Listen to the article
No Evidence of World War III Plans in Epstein Files, Despite Viral Claims
A viral image circulating on social media claiming to show an email from the Jeffrey Epstein files discussing plans for World War III has been debunked as a fabrication. The alleged document, which has spread widely across platforms like X (formerly Twitter), appears to be a manipulated version of an authentic email with entirely different content.
The fabricated image purports to show correspondence sent to Epstein’s email address (jeevacation@gmail.com) from someone named James Heywood on July 17, 2018, with the subject line “Off Grid Re: intro, potential angel investmentt opp (nuclear).” The message allegedly states: “We need to discuss ww3 the investors want to know if we are still planning Feb 8 2026.”
Extensive searches through the Department of Justice’s publicly available Epstein files have failed to locate any document containing these phrases or references to World War III. When investigators searched for key terms like “ww3” or the misspelled “investmentt opp” from the alleged email’s subject line, no relevant results were found.
What researchers did discover was an authentic email that appears to have served as the template for the fabrication. This genuine document bears the same sender and recipient names, a similar headline, and identical document identification numbers at the bottom (EFTA_R1_00353105 and EFTA01914490). However, this real email was sent approximately four years earlier than the date shown in the viral image and contains completely different content with no mention of World War III or future dates.
The investigation was further verified using AI-powered search tools from Sourcebase.ai, which also found no matches for the purported language about World War III in the Department of Justice’s Epstein file database.
This incident highlights the ongoing problem of misinformation related to the Epstein case. Since the release of thousands of pages of court documents connected to Epstein’s sex trafficking operation in January 2024, social media has been flooded with both genuine revelations and fabricated claims. The high-profile nature of the case, involving numerous wealthy and powerful individuals, has made it particularly fertile ground for conspiracy theories and manipulated content.
Digital manipulation of documents has become increasingly sophisticated, making it easier to create convincing forgeries that can rapidly spread online. In this instance, whoever created the fake email appears to have used authentic document formatting and identification numbers to lend credibility to the fabricated content.
The alleged 2026 start date for a supposed world war particularly stands out as implausible in the context of an email supposedly sent in 2018, as it would suggest a precisely planned global conflict scheduled years in advance.
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have consistently stated they have no evidence of any such coordinated plan for global conflict, and experts in international relations note that major armed conflicts typically emerge from escalating tensions rather than being scheduled years in advance like corporate events.
The viral spread of this fabricated document underscores the importance of critical media literacy and fact-checking in today’s information environment, where sensational claims can rapidly reach millions before verification occurs.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


30 Comments
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Nice to see insider buying—usually a good signal in this space.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Silver leverage is strong here; beta cuts both ways though.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Interesting update on Epstein Files Contain No References to ‘World War III’ Claims for February 2026. Curious how the grades will trend next quarter.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
I like the balance sheet here—less leverage than peers.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Exploration results look promising, but permitting will be the key risk.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
I like the balance sheet here—less leverage than peers.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.
Uranium names keep pushing higher—supply still tight into 2026.
The cost guidance is better than expected. If they deliver, the stock could rerate.
Good point. Watching costs and grades closely.