Read First
What This Report Does and Does Not Claim
✓ Epstein had a multi-year financial and personal relationship with Dr. Jess Ting, a plastic surgeon who later founded America's first comprehensive academic transgender surgery program at Mount Sinai
✓ Ting visited Epstein's private island at least once (2013) and visited his Manhattan townhouse multiple times
✓ Epstein donated $50,000 to Ting's breast cancer research via the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation
✓ Ting solicited Epstein's funding for a transgender surgery documentary
✓ Epstein directed evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers to "focus on transgender biology" — emails contain dehumanizing language about transgender people
✓ Epstein circulated transgender science topics among elite contacts including MIT Media Lab director Joichi Ito and others in his scientific philanthropy network
✗ That Epstein's interest in transgender medicine was specifically predatory toward trans people
✗ That transgender medicine as a field was shaped, directed, or corrupted by Epstein's funding
✗ That Dr. Ting's transgender surgery program was funded by Epstein (the $50,000 was for breast cancer research; Ting sought but did not confirm receiving support for the trans documentary)
✗ That any relationship between Epstein and the broader trans medicine ecosystem was coordinated or intentional
✗ That Dr. Ting, Mount Sinai, or any other institution knew about Epstein's crimes in connection with their relationship
The documents connecting Epstein to transgender medicine have been extensively used by conservative media and anti-trans commentators to imply that trans medicine itself is tainted or illegitimate. The Advocate — the primary LGBTQ+ news outlet — covered the story directly and published Dr. Ting's response. This report follows The Advocate's approach: document what is real, let institutions respond, and not layer political conclusions onto documented facts. The connections are real. What they mean is contested. Both are noted throughout.
Section 01
What the Files Show: The Six Key Documents
The January 30, 2026 EFTA release included Epstein's private email correspondence spanning 2012–2019. A researcher named Ev L. Nichols at Queer Science Lab searched the term "transsexual" in the DOJ archive and published her findings on February 3, 2026. Separately, investigative journalist Sayer Ji compiled six specific EFTA documents connecting Epstein to transgender medicine infrastructure. These six documents are the evidentiary core of this report. Every claim is traceable to a specific EFTA document number.
Section 02
Dr. Jess Ting & Mount Sinai: The Documented Relationship
Who is Dr. Jess Ting? Dr. Jess Ting is a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who has worked at Mount Sinai Health System in New York since 2001. In 2016, he became the surgical director of Mount Sinai's Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery — America's first comprehensive academic transgender surgery program. The center became the largest transgender surgery program in the country. Ting subsequently became a nationally prominent figure in gender-affirming surgical care, and the documentary about his work, Born to Be, was released in 2019 and nominated for two Emmy Awards.
The island visit. An email from an Epstein assistant — released in the EFTA files — states: "I hope you had a nice visit to Jeffrey's island last Friday." This places Ting on Little Saint James at least once, in approximately 2013 — three years before he became director of Mount Sinai's transgender surgery program. The emails also document multiple visits to Epstein's Manhattan townhouse and regular direct communication between Ting and Epstein over several years.
The $50,000 grant — what it was for. The May 2016 email from Ting to Epstein confirms: "The research you supported with a $50,000 grant has borne fruit." The grant was for breast cancer research — specifically, research examining how the tumor microenvironment influences breast cancer metastasis following surgery. It was funded through the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, per a Mount Sinai announcement in the released files. The $50,000 was for breast cancer research, not for the transgender surgery program.
The transgender pivot. In the same May 2016 email where he reported on the breast cancer grant, Ting told Epstein he had just been named director of the new transgender surgery center. He followed up later — in a separate email at EFTA02667053 — directly soliciting Epstein's financial support for the documentary about the program. "This is an exciting, groundbreaking project — both the center and the documentary — that will do good for the world. I hope you can be a part of it," Ting wrote. Available documents do not confirm whether Epstein responded or funded the film.
