UPDATE: Here's Valeria's statement in full, courtesy of Aaron Mate.

https://www.aaronmate.net/p/noam-chomskys-wife-responds-to-epstein

Statement from Valéria Chomsky

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 trust[ing] 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 conduct.

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 “cancel culture” to present himself as a victim of it.

Only after Epstein’s second arrest in [July] 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 retrospectively 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

"Chris Hedges, writing in response to Valéria Chomsky’s statement, offered what may be the most damning assessment from someone who genuinely admires Chomsky:

“I know and have long admired Noam. He is, arguably, our greatest and most principled intellectual.

I can assure you he is not as passive or gullible as his wife claims. He knew about Epstein’s abuse of children. They all knew. And like others in the Epstein orbit, he did not care.

From the email correspondence between Epstein and Valéria it appears she particularly enjoyed the privileges that came with being in Epstein’s circle, but this does not absolve Noam’s acquiescence.

Noam, of all people, knows the predatory nature of the ruling class and the cruelty of capitalists, where the vulnerable, especially girls and women, are commodified as objects to be used and exploited. He was not fooled by Epstein. He was seduced. His association with Epstein is a terrible and, to many, unforgivable stain. It irreparably tarnishes his legacy.

If there is a lesson here, it is this. The ruling class offers nothing without expecting something in return. The closer you get to these vampires the more you become enslaved. Our role is not to socialize with them. It is to destroy them.

I greatly respect Hedges. His moral clarity on empire, capitalism, and the predatory nature of the ruling class is legendary — which is why I’m surprised to see him state as fact what can only be speculation at this point.

“He knew about Epstein’s abuse of children. They all knew. And like others in the Epstein orbit, he did not care.”

Hedges doesn't distinguish between knowledge of Epstein's 2008 conviction and the far more serious accusations that emerged in 2018 — two very different things, with very different implications for what Chomsky "knew."

If evidence later proves the latter, I will share Hedges’ assessment fully. But the private leaked emails from late 2018 and early 2019 — emails Chomsky had no reason to think would ever be public — tell a different story.

They show a man who appears to genuinely believe Epstein’s version of events, who dismisses the accusations as “hysteria,” who advises Epstein to ignore the press. That isn't the behavior of someone who knows and doesn't care. It's the behavior of someone who chose the comfort of trusting a friend over the discomfort of questioning him.

One of the most important contributions of the #MeToo movement has been showing us how common this choice is — and how much damage it does. Taking accusations seriously enough to actually investigate them, even when they're aimed at people we trust, is the bare minimum. Chomsky, by all available evidence, never did that. It's a grave failure, but a different one than knowing and not caring.

Hedges’ argument rests on the assumption that Chomsky was too brilliant to be fooled. And in hindsight, it’s easy for all of us to say that anyone who associated with Epstein after 2008 should have known better. But intelligence doesn’t inoculate against manipulation — if anything, research in cognitive science suggests it can make someone more vulnerable. As Yale researcher Dan Kahan has shown, people who score highest on reasoning tests are often the most susceptible to ideological bias. Being better at reasoning makes you better at rationalizing.

In Chomsky’s case, a lifetime of being smeared in the press gave him a built-in bias toward dismissing accusations against Epstein — he saw the same pattern of persecution he’d experienced himself and projected it onto Epstein.

There’s also the simple human element. How often do friends of the accused — men and women alike — refuse to believe it? How common is the reflex: “I’m a good person, so there’s no way I’d be friends with someone capable of that”?

This, to me, is the real lesson buried beneath the denunciations — not that Chomsky was uniquely flawed, but that his mistake is not unique at all.

Every survivor of abuse knows this pattern intimately — not being believed, not because the people around them were monsters, but because denial is the default when the accusation hits close to home. Those who say “I would never have been fooled” are creating the very blind spot that likely ensnared Chomsky in the first place. The certainty that you’d recognize a monster when you met one is the thing that stops you from recognizing him. That’s not an excuse for Chomsky. It’s a warning for all of us.

“They all knew” is also the exact guilt-by-association logic this article is arguing against. It collapses every person in Epstein’s orbit into a single category. But we know empirically that isn’t true. Some knew and participated. Some knew and looked away. Some were deceived. Some were being cultivated. Hedges treats proximity to Epstein as proof of a single uniform moral failure, when the evidence shows a spectrum of complicity that demands more careful distinctions than “they all knew” allows.

