Lorraine Williamson
For Spain, the latest dump of US records linked to Jeffrey Epstein has landed with a familiar jolt: a famous name, a thin paper trail, and a lot of unanswered questions. In the Epstein documents, Spain, Aznar, the former prime minister’s name appears not in letters or diaries, but on administrative paperwork — shipping receipts and a travel-agency payment entry.
That distinction matters because the documents released so far do not set out any allegation of criminal conduct involving José María Aznar.
What the US has actually released
On Friday, 30 January 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice said it had published over three million additional pages in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, alongside more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. The department also cautioned that the production may include items submitted to the FBI by the public — including material that could be fake or false — and said redactions were intended to protect victims and families.
For readers trying to make sense of the noise, the headline point is simple: this is a mass release of mixed material, where a name appearing in a log or receipt is not proof of a relationship — and certainly not proof of wrongdoing.
Where Aznar’s name appears in the paperwork
Spanish outlet RTVE reports that the newly published files include shipping receipts with Aznar named as the recipient of two packages.
One shipment is dated September 2003 and is addressed to La Moncloa — the official residence and working complex of Spain’s prime minister in Madrid — with the label listing “President and Ana Aznar” as recipients. A second shipment, dated May 2004, is addressed to the FAES Foundation, the think tank Aznar founded after leaving office.
The travel-agency payment entry — and the name confusion
The same tranche also refers to a $1,050 payment made via a US travel agency frequently associated with Epstein’s arrangements, recorded under the name “José María Aznar”. Several Spanish reports note the obvious complication: Aznar’s son shares the same name, and the documents do not make clear who the entry refers to.
In other words, this part of the record is suggestive enough to prompt questions — but still too vague to answer them.
What the documents don’t show
So far, there is no published detail about:
-
What was inside the packages?
-
Who physically received them?
-
Why were they sent?
Just as importantly, the appearance of a name on a receipt does not establish personal contact, agreement, or awareness of criminal behaviour. The DOJ itself stresses the scale and messiness of the material being released, including the possibility of unreliable submissions.
Aznar’s response
According to RTVE, people close to Aznar say he did not know Epstein and was unaware of the shipments, rejecting any suggestion of contact.
Why this matters in Spain
Epstein’s case remains globally magnetic because it sits at the intersection of wealth, power, and abuse — and because his networks cut across countries and institutions. When a prominent Spanish political figure is referenced, even in mundane documentation, it is inevitably news.
But the responsible way to read it is narrow: a data point in a huge archive, not a verdict. In Spain’s polarised climate, the difference between “named in a document” and “implicated” is where trust is either defended or lost.
The key question now
The public record, as it stands, supports only this: some form of correspondence or logistics reached high-profile Spanish addresses in 2003–2004, and a travel-agency ledger contains a matching name. The next stage — if it comes — would be clarifying whether there is any corroborating context (additional paperwork, provenance, or verification) that turns administrative traces into a coherent narrative.
For now, the Aznar Epstein documents in Spain is a reminder of how modern scandal works: one line in a database can travel faster than the facts that explain it.
Sources: