The Jeffrey Epstein scandal has reemerged with intensity, dominating headlines, hearings on Capitol Hill, and endless analysis across television news. Newly unsealed documents and disturbing details have captured bipartisan attention, uniting Democrats and Republicans in their demand for answers. Yet amid this frenzy, one network stands apart in its near silence: Fox News.

According to a transcript analysis from the past three weeks, Fox News mentioned Epstein just 429 times. By comparison, CNN referenced him 3,668 times and MSNBC 5,624 times. The disparity is glaring, especially for a scandal that has managed to cut across party lines and captivate the nation. For the most-watched cable news network in America, this absence is not simply surprising—it is revealing.

What coverage does exist on Fox appears strategically placed in low-stakes time slots. Mentions are confined to non-prime programming, the hours when viewership and advertising dollars matter least. In the prime-time lineup, where Fox defines its identity and secures its profits, Epstein barely exists. This isn’t a case of misplaced editorial judgment; it is a deliberate act of omission.

The reason is not hard to discern. Fox News has built its financial success on catering to its audience’s political preferences, and that means avoiding uncomfortable stories that touch too closely on Donald Trump. Epstein’s network of associates, his ties to political and business elites, and the recent release of documents that include Trump-adjacent details are all inconvenient for Fox’s brand of storytelling. So, the network appears to have chosen loyalty and profit over transparency.

The contrast with Fox’s handling of other news stories is striking. Take the recent jobs report, which revealed a meager 22,000 new positions and downward revisions of earlier figures. On paper, the numbers were disastrous. Fox & Friends, however, gave the story just 16 seconds before moving on. Under a Democratic administration, the same data would almost certainly have been framed as catastrophic, accompanied by foreboding music and endless segments about economic collapse.

Inflation coverage has followed the same pattern. Headline inflation remains at 2.7 percent year-over-year, unchanged from last July, and core inflation continues to hover above the Federal Reserve’s target. Grocery prices remain high, with eggs still 16 percent more expensive than they were in 2024. Yet the network that once staged elaborate on-air displays of inflated receipts has grown quiet on the issue. The economic pain is still there, but the narrative has shifted—because the occupant of the White House has changed.

The selective silence was especially apparent when the House Oversight Committee released new Epstein-related materials. Among them was a grotesque sketch of Epstein grooming young girls for “massage” work. Fox News acknowledged it only once. Another document, a “birthday letter” linked to Trump and confirmed through the release of Epstein estate records, went unmentioned entirely—even though Fox’s corporate sibling, The Wall Street Journal, had reported on it. The dissonance is hard to ignore.

The avoidance strategy becomes clearer when looking at Fox’s broader editorial choices. In early July, network hosts invoked “Obama” more than 100 times in a single day, while mentioning Epstein just twice. It wasn’t an oversight; it was narrative management. Fox knows its audience, and it knows the stories that risk alienating them. After losing viewers to Newsmax and OANN in early 2021, Fox rebuilt its dominance by providing something the others could not: an aura of mainstream legitimacy combined with unwavering support for Trump.

The formula has worked. Fox’s prime-time lineup is not just dominant in cable news but regularly tops all of American television. Its financial strength is undeniable. But financial health is not the same as journalistic credibility.

Fox does employ talented, credible reporters. White House correspondents Jacqui Heinrich and Peter Doocy, as well as foreign reporters like Jennifer Griffin, Benjamin Hall, and Trey Yingst, have demonstrated fearless, fact-based reporting. But these individuals operate in the shadows of a prime-time schedule that prioritizes cheerleading over accountability.

Ultimately, the truth of any newsroom lies not only in what it covers but also in what it chooses to omit. Fox’s omissions are conspicuous, and they reveal a business decision disguised as editorial judgment. The network has concluded that protecting Trump, and by extension its Trump-loyal audience, is more valuable than pursuing stories that might unsettle them. That may be savvy economics, but it is not journalism.

The cost of this strategy is credibility. When the country’s most-watched “news” channel replaces reporting with flattery and trades fact for narrative, it deprives viewers of reality. Instead, it offers a polished mirror—reflecting back an image that reassures rather than informs. It is a mirror designed to flatter, not to reveal.