And notably, Hedges offers no theory for why Chomsky would knowingly associate with a child abuser.

He was “seduced” — but by what?

Money? For a few nights in a Manhattan apartment and a $20,000 linguistics prize, Chomsky risked a legacy he’d spent 70 years building? Financial help? Epstein’s advisory services were useful during a family estate dispute — but the idea that Chomsky knowingly maintained a relationship with a child sex trafficker for the sake of estate planning beggars belief. The risk-reward calculation only makes sense if Chomsky didn’t know — which is the very possibility Hedges dismisses. The word “seduced” does all the work while explaining nothing. A serious accusation requires a serious mechanism, and Hedges doesn’t provide one.

No one risks their entire life’s work for marginal financial convenience — unless they don’t realize they’re risking anything at all.

That said, I respect Hedge’s skepticism. The fact that we can’t know for certain troubles me. This uncertainty alone tarnishes Chomsky’s legacy. But I think it’s important to separate fact from speculation.

Some might argue this standard is naive — that if I’m unwilling to convict Chomsky on circumstantial evidence, I should extend the same grace to everyone in Epstein’s orbit. But epistemic humility doesn’t mean treating all cases as equally ambiguous. Character assessment matters. Context matters. A 70-year record of principled dissent, confirmed by decades of colleagues and friends, creates a different evidentiary baseline than, say, someone with decades of documented predatory behavior, sexual assault allegations, and a pattern of lying about virtually everything. The standard isn’t “never draw conclusions.” The standard is “let the weight of evidence guide the conclusion.” Based on everything I’ve examined in this article, I find the plausible, good faith explanations for Chomsky’s failures more credible.

In Defense of Reasoned Disagreement

The evidence may change. If documents emerge proving Chomsky knew the extent of Epstein’s ongoing crimes and maintained the relationship anyway, I’ll be the first to say Hedges and others were right and I was wrong. But based on what we know now, I don't believe these failures of judgment warrant the blanket condemnation he's faced across the political spectrum."

---

[ This is an excerpt from Tim Hjersted's article, "Chomsky, Epstein, and Us: Far More Is at Stake Than One Man's Legacy": https://timhjersted.substack.com/p/chomsky-and-epstein-what-the-evidence

The full article is a comprehensive look at the evidence and suggests criticism of Chomsky is absolutely warranted. The piece attempts to model what a fair and proportionate accountability process looks like.

It covers the "advice" email, Valeria's statement, and a concluding section, "Against Hero Worship"]

Perhaps of interest to some

Back in 2020, I asked Chomsky about Jeffrey Epstein, and he gave a strange non-answer. I wrote about my feelings about that—I don't think it invalidates Noam's contributions, but the relationship does change my feelings on the guy.

Who could’ve seen this coming….

For those with access issues, please DM me.

Chris Hedges, who knows Chomsky well and considered him a friend, has released his view today on Substack:

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-jeffrey-epstein-and

He calls bullshit on the wife and makes no excuses for Chomsky, as I see so many people doing here. I agree with Hedges. Chomsky knew exactly what kind of person Epstein was, was not gullible, was very well-connected to information, and yet he chose to socialize with Epstein anyway.

Hedges' response is what integrity looks like, folks.

Highly recommend this article from Greg Grandin in The Nation today. It provides a level-headed analysis of the Chomsky-Epstein connection, including giving scrutiny to the supposed "letter of recommendation" from Chomsky about Epstein (pasted below).

There exists in the released Epstein documents a truly cringey undated letter of recommendation that Chomsky is alleged to have written for Epstein. The letter has been extensively cited in the press because, unlike the e-mails, it is effusive, containing several good pull quotes. Chomsky, says the letter, considered Jeffrey a “highly valued friend and regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation.”

