No Evidence Links Cory Booker to Epstein Donations as New Jersey Senator Pushes for Full Transparency in Federal Case

At a moment when public trust in political institutions is under intense national scrutiny, a renewed wave of online speculation has placed New Jersey Senator Cory Booker in the orbit of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. A review of available campaign finance records and verified reporting, however, shows no public evidence that Booker ever accepted campaign donations from Epstein, despite repeated claims circulating on social media and political message boards.

What stands out instead is Booker’s increasingly visible role in demanding the public release of unclassified federal records connected to Epstein and his longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. As a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Booker has positioned himself as one of the most persistent voices pressing the Department of Justice to open its files and clarify how the federal government handled one of the most notorious criminal investigations of the past two decades.

According to public filings and widely reviewed donor data, Booker’s name does not appear on verified lists of politicians who received financial contributions from Epstein prior to Epstein’s 2008 conviction or during subsequent years when Epstein continued to maintain political and institutional relationships. This distinction has become increasingly relevant as previously sealed materials, commonly referred to in public discourse as the Epstein files, continue to generate fresh scrutiny of powerful individuals and institutions.

Rather than appearing in connection with Epstein’s donor history, Booker’s involvement is tied to legislative and oversight efforts aimed at forcing transparency. In late 2025, Booker introduced amendments intended to compel the Department of Justice to disclose all unclassified documents related to both Epstein and Maxwell. The proposed measures were crafted to ensure that materials such as investigative records, flight documentation, and internal correspondence could no longer remain shielded from public view solely through administrative delay.

Booker has also publicly called for a floor vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a proposal designed to establish a clearer federal obligation to release unclassified materials tied to the case. In committee hearings and confirmation proceedings, Booker has gone further by questioning judicial nominees and senior Justice Department officials about whether any records were withheld, delayed, or mischaracterized during prior reviews of the Epstein investigation.

For New Jersey voters and national observers alike, Booker’s posture aligns with a broader theme that has defined much of his recent legislative messaging: accountability in high-profile federal cases and institutional responsibility when criminal investigations intersect with political power.

That focus on ethics and transparency extends beyond the Epstein matter. Booker has long emphasized restrictions on his own fundraising practices, including his refusal to accept corporate PAC money. He has also publicly acknowledged past criticism surrounding pharmaceutical industry contributions and previously moved to pause or decline donations from that sector, framing the decision as part of a larger effort to reinforce public confidence in his independence from corporate influence.

The conversation becomes more complicated, however, when attention turns to one of Booker’s most prominent personal and political supporters: Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman.

Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn and one of the Democratic Party’s most influential donors, has been linked to Booker for decades through a combination of shared academic history, personal friendship, and political support. The two attended Stanford and Oxford during overlapping periods and have maintained a long-standing relationship that predates Booker’s rise in national politics.

Over the years, Hoffman has contributed significant sums to Booker’s political campaigns and played a visible role as a high-profile fundraiser during Booker’s 2020 presidential run. Their professional relationship also includes Hoffman’s early investment in Waywire, a social media startup Booker co-founded in 2012 while serving as mayor of Newark. That combination of personal ties, campaign support, and business history has made Hoffman a recurring presence in discussions about Booker’s broader political network, particularly within Democratic fundraising circles.

The distinction between Hoffman’s financial support for Booker and Hoffman’s own controversial association with Epstein has become an increasingly sensitive topic in political commentary. While no evidence links Epstein to Booker’s campaign finances, Hoffman has publicly acknowledged having contact with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction.

Hoffman has stated that he spent one night on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St. James, in 2014. He has also acknowledged visiting Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse and planning trips connected to Epstein’s New Mexico ranch. Those interactions, now scrutinized as part of recently released court materials and investigative reporting, have fueled renewed public debate about how Epstein maintained relationships with influential figures even after his criminal record became widely known.

Hoffman has repeatedly asserted that his involvement with Epstein centered on fundraising activities for the MIT Media Lab, a prestigious academic research institution that received donations connected to Epstein. He has publicly expressed regret for what he described as lending his reputation to efforts that indirectly helped rehabilitate Epstein’s public standing within elite academic and philanthropic circles.

The political ramifications of those admissions have been amplified by Hoffman’s role as a major donor to Democratic candidates, including Booker and President Joe Biden. Critics and political opponents have sought to draw broader conclusions about Democratic fundraising practices based on Hoffman’s past interactions with Epstein. Hoffman, in response, has called for the full and unredacted release of all Epstein-related documents, arguing that comprehensive disclosure is the only way to establish an accurate public record of who was involved, in what capacity, and for what purpose.

For Booker, the overlap between his legislative push for transparency and the scrutiny surrounding a close political ally places him in a uniquely visible position. Supporters argue that Booker’s aggressive stance toward disclosure strengthens, rather than undermines, his credibility in this debate. By advocating for the release of unclassified federal records regardless of political fallout, Booker has effectively endorsed a standard of openness that could place uncomfortable facts on the public record for figures across the political and philanthropic spectrum.

The broader implications reach well beyond one senator or one donor. The Epstein case has evolved into a test of whether federal agencies are willing to subject their own investigative histories to public evaluation, particularly in matters involving wealthy and well-connected individuals. Lawmakers who now call for transparency are also confronting longstanding public skepticism about selective enforcement, prosecutorial discretion, and the influence of power in criminal justice outcomes.

In New Jersey, Booker’s role in this national debate carries particular weight. As a senior Democratic voice from a state with deep ties to federal policy, financial services, and legal institutions, his calls for disclosure resonate locally as well as nationally. They also intersect directly with the ongoing conversation in state and national politics about ethics, campaign finance, and the obligations of public officials to disclose uncomfortable truths, even when they implicate influential allies.

As discussions continue across the landscape of national politics, Booker’s legislative posture places him among the small group of lawmakers actively attempting to move the Epstein issue from public speculation into formal congressional action. Whether those efforts ultimately result in the full release of unclassified federal records remains uncertain. What is clear, based on available evidence, is that claims linking Booker to Epstein’s campaign donations are unsupported, while his record shows sustained involvement in efforts to expose how the federal government handled one of the most consequential criminal cases in modern American history.

For ongoing coverage and analysis of how this issue is shaping national and New Jersey politics, readers can explore related reporting through Sunset Daily News’ political coverage hub.

Summary Table

While Hoffman’s name appears in Epstein’s schedules and flight logs, no victims have made public allegations of wrongdoing against him.