Does a viral image prove that the Epstein files discussed the beginning of World War III, scheduled to start on Feb. 8, 2026? No, that's not true: No such email could be located on the website of the Department of Justice, as of this writing. Lead Stories found a file that had the same identifying numbers, but nothing about World War III.
The claim appeared in a post (archived here) published on X on February 4, 2026. It opened:
EPSTEIN EMAIL LEAK WW3 allegedly planned to begin on February 8 2026.
The entry shared what looked like a screenshot of an electronic exchange addressed to Jeffrey Epstein's email:
To: [email protected] [ [email protected] ]From: James Heywood <REDUCTED>Sent: Thu: 7/17/2018 9:00:02 PMSubject: Off Grid Re: intro, potential angel investmentt opp (nuclear)We need to discuss ww3 the investors want to know if we are still planning Feb 8 2026.Please be advised that I am on vacation till July 29. I will be attempting to be 'off grid'.My assistant Rachael Haynes >.com can help if it is urgent.-jamieEFTA_R1_00353105EFTA01914490
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of post at x.com/SilentlySirs)
Lead Stories, however, was not able to locate the alleged document on the website of the Department of Justice.
A broad search for "ww3" showed seven results, but they were not relevant. For example, "ww3" appeared as part of the domain's address in a shared link or as a citation from a post from a Quora digest.
A search for the misspelled phrase from the email's subject line ("investmentt opp") produced no results.
A search for the names of the supposed sender, "James Heywood," and his supposed assistant, "Rachael Haynes", showed no electronic correspondence mentioning both of them.
A search for the post's exact wording ("ww3 the investors want to know if we are still planning Feb 8 2026") yielded no results, either.
And no Epstein files available on the DoJ's website on the day this was written (archived here) included the date of "Feb 8 2026" or "February 8, 2026".
The closest match was this email (archived here). It shared a few key similarities with the image from the post: the sender's and the recipient's names, a similar headline and the unique numbers on the bottom of the page that appear to have been added later to catalogue the document. Yet, that real email was sent roughly four years earlier, and its content was different:
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of a page at doj.gov)
Lead Stories double-checked the above findings by using Sourcebase.ai (archived here), which uses an AI-powered search to check the same database, with a small number of files still being processed due to the cache's large size.
AI-assisted search showed no matches for the wording from the purported email:
