Noam Chomsky Was Right About Epstein

Michael Tracey

February 13, 2026

 

Judging by the delirium that has accompanied the latest release of “Epstein Files,” modern Americans no longer have any standing to snicker at their seventeenth-century forebears who convinced themselves that witches were terrorizing Colonial Massachusetts. It was comforting to imagine such outbreaks of superstitious mania were a thing of the very distant past. How wrong we were. Because if the upheaval around Jeffrey Epstein proves anything, it’s that Americans circa 2026 are as ready as ever to plunge into the most sub-rational of mob frenzies.

At the moment, anyone who so much as exchanged some light email banter with Epstein can expect to face instant, ostentatious censure. For what crime, one might ask? The answer is seldom articulated with any precision, other than a general certitude that this depraved past association must attest to some spiritual (and perhaps literal) guilt. Mere proximity to Epstein, whether physical or digital—and no matter how fleeting the interaction—consigns the newly damned to be maligned as Pedophile Enablers, would-be Child Sex-Traffickers, or perhaps even culpable in child-sex criminality themselves. No actual crimes need be verified, nor even specifically alleged, for the castigations to come thundering down.

Among the strangest casualties of the entire affair is Noam Chomsky. Whatever one thinks of his contributions to linguistics, or his political history, it would be impossible to seriously contest Chomsky’s impact as a researcher, theorist, and advocate. But suddenly, we are being told that his reputation is in tatters and his life’s work tainted because he socialized and corresponded with Jeffrey Epstein. None of those rushing forward with melodramatic denunciations betray the slightest hint of an essential trait that Chomsky himself exhibited: a willingness to examine the actual facts and follow them to their logical conclusion, notwithstanding the opprobrium that may be unleashed as a consequence. 

Here is that unutterable conclusion for present purposes: Chomsky was substantively correct in his judgments about the Epstein hysteria. That he should now be repudiated for this—by a parade of former friends and collaborators, no less—merely underscores how pervasive the hysteria is.

“Among the strangest casualties of the entire affair is Noam Chomsky.”“The moral and factual parameters of this entire issue have already been conclusively settled.”Ironies suffuse every dimension of the Epstein ordeal, but the latest Chomsky angle is a special case. Survey your average cross-section of social media users, and you will be told with supreme confidence that the story is fundamentally about an Israeli subterfuge campaign, in which Epstein deviously maneuvered every which way, “honeypotting” and blackmailing all manner of prominent individuals at the direction of the Mossad. Somehow, the web he ultimately wove was so wide that it ensnared even Chomsky—perhaps the most consistent and high-profile critic of Israel over the past six decades.

We are supposed to be dumbstruck that Chomsky would have accepted an invitation to attend a small soirée at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan, over the course of which the host picked up the phone and called the Norwegian diplomat who supervised the Oslo accords of 1991, leading to what Chomsky described as a “lively interchange.” 

Epstein also brokered a meeting with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, and Chomsky recounted having enjoyed the ensuing “fruitful discussion.” While he and Barak still had many disagreements, Chomsky said, the meeting also produced some unexpected insights; he particularly appreciated the chance to probe Barak on the Taba accords of 2001, about which Chomsky had written extensively. Many facets “remain obscure and controversial because the diplomatic record is still mostly secret,” he said. “Barak’s discussion of the background was illuminating, also surprising in some ways.”

Given his longstanding interests, it seems entirely unsurprising that Chomsky would have taken these opportunities. But many of his erstwhile compatriots now insist we should all be appalled. Vijay Prashad, who co-authored multiple books with Chomsky, declares himself “horrified and shocked” at the revelations of his friend’s behavior. Prashad maintains that even if Chomsky were able to explain himself, which he is not, having been debilitated by a stroke three years ago, there is “no context that can explain this outrage.” No additional information needed, evidently, for Prashad to excoriate and disavow his onetime idol—now ninety-seven years old and incapable of communicating. “Why provide comfort and advice to a pedophile for his crimes?” asks an anguished Prashad.