Medical care for Epstein associates. The emails also document Ting providing routine cosmetic medical care to women referred by Epstein — including a December 2014 email requesting that Ting see a woman "for 5 minutes to fix a hole in her nose from a nose ring." Ting told The Advocate he recalled treating "just a few female associates referred by Jeffrey Epstein. They all were adults. There were no concerns about consent."
The January 2015 Reuters inquiry. In January 2015, a Reuters reporter contacted Ting about Epstein's philanthropy. Ting forwarded the inquiry to Epstein's assistant and asked: "Would Jeffrey like me to respond to this?" He proposed sending the reporter's questions to Epstein first before answering. This is the most operationally significant document in the Ting-Epstein correspondence: a doctor offering a convicted sex offender editorial control over what he told a reporter about their financial relationship.
Ting's offer to let Epstein vet his media responses about their relationship is not routine. Standard professional practice when asked about a funder is to respond independently. Asking a convicted sex offender to pre-approve your media statements about your financial relationship with him describes a relationship with significant dependency.
The documents do not show whether Epstein reviewed or edited any reply. They do show that Ting treated Epstein as someone with authority over how his funding was publicly characterized — in 2015, seven years after Epstein's 2008 sex offender conviction.
The Advocate contacted Ting when the EFTA emails surfaced. His response, published February 3, 2026:
"I met Jeffrey Epstein through a mutual friend around 2013. I was a plastic surgeon at the time. He was known to be a philanthropist who was interested in scientific and medical research. I saw a potential opportunity for philanthropic support for my cancer research."
On the island visit: He did not specifically deny or confirm it.
On the patients: "They all were adults. There were no concerns about consent."
On the transgender program: He did not address whether Epstein funded the documentary.
The Advocate noted: "The documents do not allege wrongdoing by Ting, nor do they call into question the legitimacy or medical necessity of gender-affirming care."
When The Advocate contacted Mount Sinai in February 2026 asking whether the institution reviewed the EFTA emails, whether Epstein had involvement in projects connected to Ting's work, and what institutional safeguards governed outside donors — a Mount Sinai spokesperson said only: "We've encouraged Dr. Ting to respond directly."
Mount Sinai did not address:
— Whether any review of Epstein's involvement was conducted when the transgender program launched in 2016
— What due diligence was performed on the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation grant
— Whether the institution reviewed the EFTA emails after their release
These questions remain publicly unanswered.
Section 03
The Ting–Epstein Relationship: Timeline
Section 04
Robert Trivers: "Focus on Transgender Biology"
Who is Robert Trivers? Robert Trivers is an evolutionary biologist — a genuinely significant figure in 20th-century science whose work on reciprocal altruism, parent–offspring conflict, and self-deception has had lasting influence on evolutionary theory. He is also deeply controversial: he has faced allegations of serious misconduct including a 2013 assault charge, has published inflammatory work on race and intelligence, and maintained a close relationship with Epstein that he has publicly defended despite widespread criticism from colleagues.
The December 2018 email. In December 2018 — a year before Epstein's 2019 arrest — Trivers sent Epstein an email that STEM researcher Ev L. Nichols reviewed after searching "transsexual" in the DOJ archive. The email contains dehumanizing language about transgender people, discusses Trivers's opinions on the physical attractiveness of transgender women (his term: "transexual women"), and — most significantly — suggests that toddler boys as young as three who don't conform to gender stereotypes might benefit from hormonal intervention. This framing — presenting childhood gender nonconformity as a medical condition to be corrected — is the opposite of contemporary gender-affirming medicine, which does not advocate for hormonal intervention at age three.
Epstein's directive: 2019. In a 2019 email, Epstein writes to Trivers: "I want you to focus on transgender biology." This is one of the most direct documents in the entire EFTA file set showing Epstein steering a scientist's research agenda toward a specific topic. Trivers subsequently published research on "transgendered belief" — a paper examining finger-length digit ratios as a supposed biological predictor for gender identity. The methodology has been widely criticized by gender researchers as reductionist.
