Axios Reporter: People Are Getting Carried Away With the Epstein Files

Axios’ White House reporter Marc Caputo made a point on X today about people getting carried away with bogus reports based on the Epstein Files.

2 Without doublechecking, the influencers spread the story that Wayne impregnated an 11 y/o Mexican girl & escaped justice by having a Marine “stand in” for him

I asked him. He denied it. Duh.

The whole email is full of crazed red flags

But it was shared like gospel pic.twitter.com/we7e41Z6Rd

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 4, 2026

I hadn’t heard anything about this but looking around I do see some people spreading these claims. Grok was saying there was no evidence to support it.

No, this claim is not supported by credible evidence. The allegation stems from a 2019 informant’s email in Epstein-related files, but it’s unsubstantiated. Earl Anthony Wayne isn’t listed as an Epstein associate in official documents, and no news outlets or court records confirm…

— Grok (@grok) February 1, 2026

So it seems Caputo is right about this being unsubstantiated, though he admits Wayne didn’t help himself by deleting his account.

4 In fairness to some who spread or commented on this story, Wayne panicked & nuked his X account, & @AmericanU where he’s a prof didn’t quickly issue any statements denying this

That fed the conspiracists

Take heed, everyone: rapid response in this environment is a must

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 4, 2026

Anyway, I have no problem with any of this to this point. If people are spreading false stories, either intentionally or because they are too dumb to realize it, they should be held accountable. But then Caputo had to turn this into some self-praise for real MSM reporters.

6 For all of the MSM’s faults, we issue corrections & clarifications

There’s an entire industry dedicated to amplifying those errors & biases

But lots of those accusers are the very influencers who get stuff wrong all the time, never admit it & gishgallop to the next absurdity

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 4, 2026

Yeah, sorry I just can’t go there with you. I mean, sure real reporters probably do a better job than some anti-Israel half-wit spreading stories for clicks but that’s such a low bar. Someone else pointed out that the MSM’s track record wasn’t all that great. And Caputo invited a challenge.

Ok. I’ll play along

Give me your three best examples

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 4, 2026

People offered more than three examples, all of which Caputo ignored except one.

For fun https://t.co/xJbhGUUuqC

— Gracy (@Gracy10164) February 4, 2026

Remember this one?

https://t.co/QIBtSwsi1T

— Gracy (@Gracy10164) February 4, 2026

https://t.co/TigkNlh8Oz

— Gracy (@Gracy10164) February 4, 2026

The story about the Covington school kids was everywhere and now it’s just this little stub.

https://t.co/k0W9T6VXjN

— Gracy (@Gracy10164) February 4, 2026

Here’s @axios claiming Trump called the Charlottesville protesters “Very Fine People”.https://t.co/muomsIO0qu

— Bryan Farris (@SaveFarrisLSU) February 4, 2026

Finally Caputo chose this one to respond to:

When I wrote about “gullible followers crave confirmation bias,” I’m referring to people like you

Contrary to what you wrote, the story did not “uncritically” report what the VP & DHS Secretary said because it clearly noted eye witness accounts that didn’t see it

1/2 pic.twitter.com/KQJXUFKm2A

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 4, 2026

Fair enough. The story did mention there was a divergence of opinion, but that didn’t stop this lie from spreading around the whole country. It took most of a year for the investigation to conclude it never happened. By that point, no one cared any more.

The obvious one that came to my mind was the Steele dossier. How many years did we hear about that in the news? And how many of the people who promoted it would later correct themselves? As I pointed out, Erik Wemple did a long series for the Washington Post about all of the reporters who refused to walk this back once it was proved to be junk.

How about the bogus Steele dossier. Many, many media outlets pushed this garbage and later failed to correct the record with anywhere near the same enthusiasm. Erik Wemple did a 10-part series about this: https://t.co/jbq4ZaHwEW

— John Sexton (@verumserum) February 4, 2026

Actually, now that I look it was at least 11 parts, not 10. (There’s my correction.) And all of those really are worth a read if you’re interested in how the media operates.

The Steele dossier was arguably one of the biggest over-hyped frauds in recent history. It was a major story for months and months, full of scandal and mystery. But as Wemple pointed out many reporters did not own up to their roles in spreading this junk once it was debunked. They just moved on to something else.

How about the 1619 Project? How much ink has been spilled about that and the false and unsupported claims about history which were called out by multiple professional historians. The whole concept was that 1619 was America’s “true founding” and that slavery had been the impetus behind everything since then, including the Revolutionary War. It wasn’t true and in the end the NY Times corrected one word.

On March 11, the Times issued a correction to its 1619 Project, a sprawling journalistic exercise that has proved more editorial than historical. 

And this wasn’t just any correction. The 1619 Project was based on the idea that slavery was “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution,” but the Times is now hedging on that assertion.

In the paper’s correction, editors changed the wording of Hannah-Jones’ leading article in the series to say that “some of” the colonists fought the American Revolution to defend slavery. 

The editors called this a “small” clarification, and it was indeed very small, although considering that the 1619 Project’s full-throated commitment to demonstrating that American history can only be explained through the lens of slavery, this correction appears nothing short of essential.

There are many such cases as the saying goes. A lot more than three examples can be provided to show it. 

So, sure, the MSM is better than random clout-chasers on X. I’ll give them that much. But the idea that they’re doing a bang-up job of self-correcting all their errors is nonsense. They correct when they are forced to do so and even then they admit to as little failure as possible.

Update: After I finished this I got a response. Again, I’m not sure who we’re comparing the MSM to in this instance, but I appreciate Marc Caputo’s willingness to admit the Steele Dossier was a low point.

Compared to the way the Epstein Files are being pushed online, that coverage was downright responsible

But to your point: yes, coverage of the Dossier and Russia was not our finest moment

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) February 4, 2026

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.