The left-wing journalist Chris Hedges has likewise denounced Chomsky for having taken rides on Epstein’s private jet, because it was “nicknamed the Lolita Express, a literary reference to the sexual exploitation of girls Noam would have recognized.” If Hedges ever bothered to learn the facts, he would discover that of course Epstein never himself “nicknamed” his own aircraft the Lolita Express. In reality, the “nickname” was a cheeky invention of a British tabloid newspaper in 2015—and the origins were purportedly attributed to some anonymous locals in the US Virgin Islands. Does Hedges imagine Epstein strode onto the tarmac, hollering “All Aboard the Lolita Express!” with a geriatric Chomsky by his side? In the age of Epstein mania, there is clearly no incentive—politically, journalistically, legally, or otherwise—to dispel these farcical myths, and every incentive to amplify them.

Hedges proceeds to declare Chomsky’s affiliation with Epstein an “unforgivable stain” that “irreparably tarnishes his legacy”—while of course saying nothing that would establish the logical basis for such a histrionic claim. Because to the likes of Hedges, the moral and factual parameters of this matter have already been conclusively settled. He proclaims that Chomsky “knew about Epstein’s abuse of children. They all knew. And like others in the Epstein orbit, he did not care.” 

But let’s talk about what Hedges does or does not know for a moment. The apparently prevailing assumption is that Chomsky should have been ethically obliged to refuse any association whatsoever with Epstein, on account of the conduct Epstein was criminally convicted of committing some years prior. Let’s consider that proposition: What damning details could Chomsky have known when he became acquainted with Epstein around 2013-2015? Thankfully, it’s more than possible to answer this question, with a simple review of the available record. Had he been moved for some reason to analyze Epstein’s criminal history, Chomsky would have found that Epstein pleaded guilty to two state-level prostitution charges in Florida in June 2008, completed his sentence, and was thereafter free to re-enter society. 

In terms of the specifics of those charges, the only minor whom Epstein ever pleaded guilty to victimizing was a single individual, Ashley Davis, who had been seventeen years old during the relevant encounters, and told Palm Beach police that she had consensual sexual intercourse with Epstein one time, the day before her eighteenth birthday. She also said Epstein never forced her to do anything, was never violent or coercive, and that she voluntarily went to his house on approximately fifteen occasions, bringing a friend in at least one instance, and that she participated in sexualized “massage” scenarios in exchange for cash, gifts, and—as she told a Florida Grand Jury in July 2006—“polite conversation.” At the Grand Jury session, the then-eighteen-year-old appeared far more troubled by her unwanted embroilment in the state’s prosecutorial efforts than she ever was by her past interactions with Epstein. In any event, Davis ultimately became the sole minor identified by the Assistant State Attorney as having been victimized by Epstein when he entered his guilty plea in June 2008.

That is what Chomsky could have known about the harms wrought by Epstein, based on the only offenses Epstein was ever criminally convicted of perpetrating. Here are some things Chomsky could not have possibly known: that Epstein was orchestrating a massive “child-sex trafficking” and blackmail ring, that he was an actively dangerous pedophile predator, or that he was holding vulnerable girls in some sort of heinous sex-slave captivity. He couldn’t have known these things not because he was ignorant of the facts, but because there was never any credible basis to believe such things about Epstein in the first place, then or now.

The newest round of so-called Epstein Files produced by the Department of Justice sheds additional light on why this is so, with record after record revealing that government investigators could not substantiate that Epstein was running any sort of large-scale “child sex-trafficking” or blackmail operation; and further, that the alleged total number of “victims” had been grossly exaggerated. None of this was remotely unforeseeable. The grounds for the most fanciful Epstein-related theories were always incredibly weak, as one could ascertain by simply looking at the evidence, which Chomsky likely had.

Back when he was still operating at full cognitive capacity, Chomsky was renowned for his command of the facts, whatever topic might be at hand. “Check the record,” he would frequently tell interlocutors, before proceeding to demonstrate his mastery of the relevant record. So it would stand to reason that Chomsky did at some point check the record when it came to Epstein. Perhaps not as voraciously as he once might have studied the Vietnam War, but enough to develop a reasonably accurate picture of the pertinent details. Indeed, in the now notorious exchange where Epstein asked for his advice in February 2019, Chomsky remarks that he’d been thinking about Epstein’s query all day—and “in fact, long before.” Chomsky can thus be assumed to have acquired far more knowledge as to the underlying facts and evidence than virtually anyone now demanding his retroactive banishment. 