What Trivers's research represents. The finger-length ratio methodology Trivers applied to trans identity is part of a broader research tradition that attempts to find biological "markers" for gender identity — work that critics say biologizes gender in ways that can be used to pathologize trans people. Epstein's directive to "focus on transgender biology" — coupled with the dehumanizing framing in the December 2018 email — suggests his interest was not in affirming trans identity but in studying it as a biological deviation. This is continuous with his broader eugenics-adjacent funding agenda.
Trivers on the Epstein relationship. Trivers has publicly defended his relationship with Epstein, calling him "a brilliant man" and saying the relationship was entirely intellectual. When colleagues criticized him for maintaining the relationship after Epstein's 2008 conviction, Trivers stated he did not believe Epstein was guilty of what he was convicted of. He has not publicly addressed the specific content of the 2018 transgender email.
The email was sent after Epstein had been publicly accused of running a sex-trafficking ring, after his 2008 conviction, and in the same year the Southern District of New York was building the federal case that would result in his July 2019 arrest. Two men — one a convicted sex offender, one a controversial evolutionary biologist — exchanging dehumanizing emails about transgender people while discussing whether three-year-olds should receive hormonal interventions, in 2018, while a federal trafficking case was being assembled against one of them, is not a routine scientific correspondence.
The content of the email has been described by Queer Science Lab researcher Ev L. Nichols as "graphic." The full text has not been published verbatim in mainstream outlets.
Trivers published his co-authored research on "transgendered belief" in 2020 — a year after Epstein directed him to "focus on transgender biology" and months before Epstein's death. The paper examined digit (finger-length) ratios as a predictor for gender identity. Key context:
— Digit ratio research has a checkered history as a proxy for hormonal exposure — findings are often not replicated
— Applying it to gender identity specifically has been criticized as part of a broader effort to find biological "markers" that could be used to pathologize trans identity
— The paper was co-authored with researchers whose institutional affiliations are in the public record but have not been publicly connected to Epstein funding
Section 05
The Eugenics Lens: Where This Fits in Epstein's Broader Agenda
Epstein's science funding was not neutral. As documented in the Transhumanism report, Epstein's scientific philanthropy was consistently directed toward research at the intersection of genetics, human reproduction, and what he privately called "racial hygiene" and "improving the human gene pool." His baby farm plan — impregnating 20 women at Zorro Ranch — was framed in explicitly eugenic terms. His funding of evolutionary biologists, behavioral geneticists, and psychologists followed a pattern of supporting researchers willing to work in areas that mainstream science considers either discredited or ethically problematic.
Where transgender biology fits. Epstein's directive to Trivers to "focus on transgender biology" — and the content of the 2018 email discussing toddlers and hormonal intervention — is most consistent with viewing trans identity as a biological phenomenon to be studied, categorized, and potentially manipulated. This is not an affirmation of trans identity — it is an instrumentalization of it. The same scientific tradition that Epstein funded around race science, behavioral genetics, and sexual selection treats gender identity as a biological variable subject to the same analytical framework.
The Ting relationship vs. the Trivers relationship. The two documented threads of Epstein's transgender interest are almost opposite in character. The Ting relationship involves a plastic surgeon who provides clinical care and later founds a major trans medicine program — Epstein's connection appears to be that of a donor maintaining relationships with prominent medical figures. The Trivers relationship involves dehumanizing discussion of trans people and explicit direction to study trans identity through a reductive biological lens. These two threads coexist in the same file set without obvious reconciliation.
The instrumentalization pattern. Throughout Epstein's scientific funding, a consistent pattern appears: he did not fund science to advance knowledge in a disinterested way. He funded science that could be instrumentalized — used to justify, normalize, or operationalize particular views about human reproduction, sexuality, and genetic hierarchy. His interest in transgender biology fits this pattern, whether the direction was to support trans medicine infrastructure (Ting) or to fund research framing trans identity as a biological deviation (Trivers).
