Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein. Why, Noam?
Why, Noam? (Part 1)
The bubbling cesspool that is the Epstein files continues to belch forth evidence of a hideous, degenerate, and depraved international conspiracy by the cream of capitalism’s crop to enslave and rape hundreds of girls and young women. At the center of the conspiracy was Jeffrey Epstein, the chief pedophile, con artist, and grifter. Epstein also had Really Important People on speed-dial, with whom he did all kinds of business business, money business, political business, and schmoozing: Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, Deepak Chopra, Elon Musk, Katie Couric, Bill Gates, Howard Lutnick, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, Steve Tisch, etc. An editor at the Financial Times described the Epstein files as “an MRI of the establishment,” of “how things work in a culture where shame has vanished.” A lack of shame that flows from a sense of impunity and entitlement,
Then I saw Noam Chomsky’s name in the files.
Chomsky has been a brilliant public intellectual on the Left for decades. He wrote many books on a wide range of subjects. I’ve heard people talk about the impact that a particular book had on their political education. I’ve read some of his articles and I’ve listened to him on webinars and YouTube and in interviews. He has taught generations of students and activists. And also me. I’d wager lots of those people are wondering how that person could be this person in the files.
Here’s an example of this person: In February 2019, eleven years after Epstein had been convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution, Epstein asked Chomsky for advice on how to handle the snowballing negative publicity about his pedophile project. Chomsky commiserated with Epstein about “the horrible way you are being treated in the press and the public,” and added,
What the vultures dearly want is a public response, which then provides a public opening for an onslaught of venomous attacks, many from just publicity seekers or cranks of all sorts -- which are impossible to answer (how do you prove that you are not a neo-Nazi who wants to kill the Jews, or a rapist, or whatever charge comes along?). That’s particularly true now with 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. [My emphasis.] For virtually everyone who sees any of this, the reaction will be “where there’s smoke there’s fire, maybe raging fire” (whatever the facts, which few will even think of investigating).
Chomsky wrote that email three months after the Miami Herald broke the story about a government coverup in Epstein’s 2008 trial and five months before the FBI arrested him on charges of sex trafficking minors. The shit had already hit the fan. Epstein’s victims were screaming for justice, but Chomsky dismissed them as “hysterical.” He actually used that word (or, rather, the noun form), which generations of self-entitled misogynists have used to dehumanize women and to present themselves as the victims. Chomsky chose Epstein’s friendship over Epstein’s victims.
I’ve been around the Left for almost six decades, including 20 years in the Communist Party, USA. I understand that we bring our ideological baggage with us on our political journeys and it’s hard to lighten the load along the way, unlearning all the stuff we didn’t even know we knew. That ideological struggle lasts a lifetime and is never finished. I can attest to that. But the first step is to understand what’s in the suitcase, those hierarchies of class, race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and sexual orientation that pit us against each other instead of against those who create and benefit from the hierarchies. Unlearning is a process, but along with unlearning comes accountability for the harm you cause. I have to believe that Chomsky knows this.
How could Chomsky hang out with Epstein who, even leaving aside the latter’s conviction for soliciting a child for prostitution, represented the worst aspects of a capitalist system Chomsky had inveighed against? Why would Chomsky agree to Epstein arranging a meeting with Ehud Barak, a former prime minister of Israel, to discuss “Israel’s policies regarding Palestinian issues” when Chomsky knew those policies and had condemned them? Why would he use Epstein as a go-between to ask Steve Bannon for a meeting because they had “lots to talk about”? Why not debate them in the open, as he did with others so many times in the past? How did his meeting with Bannon advance the struggle for democracy and against fascism? How did his meeting with Barak advance the cause of Palestinian liberation?
Lots of questions and no answers. Maybe Chomsky was seduced by the easy access to power and the people who wield it: private jets, grabbing dinner in New York City, maybe a vacation on Epstein’s infamous Caribbean island, really important people treating you as really important and asking your opinion on really important matters.
Chomsky’s body of work stands on its own merits and will continue to teach the coming generations, but now there is an asterisk.
Chomsky suffered a severe stroke in 2023, which paralyzed his right side and significantly affected his ability to speak. He is recovering at home, where he turned 97 years old in December. I wish him well. Not because I want him to get better so I can yell “Epstein!” at him, but because I want him to get better. And maybe then he will hold himself accountable. A bi gezunt, Noam.
