TL;DR
Sarah Ferguson’s charity, Sarah’s Trust, will close “for the foreseeable future” shortly after newly released U.S. documents revealed past email contact with Jeffrey Epstein while he was in prison, the foundation confirmed.
Why This Matters
The closure of Sarah’s Trust touches three sensitive areas at once: public confidence in charities, renewed scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein’s network, and the modern role of the British royal family. For many donors and volunteers, trust in a charity depends heavily on the perceived integrity and judgment of its public faces. When those figures are linked, even indirectly, to a convicted sex offender, it can raise questions about oversight, vetting, and reputational risk.
Sarah Ferguson, the former Duchess of York, has long used her profile to promote health, literacy, and children’s causes. The shutdown of a relatively new charity, launched in 2020 to support “frontline, grassroots work” on humanitarian, environmental, and poverty issues, may disrupt ongoing projects and partnerships. It also arrives as fresh U.S. Department of Justice document releases keep the Epstein story in the global news cycle, years after his 2019 death in a New York jail was ruled a suicide by authorities.
For the wider royal family, the episode underscores how past associations can continue to shape public debate about accountability and standards for those with titles or close ties to the monarchy, even when no crime is alleged.
Key Facts & Quotes
Sarah’s Trust announced it will close “for the foreseeable future,” a spokesperson said, adding that the decision had been under discussion “for some months.” The charity did not give a detailed reason for shutting down.
The move comes days after the U.S. Department of Justice released more than three million pages of material related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting sex from a minor, according to U.S. court records. Among those documents are emails appearing to show Ferguson in contact with Epstein while he was serving a 13-month sentence in a Florida jail.
Sarah Ferguson’s charity to close in wake of Epstein file revelations
Read the full article here: https://t.co/XIi1yp6tku
More on https://t.co/udSaRa5KVd pic.twitter.com/mqdpNndV7l— Film-News.co.uk (@FilmNewsWeb) February 3, 2026
In one email from the newly released tranche, the former duchess is quoted praising Epstein as the “brother I have always wished for.” In another, she appears to congratulate him on the arrival of a “baby boy.” Other messages show her asking Epstein for advice on how to launch her business venture, Mothers Army, including a June 2009 email that reads: “I need to ask you how I start The Mothers Army company so it can be commercial, how do I do that? Can you help me?”
Being named in the Epstein files is not, on its own, an indication of wrongdoing. However, previous reporting on Ferguson’s ties to Epstein led several organizations to cut links with her as a patron or ambassador. Charities, including Julia’s House children’s hospice, Teenage Cancer Trust, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Children’s Literacy Charity, the National Foundation for Retired Service Animals, and Prevent Breast Cancer, all said in 2025 it was no longer appropriate for her to represent them.
The new U.S. material also includes images of her ex-husband, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the Duke of York, shown kneeling over a woman lying on the floor. He has consistently and strongly denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein; his office has been contacted for comment, according to the latest reports.
What It Means for You
For most readers, this latest update will not change day-to-day life, but it does speak to broader questions about how public figures are vetted by the charities and institutions they front. Donors increasingly look at who is on a charity’s letterhead when deciding where to send money, and staff and volunteers may also weigh reputational risks.
The case is a reminder to check how charities are governed, who their trustees are, and how they respond when controversies emerge. It also shows how long past associations with Epstein can remain in public view, influencing careers and organizational decisions even years after his death. Observers will be watching for any official statements from Sarah Ferguson or the trustees of Sarah’s Trust, and for whether other royal-linked charities revisit their own governance and vetting practices.
How much weight do you think a charity should give to the past associations of its public figureheads when deciding who represents it?
