Valeria Chomsky, wife of renowned linguist and activist Noam Chomsky, has released a detailed public statement addressing their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The statement represents a serious reckoning with how they failed to recognize manipulation from someone later convicted of extensive sex trafficking crimes. Recent Justice Department documents have revealed the depth of their association with Epstein, prompting the Chomskys to acknowledge their significant misjudgment.
The couple met Epstein in 2015, unaware at that time of his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl. Despite years of documented news coverage detailing allegations of his exploitation of underage girls, Epstein had successfully rebranded himself as a philanthropist and financial expert. This carefully constructed persona proved effective. Valeria Chomsky explained the mechanics of how Epstein gained access to her husband’s attention and trust.
Understanding how deception operated
In her formal statement, Valeria Chomsky described the calculated nature of Epstein’s approach: “When we were introduced to Epstein, he presented himself as a philanthropist supporting 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.”
This characterization reflects careful analysis of how Epstein operated. He identified Noam Chomsky as a potential asset and constructed an appealing narrative—wealthy philanthropist interested in supporting scientific research and intellectual discussion. The strategy proved effective precisely because it aligned with Chomsky’s known interests and values. Epstein then systematically deepened the relationship through gifts, invitations to his properties in New Mexico and Manhattan, and opportunities for substantive conversations.
The manipulative strategy unfolds
The couple visited Epstein’s ranch and attended dinners at his Manhattan townhouse. What Valeria Chomsky now characterizes as a “friendly yet strictly professional” relationship actually represented something far more calculated. Epstein was systematically surrounding Noam Chomsky with attention and opportunity. The Chomskys now understand this as a deliberate strategy designed to undermine the causes Noam has championed throughout his career—essentially leveraging his credibility and reputation.
The relationship continued into 2019, when Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges. In emails exchanged before his arrest, Epstein had lamented his damaged reputation. Noam Chomsky responded by commenting on media coverage, suggesting Epstein should disregard negative press. These comments now appear particularly problematic in retrospect, though Valeria Chomsky attempted to contextualize them within her husband’s broader experience with media criticism.
Recognizing the deception
Valeria Chomsky’s statement directly confronts what occurred: “Epstein created a manipulative narrative about his case, which Noam, in good faith, believed in. It is now clear that it was all orchestrated, with at least one of Epstein’s intentions being to have someone like Noam help repair his reputation by association.”
This acknowledgment represents a crucial recognition of Epstein’s strategic intent. He wasn’t seeking friendship with Noam Chomsky out of intellectual interest. He was cultivating association with a respected public intellectual to rehabilitate his image and provide cover for his criminal activities. The relationship served Epstein’s purposes directly.
Valeria Chomsky emphasized in her statement that neither she nor her husband ever witnessed inappropriate behavior during their interactions. They claim complete ignorance of Epstein’s crimes. Yet this claim cannot erase their failure to conduct basic background research on someone with a publicly documented conviction and years of published allegations.
Community response and broader implications
The revelations have provoked strong reactions from Chomsky’s intellectual community. Vijay Prashad, a fellow writer and collaborator, expressed his disgust at both Epstein’s criminal conduct and Noam Chomsky’s association with him. The response underscores the serious reputational and ethical consequences of such relationships, regardless of claimed ignorance.
The Chomskys’ statement functions simultaneously as admission and attempted mitigation. They acknowledge serious misjudgment. They express solidarity with Epstein’s victims. Yet the statement also emphasizes their own victimization by deception, potentially deflecting from questions about why someone of Noam Chomsky’s intellectual sophistication and critical analytical capabilities failed to investigate Epstein’s background more thoroughly.
Accountability and reflection
Valeria Chomsky’s public acknowledgment of the relationship represents an attempt at accountability. She recognized the gravity of what occurred and the suffering experienced by Epstein’s actual victims. Yet accountability in this context raises difficult questions. Should prominent intellectuals have known better? Should access to fame and resources have triggered greater diligence? Why did the Chomskys accept Epstein’s self-presentation without investigation?
The statement serves as a cautionary tale about how sophisticated individuals can be manipulated when flattered and given access to prestige and intellectual engagement. Epstein’s strategy of cultivating relationships with accomplished people proved effective precisely because he understood what motivated them and what narratives would prove persuasive.
As the full scope of Epstein’s networks and influence continues to emerge, the Chomskys’ experience illustrates how extensively he embedded himself within influential intellectual and cultural circles. Understanding how he accomplished this penetration requires honest examination of the vulnerabilities he exploited—and the Chomskys’ statement, however imperfect, represents an attempt at that examination.