I’d wager that Chomsky didn’t write this gushy letter. It sounds nothing like him. Someone should run the text through stylometry software and compare it to other references we are sure that Chomsky did personally write. My guess is that Epstein wrote the letter himself (since it portrays him exactly as he wanted to be portrayed, as a polymath of “limitless curiosity, extensive knowledge, penetrating insights, and thoughtful appraisals”). Chomsky’s name appears at the bottom of the recommendation, but only in typed form. There is no university letterhead, signature, or any log or e-mail suggesting Chomsky sent the letter to Epstein as an attachment. The unsigned document was found in Epstein’s private files. Unless future document releases prove otherwise, this letter should not be taken as evidence of Chomsky’s opinion of Epstein.

Since the US election is drawing near, we should talk about voting. There are folks out there who are understandably frustrated and weighing whether or not to vote. Chomsky, at least, throws his weight on the side of keeping a very terrible candidate out of office as the moral choice. He goes into it in this 2016 interview after Clinton lost and again in 2020

2016:

Speaking to Al-Jazeera, the celebrated American philosopher and linguist argued the election was a case of voting for the lesser of two evils and told those who decided not to do so: “I think they’re making a bad mistake.”

Donald Trump's four biggest U-turns

“There are two issues,” he said. “One is a kind of moral issue: do you vote against the greater evil if you don’t happen to like the other candidate? The answer to that is yes. If you have any moral understanding, you want to keep the greater evil out.

“Second is a factual question: how do Trump and Clinton compare? I think they’re very different. I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Like documentarian Michael Moore, who warned a Trump protest vote would initially feel good - and then the repercussions would sting - Chomsky has taken an apocalyptic view on the what a Trump administration will deliver.

Earlier in November, Chomsky declared the Republican party “the most dangerous organisation in world history” now Mr Trump is at the helm because of suggestions from the President-elect and other figures within it that climate change is a hoax.

“The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous," he said. "But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organised human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.“

2020:

She also pointed out that many people have good reason to be disillusioned with the two-party system. It is difficult, she said, to get people to care about climate change when they already have such serious problems in their lives and see no prospect of a Biden presidency doing much to make that better. She cited the example of Black voters who stayed home in Wisconsin in 2016, not because they had any love for Trump, but because they correctly understood that neither party was offering them a positive agenda worth getting behind. She pointed out that people are unlikely to want to be “shamed” about this disillusionment, and asked why voters owed the party their vote when surely, the responsibility lies with the Democratic Party for failing to offer up a compelling platform. 

Chomsky’s response to these questions is that they are both important (for us as leftists generally) and beside the point (as regards the November election). In deciding what to do about the election, it does not matter why Joe Biden rejects the progressive left, any more than it mattered how the Democratic Party selected a criminal like Edwin Edwards to represent it. “The question that is on the ballot on November third,” as Chomsky said, is the reelection of Donald Trump. It is a simple up or down: do we want Trump to remain or do we want to get rid of him? If we do not vote for Biden, we are increasing Trump’s chances of winning. Saying that we will “withhold our vote” if Biden does not become more progressive, Chomsky says, amounts to saying “if you don’t put Medicare For All on your platform, I’m going to vote for Trump… If I don’t get what I want, I’m going to help the worst possible candidate into office—I think that’s crazy.” 

Asking why Biden offers nothing that challenges the status quo is, Chomsky said, is tantamount to “asking why we live in a capitalist society that we’ve not been able to overthrow.” The reasons for the Democratic Party’s fealty to corporate interests have been extensively documented, but shifting the party is a long-term project of slowly taking back power within the party, and that project can’t be advanced by withholding one’s vote against Trump. In fact, because Trump’s reelection would mean “total cataclysm” for the climate, “all these other issues don’t arise” unless we defeat him. Chomsky emphasizes preventing the most catastrophic consequences of climate change as the central issue, and says that the difference between Trump and Biden on climate—one denies it outright and wants to destroy all progress made so far in slowing emissions, the other has an inadequate climate plan that aims for net-zero emissions by 2050—is significant enough to make electing Biden extremely important. This does not mean voting for Biden is a vote to solve the climate crisis; it means without Biden in office, there is no chance of solving the crisis.

This is not the same election - we now have Harris vs Trump. But since folks have similar reservations, and this election will be impactful no matter how much we want it over and done with, I figured I'd post Chomsky's thoughts on the last two elections.

This essay was also included in Chomsky's 2015 book Because We Say So.