Why Noam? (Part 2)
Thoughts-Letter / Feb 15, 2026
Valéria Chomsky, Noam’s wife, issued a statement on their behalf on February 7 regarding their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I didn’t come across the statement before we published the newsletter, Why, Noam?, the next day, February 8, in which I criticized Chomsky for his friendship with Epstein and company. It is only fair to offer their explanation and to respond accordingly in this off-cycle newsletter.
Ms. Chomsky apologized that they were taken in by Epstein’s manipulations, which she attributed to “Noam’s overly trust[ing] nature.” Their friendship included, she said, gifts from Epstein, lunch at his ranch in New Mexico, dinners at his Manhattan townhouse, stayovers in his New York City apartment, a visit to his Paris apartment, as well as “social meetings, lunches, and dinners where Epstein was present.” Not mentioned is at least one trip in Epstein’s private jet. That’s a lot of friendship.
The Chomskys befriended Epstein in 2015, seven years after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. When asked about this in 2023, Chomsky replied, “What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence… According to prevailing US laws and norms, that yields a clean slate.”
As Krishnan Kavita asked, “If working-class children had complained of being trafficked by a filthy rich CEO to do toxic and dangerous work, and the CEO got away with a rap on his knuckles, would Chomsky argue that he now had a clean slate?”
If Epstein had been convicted of sex trafficking, would he have a clean slate after he was released? What Chomsky elided in his response is the power imbalance: Epstein was not an individual who made an awful mistake; he was the embodiment of ruling-class power.
Ms. Chomsky’s explanation:
Noam’s initial public response [in 2023] to inquiries about Epstein failed to adequately acknowledge the gravity of Epstein’s crimes and the enduring pain of his victims, primarily because Noam took it as obvious that he condemned such crimes. [My emphasis.] However, a firm and explicit stance on such matters is always required.
Chomsky spent his entire academic and political life condemning the crimes of capitalism, obviously, firmly, and explicitly. Why did he treat Epstein’s crimes differently?
Ms. Chomsky referenced Noam’s February 2019 letter of support to Epstein, who complained about bad press coverage. This is the letter in which Noam decried “the hysteria that has developed about the abuse of women.”
Noam’s email to Epstein, in which Epstein sought advice about the press, should be read in context. Epstein had claimed to Noam that he [Epstein] was being unfairly persecuted, and Noam spoke from his own experience in political controversies with the media. Epstein created a manipulative narrative about his case, which Noam, in good faith, believed in. It is now clear that it was all orchestrated, having as, at least, one of Epstein’s intentions to try to have someone like Noam repairing Epstein’s reputation by association.
Noam’s criticism was never directed at the women’s movement; on the contrary, he has always supported gender equity and women’s rights. What happened was that Epstein took advantage of Noam’s public criticism towards what came to be known as “cancel culture” to present himself as a victim of it.
In their statement, the Chomskys apologize for being manipulated, for being too trusting, for not researching Epstein’s background, for their “lapse in judgment.” That’s fine. But arguing “if I had known” or “that’s not what I meant” or “that was taken out of context” or “everybody knows where I stand” is not self-criticism. Nothing in the files indicates that the Chomskys knew about Epstein’s sex trafficking, but they were part of a cabal that provided Epstein with legitimacy and elite cover under which girls and women were brutalized and dehumanized. If they didn’t know then, they know now. Indirectly, the Chomskys caused harm. They have yet to apologize for that.
Note: Chris Knight’s article, “The Chomsky/Epstein Puzzle,” in Counterpunch, reveals the Chomsky who worked for the military and the Chomsky who fought against militarism. Nick Estes’ interview with Gabriel Rockhill, author of Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism, explores the role of Left intellectuals, including Chomsky, in the Western academy and the role of that academy as a pillar of capitalism. Naomi Klein and Mehdi Hassan break down the real conspiracies behind Epstein and his elite circle.
About Thoughts-letter by Danny Spector: I know what you’re thinking: “Just what I need. Another newsletter. I have 350 emails in my inbox; do I need one more?” Why, yes, yes you do, and thanks for asking. And not just any “one more,” but this one more. My thoughts-letter will be more fun than trying to pronounce the names of all the chemicals in processed foods. It’s a thoughts-letter, not a newsletter, because I’m not a journalist, a scholar, or an expert.
Of the jobs I have had over the past 50 years, I most enjoyed writing features and satirical pieces during the 1980s for the People’s Daily World, the newspaper of the Communist Party, USA. Later on I wrote for a travel magazine. Most recently, and for more than 20 years I worked as a hydrogeologist for environmental consultants, which included writing and editing technical reports.
I am not a professional know-it-all; I am an amateur know-a-little. Your comments, quips, and criticisms are important to me. And to other readers.