As many are aware, my husband, Noam Chomsky, now 97, is confronting significant health challenges after suffering a devastating stroke in June 2023. Currently, Noam is under 24/7 medical care and is completely unable to speak or engage in public discourse.
Since this health crisis, I have been entirely absorbed in Noam’s treatment and recovery, solely responsible for him and his medical treatment. Noam and I don’t have any kind of public relations assistance. For this reason, only now have I been able to address the matter of our contacts with Jeffrey Epstein.
Noam and I have felt a profound weight regarding the unresolved questions surrounding our past interactions with Epstein. We do not wish to leave this chapter shrouded in ambiguity.
Throughout his life, Noam has insisted that intellectuals have a responsibility to speak the truth and expose lies — especially when those truths are uncomfortable to themselves.
As is widely known, one of Noam’s characteristics is to believe in the good faith of people. Noam’s overly trusted nature, in this specific case, led to severe poor judgment on both our parts.
Questions have rightly been raised about Noam’s meetings with Epstein, and about administrative assistance his office provided regarding a private financial matter—one that had absolutely no relation to any of Epstein’s criminal conducts.
Noam and I were introduced to Epstein at the same time, during one of Noam’s professional events in 2015, when Epstein’s 2008 conviction in the State of Florida was known by very few people, while most of the public – including Noam and I – was unaware of it. That only changed after the November 2018 report by Miami Herald.
When we were introduced to Epstein, he presented himself as a philanthropist of science and a financial expert. By presenting himself this way, Epstein gained Noam’s attention, and they began corresponding. Unknowingly, we opened a door to a Trojan horse.
Epstein began to encircle Noam, sending gifts and creating opportunities for interesting discussions in areas Noam has been working on extensively. We regret that we did not perceive this as a strategy to ensnare us and to try to undermine the causes Noam stands for.
We had lunch, at Epstein’s ranch, once, in connection with a professional event; we attended dinners at his townhouse in Manhattan and stayed a few times in an apartment he offered when we visited New York City. We also visited Epstein’s Paris apartment one afternoon for the occasion of a work trip. In all cases, these visits were related to Noam’s professional commitments. We never went to his island or knew about anything that happened there.
We attended social meetings, lunches, and dinners where Epstein was present and academic matters were discussed. We never witnessed any inappropriate, criminal, or reproachable behavior from Epstein or others. At no time did we see children or underage individuals present.
Epstein proposed meetings between Noam and figures that Noam had interest in, due to their different perspectives on themes related to Noam’s work and thought. It was in this academic context that Noam wrote a letter of recommendation.
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 “cancelling culture” to present himself as a victim of it.
Only after Epstein’s second arrest in 2019 did we learn the full extent and gravity of what were then accusations—and are now confirmed—heinous crimes against women and children.
We were careless in not thoroughly researching his background. This was a grave mistake, and for that lapse in judgment, I apologize on behalf of both of us. Noam shared with me, before his stroke, that he felt the same way.
In 2023, Noam’s initial public response 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. However, a firm and explicit stance on such matters is always required.
It was deeply disturbing for both of us to realize we had engaged with someone who presented as a helpful friend but led a hidden life of criminal, inhumane, and perverted acts.
Since the revelation of the extent of his crimes, we have been shocked.
In order to clarify the check, Epstein asked Noam to develop a linguistic challenge that Epstein wished to establish as a regular prize. Noam worked on it, and Epstein sent a check for US$20,000 as payment. Epstein’s office contacted me to arrange for the check to be sent to our home address.
Regarding the reported transfer of approximately $270,000, I must clarify that these were entirely Noam’s own funds. At the time, Noam had identified inconsistencies in his retirement resources that threatened his economic independence and caused him great distress. Epstein offered technical assistance to resolve this specific situation. On this matter, Epstein acted accordingly, recovering the funds for Noam, in a display of help and very likely as part of a machination to gain greater access to Noam. Epstein acted solely as a financial advisor for this specific matter. To the best of my knowledge, Epstein never had access to our bank or investment accounts.
It is also important to clarify that Noam and I never had any investments with Epstein or his office—individually or as a couple.
I hope this retrospect clarifies and explains Noam Chomsky’s interactions with Epstein.
