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).

Chomsky on the Russia-Ukraine war

I won't elaborate the idea that the current Russia-Ukraine war changes everything, or that we're living in a new world now, etc. Because, who knows, by this time next year we could be focused on some new metaphorical asteroid approaching. (Hopefully only a metaphorical one!)

But I also want to do a couple of posts about consciously left takes on the Ukraine situation.

Here is an interview with Noam Chomsky from The Real News, in an event sponsored by various leftie groups. Including the "Communist Party USA," which is apparently still around. (At least there's a website by that name.) Noam Chomsky: A Left Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine 04/08/2022:

I check in on Chomsky's commentary periodically, mostly because it's consistently irritating but in a thought-provoking way. He often sounds like a gloomy anarchist or a Borg spokesperson: All governments are brutal and oppressive, all political movements are corrupted and inadequate, Resistance Is Futile!

But if he were nothing but Mr. Gloom-and-Doom, nobody but burnt-out cynics would pay any attention to him. The main value I find in his commentary is that he practices "fundamental criticism," which doesn't translate easily into current political slogans or policies. But because he is well-infomred and reflective, he focuses on points worth considering. And what may be excessive cynicism in one way also forces his listeners to look at comparisons they might not otherwise make. (The interviewer here does ask challenging questions of Chomsky.)

For instance, Chomsky mentions the fact that countries that are not part of the West or the Northern Hemisphere aren't nearly so enthusiastic about condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine as NATO members are. That doesn't require any exotic explanation, of course. Just as NATO member states differ in their emphasis on the Ukraine war (Poland and the Baltic states now and in the foreseeable future can be expected to grumble that their NATO partners are insufficiently hardline in their opposition to Russia), so also countries from China and India and Pakistan to all of Latin America are not as likely as American TV audiences to see Russia's intervention in Ukraine as a uniquely shocking event. African nations tend to take a hard line against the idea of changing national boundaries by force.

I'm reminded that after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, most Americans were in such a "USA! USA!" mode that most didn't notice something the mainstream media didn't emphasize anyway, which was while Latin American countries joined most others in expressing their solidarity with the US, their diplomatic responses were notably more muted than even some countries like Iran - whose condemnation of the attacks didn't seem to make much of an impression on Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives.

Geography obviously matters. China is an ally of Russia at the moment and they have been guarded in their official position, though supportive of Russia in the UN Security Council. In this instance, Russia is in the process of invading and trying to conquer and incorporate a country that is a direct neighbor or near-neighbor to various EU and NATO countries. Of course, those countries are going to focus a lot of attention, concern, and action on responding to that invasion.

Chomsky is highly critical of the Russian invasion in this interview. But he makes a very valid point when he asks if Mexico were to try to join a military alliance with China, would the US regard that as a national security threat? I doubt anyone alive actually believes otherwise. The Monroe Doctrine in practice is alive and well, though there is no international law justification for the US deciding to topple governments in Latin America whenever they become inconvenient.

But the scorn which some New Cold War enthusiasts direct against almost any attempt to point to the actual political conflicts in the recent past between NATO and Russia over Ukraine is a bit silly. Of course looking at the key developments that led up to the current moment is important. Another left writer, Loren Balhorn, editor and co-founder of the German version of Jacobin, notes, "In the days before the [2022 Russian] invasion, we [at Jacobin] believed, as did a large part of the international community also (and not least most Ukrainians themselves), that Vladimir Putin was bluffing." (my translation; Jeder Krieg ist eine Niederlage Jacobin.de 15.04.2022)

Obviously, serious foreign policy analysts and scholars as well as intelligence agencies - and hopefully even some journalists! - would want to look back at the chain of developments that led to February 24's invasion and see what they got right and wrong in their judgments and risk assessments. It would be too much to hope that the pundits on the American Sunday-morning news shows would bother with such an effort, though they will have no problem heaping scorn on the past assessments of people who are not currently all-out New Cold Warriors.

Balhorn explains his own editorial reflection (my translation):

We thought [Putin] wanted to unsettle the West, perhaps use the threat of war to drive a wedge between NATO member states and achieve a more favorable outcome for himself – unquestionably a cynical scam, but still rational from his point of view. Irrational, on the other hand, would be a military attack that could only end in disaster for Ukraine, Russia and, last but not least, Putin himself. So, no need to panic.

Obviously, we were wrong. We misjudged the Kremlin's calculations and geopolitical ambitions. We weren't attentive enough to the Great-Russia project that Putin has adopted to ideologically legitimize his crumbling rule – a regime that in recent years has increasingly relied on open repression in the face of economic stagnation and growing discontent. As a result, we did not see the war coming until it exploded on our screens on the morning of February 24.

Explaining is not excusing. And understanding is not sympathizing.

Not that a New Cold War will lack for excusing and sympathizing in all sorts of directions.