Chomsky and the Epstein files

MS Now has a report by Zeeshan Allem on the surprising fact that leftwing academic Noam Chomsky appears in the Epstein files in numerous places, though “Chomsky has not been implicated in any of Epstein’s crimes.” (1)

The trove of new Epstein emails released Jan. 30 reveal that Chomsky was not merely one of the many intellectuals whom the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein invited to salons, but a confidant to Epstein. In an email dated February 2019, Chomsky counseled Epstein on how to deal with the public relations and legal crises Epstein was dealing with in the wake of a bombshell 2018 Miami Herald report. The newspaper had tracked down more than 60 women who said they were abused by Epstein, and exposed how Epstein had struck a shockingly soft deal with Florida prosecutors in 2008 that allowed him to avoid sex trafficking charges.

“The best way to proceed is to ignore it,” Chomsky wrote to Epstein.“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.” In that note, he expressed sympathy to Epstein for “the horrible way you are being treated in the press and public.” (1)

Aleem comments, “Chomsky, 97, is one of the most influential, if not the most influential, left-wing intellectuals of the past century.” It’s not exactly clear what that means. In the century since 1926, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara were alive, to just take some of the most famous Communists leaders. I suppose we could say that none of those were intellectuals, though Stalin studied theology in a seminary, Castro was a lawyer, and Guevara was a doctor. The Frankfurt School figures Theodor Adorno and Jürgen Habermas were also influential thinkers and academics like Chomsky.

Chomsky is a linguist who also wrote extensively about politics and media. One of his most influential books on politics and media was one he co-authored with Edward Herman, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), which called attention to insufficiently critical reporting on US foreign affairs and wars in particular in the mainstream media.

Vivek Chibber wrote in 2024 for the social-democratic Jacobin about Chomsky’s relentlessly capitalist-critical approach, in a good analytic piece which carries a title that seems overblown in light of Chomsky’s poor judgment over Epstein, “Let’s Celebrate Noam Chomsky, the Intellectual and Moral Giant”:

He has liked to quote Adam Smith, whom he takes to be one of the most perceptive theorists of capitalism: the holders of wealth, Smith observed, follow “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves, and nothing for other people.” This “vile maxim,” Chomsky pointed out, ought to be the anchor for any political analysis of modern society. ...

What is true in domestic affairs will also hold true in foreign policy. Chomsky has summarized his approach very clearly: “If we hope to understand anything about the foreign policy of any state, it is a good idea to begin by investigating the domestic social structure: who sets foreign policy?... What is true in domestic affairs will also hold true in foreign policy. Chomsky has summarized his approach very clearly: “If we hope to understand anything about the foreign policy of any state, it is a good idea to begin by investigating the domestic social structure: who sets foreign policy? … those designing it are of course the same crew that designs domestic policy. Both domains — the national and the international — are therefore dominated by the capitalist class. “If we do not adopt Smith’s method of ‘class analysis,’” Chomsky warns, “our vision will be blurred and distorted. Any discussion of world affairs that treats nations as actors is at best misleading, at worst pure mystification, unless it recognizes the crucial Smithian footnotes.” [my emphasis] (2)

Unfortunately, Chomsky’s commentary sometimes sounds almost fatalistic. Describing Chomsky’s position, Chibber writes:

[T]o achieve any kind of say in political and economic life, workers and ordinary citizens have to find a way of banding together, to collectively take on the power of their bosses and their political servants in the state. But this is of course not only hard, but dangerous — bosses aren’t fools, and as soon as they see even the glimmer of a challenge, they do whatever is necessary to squelch it. And so, for most working people, the sensible thing to do is to keep their head down and do what they have to in order to keep their heads above water. This, in turn, means that challenges to power will be the exception, not the rule. [my emphasis]

But as he also makes clear Chomsky’s work has proved very helpful for left-leaning critics in understanding economic influences on foreign policy and of the role of intellectuals and the media in influencing it.

Aleem concludes:

Chomsky is unable to provide new comments on the latest Epstein revelations [due to health issues]. But the circumstances and his actions suggest he may have turned a blind eye to Epstein’s conduct because Epstein was an extraordinary resource for him, such as when Epstein brokered a meeting between Chomsky and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Chris Hedges who definitely leans left as well provides this brief report on the Chomsky-Epstein connection: (3)

(Hedges’ commentary ends on a fairly jarring note.)

Notes:

(1) Aleem, Zeeshan (2026): Noam Chomsky tainted his legacy with his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. MS Now 02/11/2026. <https://www.ms.now/opinion/epstein-files-chomsky-valeria-email-cancel-criticism> (Accessed : 2026-11-02).

(2) Chibber, Vivek (2024): Jacobin 06/18/2024. <https://jacobin.com/2024/06/noam-chomsky-media-theory-elites> (Accessed : 2026-11-02).

(3) Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Epstein and the Politics of Betrayal. The Chris Hedges YouTube Channel 02/10/2026. <https://youtu.be/sGZ1Arv7Yww?si=xfWi5oPmKTVe89KB> (Accessed: 2026-11-02).