Noam and I recognize the gravity of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and the profound suffering of his victims. Nothing in this statement is intended to minimize that suffering, and we express our unrestricted solidarity with the victims.
February 7, 2026.
Valéria Chomsky
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
14 Comments
Thanks, Valéria.
You are really a devoted wife.
This clarifies a lot.
Noam Chomsky was a moral compass for many. That was his greatest strength. Not anymore. He was not careless, he was not gullible, he was sharper than anybody… Now he will be soon forgotten. And the powerful are having a blast.
This was a real cringe to read.
Various quotes by Chomsky himself below are very applicable to his relationship with epstein. It’s also worth reading Chomsky’s thoughts on pornography and trying to square those with being good friends with someone who engaged in such extreme dehumanization of and crimes against so many women (info that was readily available, especially to someone like Chomsky, in 2015).
1) Since Chomsky was such a massively influential figure on the left, any association with a figure like epstein would predictably be “a gift to the Right”
Chomsky, and thus also his work, particularly that which is based on morals, can now easily be dismissed by anyone. Any weight that quoting Chomsky had (particularly among activists/organizers) has now essentially disappeared. This was entirely predictable even in 2015; see e.g. Norman Finkelstein’s email to Robin Trivers about epstein. If Finkelstein understood this in 2015, Chomsky should have understood this, too.
2) “not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.”
It was 100% predictable that being very good friends with a person like epstein provided a total cover for epstein and was a disaster waiting to happen. Chomsky should have chosen the dignity of epstein’s victims, not to mention his own life’s work, over any insights or access that epstein may have been able to give him, and regardless of his personal friendly feelings toward him.
3) “we live in this world, not in some world we would like to imagine.”
It was also 100% predictable – in this world – that lots of people would react in the way that they are now reacting. That means, unfortunately, that they are now re-assessing essentially everything he has ever said. And trying to introduce Chomsky’s thoughts to new people is nearly impossible (assuming you introduce them as his thoughts).
4) “The more privilege you have, the more opportunity you have. The more opportunity you have, the more responsibility you have.”
Chomsky simply must have understood who he was as a public figure and that that stature, like it or not, conferred vast extra responsibilities on HIM.
5) Having said all of this, Chomsky himself pointed out, using John Stuart Mill as an example, that Mill is hailed for his advocacy of various liberties and rights and was an early supporter of women’s suffrage (truly impressive and novel at the time), yet he also hailed British imperialism in India as a “blessing” and Britain itself, which Mill only faulted for being too modest.
So we obviously shouldn’t dismiss Chomsky’s whole life’s work, much of which I still find tremendous value in. But unfortunately many, many people will do just that, and the fact that this was completely predictable, and thus completely avoidable, really makes me shake my head.
It is depressing how many people wish to believe the absolute worst about someone they say they long admired. I never thought Chomsky was perfect though I usually agreed with him. It doesn’t surprise me that he could be manipulated when he was vulnerable, which is apparently what happened here. It means he is merely human.
You are absolutely correct. Apparently there are a lot of perfect adults out there who have no experience with people getting old and vulnerable.
Thank you very much for posting this. Ms. Chomsky’s explanation fits with the facts as revealed in the email releases: namely that Noam and Valeria were fooled by Epstein, rather than being any sort of willing participant in his ongoing crimes.
For anyone looking at this matter fairly, this should quiet all the slanderous and outrageous attacks that are being leveled against Noam and Valeria.
Absolutely incredible excuses. Wildly implausible. Valeria Chomsky, you’re only making things worse by not coming clean. Tell us the whole truth.
I’m speaking as someone who has admired Noam Chomsky for four decades.
Noam has spent the last 65 years denying, eg that Cuba is a tyranny, when it is an incontrovertible fact that it is.
He has spent his entire adult life falling for ridiculous charlatans, eg Edward Said, when they fit his narrative that Western civilisation is the root of all evil.
It hardly surprising that that he should fall for Epstein.
Edward Said was a charlatan? In what way?
Edward Said, a charlatan?
Are you kidding?
Have you ever read any books of him with utmost responsibility to influence the text.
Shameful comment!
It seems to me you are obviously falling for ridiculous charlatans yourself.
Thank you for posting.
Thank you for clarification
This reply needs to be in the Guardian for wider public information .
Who takes the Guardian seriously anymore?