin and Epstein. In 2019, as Epstein’s circle faced intense public scrutiny, the governor told reporters: “I was unaware if [Thomas Pritzker] knew Jeffrey Epstein at all. I did not, do not. I just hope that justice is pursued and the victims get the justice they deserve.” It was a sentiment repeated across the political spectrum at the time—acknowledging the gravity of the allegations while distancing from the financier’s network.

The broader picture that emerges from the newly unsealed records is less a straight line than a tangled web. Familiar names reappear—Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, entertainer David Copperfield—alongside a churn of flight logs, social calendars, depositions, and legal filings that have defined the Epstein archive for years. Patterns of proximity and association do not by themselves establish criminal conduct, but they do map the reach of a social world that combined wealth, celebrity, academia, and politics in ways that, after Epstein’s arrest and death, look profoundly suspect to the public.

Keeping the story compelling without slipping into conjecture is not just an editorial choice—it’s a trust imperative. The most persuasive narratives in high-profile cases like this one are grounded in transparent sourcing, plain-language distinctions between allegation and fact, and careful attribution. That approach helps readers follow the thread without feeling misled, and it lowers the risk that audiences will flag coverage as sensational or “fake.” Here’s how that discipline applies in this case:

What the documents show: Giuffre’s 2016 deposition includes an allegation of a single sexual encounter with Tom Pritzker. A separate account mentions “the owner of a large hotel chain” but does not name him. These statements come from sworn testimony within a civil case file.
What the parties say: Tom Pritzker, through a spokesperson, denies the allegations as false and defamatory. J.B. Pritzker has denied any connection with Epstein and said he was unaware whether his cousin knew Epstein. Another witness in the same tranche, Johanna Sjoberg, testified that she had not met Tom Pritzker.
What has not happened: There is no public record of criminal charges against Tom Pritzker related to Giuffre’s statements. These unsealed materials do not equate to a finding of fact by a court on this specific allegation.
What is context, not conclusion: The Epstein files repeatedly reveal social, professional, and travel overlaps among powerful people. Those ties are newsworthy; they are not, in isolation, proof of wrongdoing.

That clarity does not blunt the story’s power. On the contrary, it sharpens it. The tension here is precisely the tension that animated public outrage during Epstein’s rise and fall: the fear that money and influence can bend accountability, that the truth emerges slowly if at all, and that victims have to fight for years to be believed. The unsealed records contribute to that ongoing reckoning by adding new primary-source material—the raw transcripts and filings that allow journalists and the public to read past summaries and spin.

It is also important to remember the legal and human stakes. For accusers, these files represent a long arc toward recognition. For those named, they carry reputational risk even absent formal charges. For the public, they are the scaffolding of an answer to an uncomfortable question: How far did Epstein’s influence reach into American institutions? The answer, as ever, will come not from conjecture but from evidence that withstands scrutiny.

To keep audience trust high—and the rate of readers flagging stories as misleading low—coverage should continue to emphasize document-based reporting, link claims to specific deposition lines or filings, and update stories as official responses and legal developments emerge. Avoiding absolutist language where the record is not definitive helps audiences navigate a complex story without feeling manipulated. When allegations are denied, say so clearly and prominently. When the record is mixed, explain how and why.

Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019 closed one chapter and opened others. The investigations, civil suits, and document releases that followed have forced uncomfortable transparency about networks of privilege. The mention of Tom Pritzker in a sworn deposition will draw intense interest because of who he is. Whether that interest leads to new legal action or further corroboration remains to be seen. For now, the public has more to read and more to weigh—an expanding archive of sworn statements and responses that, taken together, show how a single case became a mirror for the country’s anxieties about power, accountability, and justice.

That mirror is best held steady. The names are prominent, the stakes are high, and the appetite for certainty is understandable. But it is the work of careful, sourced reporting that ultimately keeps the story both riveting and reliable—so readers can follow every development with confidence that what they’re reading is clear, fair, and grounded in what the documents actually say.

The documents, released from the Southern District Court of New York, stem from Giuffre’s defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell — Epstein’s longtime associate and partner.

Among the transcripts is a deposition dated May 3, 2016, where Giuffre testifies that she had sexual relations with Tom Pritzker, a high-profile member of one of America’s wealthiest political families.

Tom Pritzker serves as the executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation and CEO of The Pritzker Organization, which manages the family’s vast business empire.

The Pritzkers are among the richest families in the United States and have deep ties to Democrat politics.

During questioning by attorney Laura Menninger, Giuffre was asked directly about her encounters with Pritzker.

“If I were to ask you the question how many times you have had sex with Tom Pritzker, do you know what that question means?” Menninger asked.
“I believe so,” Giuffre replied.
“All right. And what is the answer to that question?”
“I believe I was with Tom once,” Giuffre responded.

In a separate deposition, Giuffre described being sent by Maxwell to have sex with “the owner of a large hotel chain” during a trip to France, around the same time as supermodel Naomi Campbell’s birthday celebration.

Giuffre recalled that the encounter took place in a “cabana townhouse” connected to a hotel where Epstein, Maxwell, and others were staying.

Though she did not explicitly name Pritzker in that second exchange, her earlier statement and context from the transcript align closely with his profile as the executive of a major hotel empire.

A spokesperson for Tom Pritzker has publicly denied the allegations, calling them false and defamatory.

Governor J.B. Pritzker has also stated that he was unaware of any relationship between his cousin and Jeffrey Epstein.

When questioned in 2019, the governor said:

“First of all, I was unaware if [Thomas Pritzker] knew Jeffrey Epstein at all. I did not, do not. I just hope that justice is pursued and the victims get the justice they deserve.”

Another deposition released the same day, involving witness Johanna Sjoberg, indicated she had not met Tom Pritzker personally.

The broader document release reveals a sweeping web of elite connections surrounding Epstein — including figures such as Prince Andrew, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and even famed entertainer David Copperfield.

The records offer more insight into the extent of Epstein’s ties to powerful political, academic, and entertainment circles.