When Chomsky pointed to the “hysterical accusations” being lobbed at Epstein, he was making a well-founded observation. If any fair-minded person were to evaluate the main thrust of those accusations—whether it was during that 2019 email exchange, or today, after the release of millions more “Epstein Files”—the only viable conclusion would be that to call the flood of accusations “hysterical” is a vast understatement. It was perceptive of Chomsky to recognize this relatively early in the hysteria outbreak—notwithstanding whatever personal bias he might have incurred through his relationship with Epstein. 

New emails show Epstein played an unexpectedly central role in helping Chomsky resolve a long-running financial dispute with his three adult children. The conflict appeared to stem from Chomsky’s marriage to his second wife, Valeria, after his first wife Carol died in 2008. The adult children were attempting to restrict Chomsky’s ability to access his personal trust, apparently due to misgivings about Valeria’s influence. “I’ve worked hard for 70 years, put away a substantial sum of money. I surely have the right to access it,” Chomsky wrote. “All of this is a painful cloud that I never would have imagined would darken my late years.” 

His second wife also maintained her own correspondence with Epstein. At one point Valeria wrote to him: “This is becoming intolerable. I haven’t gotten involved at all in this discussion because I think it is their business, but I see it affecting my husband’s health.” Eventually, Epstein managed to broker a solution to the tedious affair, using a slightly inscrutable mix of accounting and legal methods. Valeria was effusive in her thanks: “Absolutely no one would have done anything. But you. We know that there is not enough to compensate for all you have been doing for us, but we would like if you would retain whatever percentage you think appropriate for all the time you have been putting in this particular case.” Epstein declined any compensation. 

These grateful messages should be seen as partial context for the “PR advice” Chomsky later offered Epstein, which is now said to be his most obviously intolerable sin. The backdrop of the February 2019 exchange was the Department of Justice’s announcement of an investigation into the propriety of the so-called “sweetheart deal” Epstein received to resolve his Florida prosecution eleven years prior. An adverse court ruling also came down (later overturned) finding that prosecutors had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by giving Epstein a federal Non-Prosecution Agreement without sufficient advance notice to government-designated victims. And it was also in the midst of the months-long furor sparked by a supposedly landmark series of articles in the Miami Herald about Epstein, first published in November 2018. 

Chomsky recommended that Epstein refrain from giving any full-throated response to the swirling outrage, as this would only “provide a public opening for an onslaught of venomous attacks”—including from “publicity seekers” and “cranks of all sorts.” The oncoming deluge would furthermore be “impossible to answer” in any rational manner, given the predominant public “mood” at the time—and particularly given “the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women, which has reached the point that even questioning a charge is a crime worse than murder.” Chomsky then posits that “for virtually everyone who sees any of this”—meaning the torrent of condemnatory media coverage—“the reaction will be ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire, maybe raging fire.’” And that will be so, Chomsky said, “whatever the facts, which few will even think of investigating.” On all of these points, he has been resoundingly vindicated. 

To illustrate why Chomsky was correct in the guidance he imparted, consider the Miami Herald series, which had set off the torrent of vitriol against Epstein. Featured in those articles were exactly the cranks and publicity seekers that Chomsky had warned about. Though Julie K. Brown’s reports were showered with overwrought plaudits, they were actually a case of extreme media malpractice, with highly destructive consequences, in ways Chomsky was uniquely prescient to perceive. 

For one thing, the entire series was confected by the profit-seeking plaintiff’s attorneys representing alleged Epstein “victims,” who engineered the rollout in collaboration with Brown. Bradley Edwards, the lead “victim” lawyer who has become obscenely rich through his unending cycles of Epstein-related litigation, bragged in his own book that he essentially manipulated Brown into doing his PR bidding. Chomsky should be commended for seeing through the sham.

Featured prominently in the series was Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the Edwards client and marquee Epstein “survivor.” Giuffre was a living, breathing maelstrom of inflammatory sex-crime accusations—leveled not just at Epstein himself, but a slew of other prominent individuals. Her most squalid claims were never corroborated, and some she would eventually be forced to retract. Among the aggrieved recipients of these prolific false charges, in a spellbinding bit of irony, was longtime Chomsky nemesis Alan Dershowitz. Their bitter debates over Israel-Palestine are the stuff of YouTube legend. 

