The Chomsky–Epstein link exposes a blind spot in intellectual hero worship

The Chomsky–Epstein link exposes a blind spot in intellectual hero worship


The Chomsky–Epstein link exposes a blind spot in intellectual hero worship

We don’t have to erase Chomsky’s contributions, but we must refine how we listen.

Stela Dey
23 December, 2025 

Undated and unlocated handout image released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee

For years, Noam Chomsky was a moral compass for global power. A linguist-philosopher who dismantled propaganda, corporate control, and emerged as a stubborn dissenter of empire. To many, he was a lodestar of clarity in the factory-manufactured American dream, cutting through narratives designed for the convenience of the powerful. Then came the Epstein files.

In the latest tranche of documents and photographs, Chomsky’s name and image have surfaced again in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose decades-long network of the powerful has been gradually mapped through emails, calendars and photographs. Some show Chomsky with Epstein; others confirm correspondence in which the 97-year-old once described his exchanges with Epstein as “a most valuable experience.”


The disclosures will shock some and discomfort many more. Not because Chomsky is accused of criminal behaviour – no such allegation exists—but because the proximity of a moral icon to one of the most grotesque figures of elite corruption exposes a blind spot in how we admire our intellectual heroes.

Moral failure of an intellectual icon

The discomfort taps into a familiar moral dilemma. We have long argued whether creators whose personal choices disturb us can still be read, watched, or taken seriously. The problem is not whether the work outlives its maker but whether we can still see it clearly once the maker’s judgment falters.

The question is sharper in Chomsky’s case because his authority has always rested on ethics as much as ideas. So, can we still listen to a thinker whose moral authority rests on critiquing power, when his own choices are entangled with it?

Nothing so far suggests that Chomsky engaged in or condoned Epstein’s crimes. The unease lies elsewhere – in the space where admiration ends and accountability begins.

Chomsky’s defenders will argue that engagement with controversial figures is not a moral crime. Intellectual exchange often occurs in uncomfortable places, and ideas, they say, must be judged on merit, not on the reputations of interlocutors. In an age where silencing dissent is itself a political weapon, this argument is defensible. But it skirts a harder truth: Visibility and choice carry responsibility.

Epstein was not an ambiguous figure cloaked in rumour when Chomsky interacted with him. His history was well known, his wealth and access intact despite conviction. This was precisely the ecosystem Chomsky spent decades interrogating: one where money purchases credibility, proximity dulls outrage, and moral failure is recast as intellectual eccentricity.

That Chomsky maintained correspondence, praised Epstein’s intellect and “curiosity”, and accepted invitation after invitation raises an unavoidable ethical question: Why? Why would a mind so attuned to systems of violence and coercion overlook the moral gravity of his associate? And what does that tell us about how we evaluate intellectual authority?

A pragmatist might argue that Chomsky saw value in debating or dissecting power, even with someone reprehensible. But Epstein’s influence was not incidental to elite circles; it was built on access that normalised him despite his crimes, and insulated him through association.

This is where admiration curdles into a blind spot. That Epstein did not register as a red line is what unsettles many of Chomsky’s admirers.

Also read: Royals to Republicans—Epstein files have exposed fault lines across power circles

In this century, we increasingly face the task of separating the art from the artist. Doing so does not reduce Chomsky’s work to hypocrisy. His critiques of propaganda, media complicity and institutional power remain rigorous and vital. But they demand moral coherence, not just intellectual brilliance.

The optics of Chomsky on Epstein’s private plane, his engagement with a predator, are not trivial après-facts. They reveal how even the sharpest critics can become entangled in the very networks they analyse.

This should give us pause. We don’t have to erase Chomsky’s contributions, but we must refine how we listen. Manufacturing Consent does not collapse because its author exercised poor judgment. But intellectual authority should never shield its holder from scrutiny. If anything, it should invite more of it.

There is a bitter symmetry here. Chomsky taught us that propaganda is about which narratives are selected and amplified to serve the powerful. By refusing to fully reckon with the ethical implications of his association with Epstein, he inadvertently participated in another form of opacity – one that obscures the human cost of elite impunity.

This moment is not about repudiation or adulation. It is about holding the force of Chomsky’s ideas and the discomfort of his choices in the same frame. Only then can admiration mature into something sturdier: a respect that does not look away.

Views are personal.

(Edited by Ratan Priya)