Linguist Noam Chomsky, 97, has appeared in government files showing he exchanged emails with disgraced financier Jefferey Epstein. The documents released recently by US authorities, reveal that Epstein turned to Chomsky for advice on handling “putrid” media coverage of his sex trafficking allegations.
‘Putrid press’ and puzzling plea
In February 2019, as the Miami Herald was publishing a series of explosive investigative reports on Epstein and revisiting his controversial 2008 plea deal, Epstein reached out to Chomsky.
“Noam, I’d love your advice on how I handle my putrid press,” he wrote. The financier complained that coverage was “spiraling out of control” and asked if he should write an op-ed, defend himself publicly, or simply ignore the media, noting that “mobs are dangerous.”
An account labeled as Chomsky responded, warning that public engagement would fuel “an onslaught of venomous attacks” and lamented the “hysteria that has developed about abuse of women.”
Also Read: Dalai Lama’s name appears 169 times in Epstein Files; office denies connection with convicted financier
The email advised Epstein that ignoring the press was probably the safest course.
The tone of the exchange (academic, detached, almost clinical) clashes sharply with the gravity of the accusations against Epstein, who would be arrested just months later in July 2019 and found dead in a New York jail cell in August awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
No legal wrongdoing… but morally?
Chomsky’s name in the files does not suggest any legal wrongdoing. Valéria Chomsky, Noam’s wife and spokesperson, emphasised in a statement that Epstein “created a manipulative narrative about his case, which Noam, in good faith, believed in.”
She added that the couple only fully understood the “extent and gravity” of Epstein’s alleged crimes after his 2019 arrest.
Still, critics have questioned why one of the world’s most respected intellectuals would even entertain correspondence with a man facing serious allegations.
After all, these weren’t casual dinner party exchanges. They involved guidance on handling public perception amidst a storm of credible accusations.
A closer look at the Chomsky-Epstein relationship
The newly released files show that the Epstein-Chomsky connection was not limited to media advice. Over the years, Epstein and Chomsky apparently corresponded on a wide range of subjects, from academic papers to arranging meetings.
Documents indicate the Chomskys even sought financial guidance from Epstein.
In a September 2017 email, Valéria Chomsky asked Epstein for suggestions on a letter her husband wanted to send to his children regarding finances. “Feel free to suggest. We trust you,” she wrote.
Valéria also noted that Epstein helped Chomsky transfer $270,000 of his own money, while emphasising that Chomsky never invested with Epstein or his offices.
This level of financial and personal interaction adds a layer of discomfort to the story suggesting that the Chomskys were not just receiving philosophical musings but were actively engaging with Epstein in ways that went beyond casual acquaintance.
Chomsky responds, claims distance
Chomsky himself has commented sparingly on the matter. In a 2023 interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said: “First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone’s. Second is that I knew him and we met occasionally.”
He downplayed the relationship though the email troves paint a picture of repeated and sometimes in-depth engagement.
An undated letter from Chomsky in the files mentioned “many long and often in-depth discussions” with Epstein, further showing that their interactions were far from fleeting.
Where does curiosity cross the line?
Valéria Chomsky claims Epstein exploited her husband’s good faith. “Epstein had claimed to Noam that he was being unfairly persecuted, and Noam spoke from his own experience in political controversies with the media,” she explained.
But the question remains: How much responsibility does a public intellectual bear when his advice or opinions, even if neutral or detached, work towards protecting a predator?
In other words, ignoring Epstein’s pleas may have seemed safest, but exchanging multiple emails over years, offering guidance, and even accepting financial help blurs the lines between detachment and complicity.