The Transhumanism report documents Epstein's stated belief that he could "seed the human race" through a baby farm at Zorro Ranch, his discussion of "racial hygiene" with researchers, and his funding of scientists willing to work in behaviorally and genetically reductive frameworks.
The transgender biology agenda is a logical extension: if Epstein viewed human reproduction and sexuality as engineering problems to be optimized, trans identity — with its questions about biological sex, hormones, and development — is precisely the kind of topic his scientific agenda would address.
Whether his interest was in supporting trans medicine or in undermining it through reductive biology is genuinely unclear from the available documents. Both interpretations are consistent with different parts of the evidence.
The available EFTA documents do not contain:
— Any statement by Epstein explicitly supporting or opposing transgender identity or rights
— Any documented funding of anti-trans advocacy organizations or lobbying groups
— Any documented connection between his trafficking operation and trans victims or targets
— Any statement from Ting, Trivers, or other contacts indicating Epstein expressed explicit anti-trans views
The evidence for Epstein's personal views on trans identity is the 2018 Trivers email — authored by Trivers, not Epstein — and Epstein's directive to "focus on transgender biology." Both point toward an instrumental, clinical interest rather than an explicit political position.
Section 06
The MIT Connection: Managing What Gets Pitched to Bill Gates
Joichi Ito and the MIT Media Lab. Joichi Ito was director of MIT's Media Lab from 2011 to 2019 — when he was forced to resign after the New Yorker reported that he had facilitated and concealed Epstein's donations to MIT after Epstein's 2008 sex offender conviction. Epstein gave approximately $7.5 million to MIT through Ito. The relationship between Epstein and MIT is documented extensively in the broader files and in Ronan Farrow's New Yorker investigation.
EFTA01038315 — the Gates pitch management email. One specific email in the EFTA file set — EFTA01038315 — shows Epstein actively managing which scientific topics Ito would pitch to Bill Gates through MIT's Media Lab. Epstein was not passively funding science — he was actively managing the pipeline of ideas that would reach one of the world's largest private science funders. The Sayer Ji investigation raised the question of whether transgender science was among the topics on that pitch list. MIT has not confirmed or denied this.
The significance of the Gates management. Bill Gates gave hundreds of millions of dollars to global health, science, and education through the Gates Foundation. If Epstein was curating which scientific topics and researchers would be introduced to Gates through the MIT conduit, he had leverage over a philanthropic pipeline that dwarfs his own direct funding capacity. This is the most structurally significant element of the Epstein-MIT-Gates connection — more significant than the direct dollar amounts Epstein himself contributed.
What this does NOT establish. The email does not confirm that transgender science was specifically on the pitch list. It does not confirm that Gates funded trans medicine research through MIT connections. It establishes only that Epstein was managing the topic agenda for Gates introductions through MIT. The question of what was on that agenda requires further documentation not currently in the public record.
Epstein's funding model was not primarily about the amounts he gave — $50,000 to Ting, $7.5M to MIT — it was about the relationships those amounts bought. By being a donor, he gained:
— Personal access to prominent scientists and doctors
— The ability to direct research agendas ("focus on transgender biology")
— Social cover (a convicted sex offender who was also a science philanthropist was harder to prosecute and easier to associate with)
— A conduit to larger funders (Gates) whose agendas he could influence
The $50,000 to Ting bought years of relationship, island visits, and the opportunity to be named as a potential funder of America's most prominent transgender surgery documentary. The ROI on his science spending, in terms of access and influence, was extremely high.
After Ito's resignation in 2019, MIT commissioned an independent review of its Epstein relationship. The review found that Ito had concealed the source of Epstein's donations and labeled them "anonymous" in MIT records. The review addressed the MIT Media Lab relationship — it did not address the specific question of what scientific agendas Epstein was managing through his MIT relationships, or which funding targets he was steering Ito toward. The full picture of Epstein's MIT influence agenda remains unexamined →
Section 07
Institutional Responses: What Each Party Said
Section 08
Open Questions
Did Epstein fund Born to Be? Ting solicited Epstein's financial support for the documentary in a documented 2016–17 email. The film was released in 2019. The available EFTA documents do not confirm whether Epstein agreed to fund it. Born to Be's production credits and financial disclosures have not been publicly examined in the context of the Epstein relationship.