As fate would have it, Dershowitz and Chomsky have now been bizarrely united as collateral damage of Giuffre and her lawyers’ defamatory crusade. It was in 2014 that she first accused Dershowitz of committing vile child-sex crimes against her on at least six separate occasions, leading to a protracted legal confrontation. By 2022, she recanted—claiming to have made a “mistake.” Dershowitz, who always vehemently denied he ever even met Giuffre, was as vindicated as anyone could possibly be who maintained they were falsely accused.

But in the interim, there was Giuffre, in the Miami Herald circa 2018, being treated with sublime credulity by Brown—claim after scandalizing claim relayed to a mass audience, without a hint of critical discernment. In one article, Brown promoted Giuffre’s tale that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell had “directed her to have sex” with the likes of Dershowitz and Prince Andrew—all while she was besieged in hellish sex-trafficking captivity. She also invited Giuffre to declare with unwavering certainty that not only was she abused by Epstein, she had also been “lent out to politicians and academics and royalty.” Brown additionally amplified Giuffre’s claim that Epstein had installed hidden surveillance cameras all throughout his many palatial properties, for the purpose of surreptitiously recording prominent individuals in compromising sex acts. These claims are at the heart of the Epstein mythology, which persists to this day. 

So that was the “putrid press” Epstein was dealing with in February 2019. Chomsky was right to describe it as hysterical nonsense—and to observe that the blithering public reaction would be resolutely divorced from the facts. Indeed, four years after Brown’s supposed journalistic milestone, Giuffre finally withdrew her sordid claims against Dershowitz. Claims against Stephen Kosslyn, a Harvard professor of psychology, and Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling magnate, were also retracted. Giuffre would go on to endorse various hoaxes and “QAnon” fantasies and have all sorts of other erratic travails, culminating in her bizarre April 2025 death, following what appears to have been a faked bus crash. Suffice to say, Giuffre was far from credible. And her trail of outlandish claims had been driving an outsized proportion of the incendiary media coverage that Epstein had asked for Chomsky’s advice on how to handle. 

The latest production of “Epstein Files” only further highlights how correct Chomsky was about the onslaught of fact-devoid crankery. After Giuffre was interviewed by federal prosecutors in 2019, an internal memo was produced to memorialize their resulting assessment. Giuffre’s signature allegation of being “lent out” to high-profile men for perverse sexual romps was deemed to have no corroboration. Her claims about Epstein’s illicit network of blackmail video surveillance: also found baseless. Giuffre was even determined to have given prosecutors “internally inconsistent” accounts within the same interview, lied about key events, and told “sensationalized” stories to the media. Which would presumably include the Miami Herald.

“It’s especially disgusting that Noam saw it necessary to shame the victims as hysterics,” fulminated Jeffrey St. Clair, one of Chomsky’s former fellow-travelers at the left-wing zine Counterpunch. But when it came to the world-historic heights of hysteria-peddling achieved by “victims” such as Giuffre, and journalists such as Brown, Chomsky had it right. That his advice was dispensed to Jeffrey Epstein, our modern avatar of all-consuming predatory evil, does not make it any less true. The one place where Chomsky might have erred was to suggest that if Epstein just kept quiet for awhile, the uproar would eventually “fade away.” Six months after their February 2019 exchange, Epstein was in jail, and then shortly thereafter dead. Seven years later, he’s still all anyone can seem to talk about, with the condemnatory mania having grown so intense that even Chomsky himself is being labeled, preposterously, a sex-crime colluder. 

Which only goes to show that Chomsky was once again proven to be uniquely incisive—cutting through the hysterical noise with an unflinching clear-sightedness that few others possess. Shortly before his 2023 stroke, he was also the only public figure of any major notoriety who, when badgered by media outlets to atone for his relationship with Epstein, emphatically declined. Instead of groveling, or concocting a mealy-mouthed PR apology, he responded with the kind of abrasive dismissal that such sleazy inquisitions so richly deserved. “What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence,” Chomsky told a prying reporter. “According to US laws and norms, that yields a clean slate.”