What was on the Gates pitch list? EFTA01038315 establishes Epstein was managing the scientific topic agenda Ito would pitch to Gates through MIT. The contents of that agenda — and whether transgender science appeared on it — are not established in currently available documents.
What is in the April 2018 Ting email? The final documented email from Ting to Epstein (April 24, 2018, EFTA02667053) says Ting wanted to share "some changes in my career that you may find of interest." The specific changes described have not been published in full in available reporting. Given the context — three years after the island visit, two years after the transgender program launch, one year after the documentary pitch — the contents of this email could be significant.
Did the relationship continue into 2019? The last documented email is April 2018. Epstein was arrested July 2019. Whether Ting and Epstein had any contact in the 15 months between the final documented email and Epstein's arrest is not established in available materials.
Who was the "mutual friend"? Ting told The Advocate he met Epstein through "a mutual friend" around 2013. The identity of this mutual friend — who connected a convicted sex offender to a prominent Mount Sinai surgeon — has not been reported.
The documented Epstein-Ting-Trivers connection raises a question about institutional due diligence in medical and scientific philanthropy that goes beyond this specific case.
Ting accepted a $50,000 grant from a convicted sex offender — eight years after his conviction, while he was building the relationships that would make him the director of a nationally significant medical program. Mount Sinai received Epstein Foundation funding without, apparently, conducting an institutional review of the donor's background.
These failures of institutional oversight are not unique to transgender medicine or to Epstein — they are documented across Harvard, MIT, and numerous other institutions. The failure of due diligence is the systemic finding. The specific program it touched is incidental.
Section 09
Primary Sources
Renowned Transgender Surgeon Defends Appearing in Epstein Files
Feb. 3, 2026. Definitive reporting on the Ting–Epstein emails. Includes Ting's full response and the EFTA document descriptions. The Advocate explicitly noted the documents "do not allege wrongdoing by Ting."
advocate.com →Emails Reveal Epstein Encouraged Scientist to Study "Transgender Biology"
Feb. 6, 2026. The Trivers email coverage — dehumanizing language, toddler hormonal intervention suggestion, Epstein's 2019 directive to "focus on transgender biology."
them. via yahoo →Six Documents That Connect Jeffrey Epstein to Transgender Medicine
Feb. 16, 2026. Sayer Ji's compiled investigation including the EFTA document numbers, the Gates pitch management email (EFTA01038315), and the full institutional analysis.
sayerji.substack.com →Factually.co: Did Epstein Fund Transgender Research?
Apr. 22, 2026. Balanced fact-check distinguishing confirmed funding (breast cancer grant) from alleged funding (trans documentary). Clarifies what the emails do and don't establish.
factually.co →Factually.co: What Were Epstein's Views on Transgender People?
Apr. 22, 2026. Documents Epstein's framing of transgender biology as reductionist and dehumanizing — distinct from affirming. Confirms dehumanizing email language.
factually.co →Ev L. Nichols — DOJ Archive Search ("transsexual")
Feb. 3, 2026. The primary research that surfaced the Trivers emails — Nichols searched the DOJ EFTA archive and published findings on the Queer Science Lab website.
Referenced in Advocate coverage →Sex-Change Surgeon Asked Epstein to Fund Transgender Documentary
Feb. 2026. Details on Ting's documentary pitch email including the "Born to Be" connection and the Emmy nominations. Includes EFTA02667053 reference.
aol.com (via Daily Caller) →Official DOJ Epstein EFTA Archive
All documents referenced in this report are searchable in the public DOJ archive. EFTA02667053, EFTA01038315, and related files are accessible through the library search tool.
justice.gov/epstein →