Skip to main content

Open Record archive

  1. The Bill for the War Comes Due at the Checkout Counter
  2. A State Spends Its Force Abroad and Its Patience at Home
  3. The Security State Turns Its Tools Inward
  4. The Iran War Keeps Exporting Its Costs
  5. Power Turns on Its Witnesses
  6. A Government That Performs Power
  7. Firing Squad Meant to Be Watched
  8. The War Is Now the Economy
  9. War Abroad Party at Home
  10. Guardrails Left a Map
  11. Who Decides Who Pays
  12. Pressure Campaign Reaches Brazil
  13. Record Caught Up
  14. Machinery Pointed Inward
  15. Bond Market Prices the Deficit
  16. Three Ways an Argument Disappears
  17. The Machinery Keeps Running
  18. The War Is Now a Domestic Story
  19. Who Counts Not Who Votes
  20. No to a Map Yes to a Database
  21. Power Was Visible Accountability Was Not
  22. Records Landed Claims Did Not Hold
  23. Projected Power Argument at Home
  24. Washington Is Rationing What the Public Sees
  25. Who Gets to See What Power Is Doing
  26. Power Moves in Days
  27. Four Institutions Four Judges
  28. The Loud Fight Ends
  29. The Bill Came Due
  30. Six Institutions Said No
  31. Saying Stop Is Not Stopping
  32. AI Slowdown Accountability Gap
  33. Cost Arriving Channel Narrowing
  34. The Question Is Who Pays
  35. Washington Offers a Check
  36. Dividend Promise Failing Election Machinery
  37. War Automated Faster Than Accounted For
  38. Nineteen Months
  39. The Election Is Now a Docket
  40. The Rule Is Not the Safeguard
  41. The Price Walked Into an Election
  42. Outrunning Review
  43. Machinery of Who Counts
  44. War's Real Bill Arrives Far From the Gulf
  45. The Legal Justification Comes Last
  46. A Price, Not a Front
  47. The Price of a War Nobody Calls a War
  48. War's Second Front Is Economic
  49. Three Instruments, One Method
  50. Fight Over the Machinery
  51. Documents Caught Up With Statements
  52. Capacity Without Checks
  53. The Machinery Is Not Failing
  54. Coercion Is the Policy
  55. You Cannot Sue a Bond Market
  56. War Washington Cannot End
  57. Blockade and Bond Market
  58. The Bill Comes Due
  59. Money Lost, Surveillance Won
  60. Government Stopped Showing Its Work
  61. Routed Around, Not Repealed
  62. Enforcement Turned Inward
  63. Past the Point It Can Hold
  64. What It Cost to Lose
  65. Who Holds the Veto
  66. Risk Moves Down
  67. The Government Rents Its Surveillance
  68. The Powers Expand, the Checks Sit Empty
  69. The Promise Was Only Worth the Pressure Behind It
  70. The Senate Traded Away Its Leverage
  71. Two Orders and a Shrinking Stockpile
  72. What Money Bought
  73. Money Lost Michigan, Won Missouri
  74. Change the Accounting
  75. Two Clocks
  76. Who Decides What Counts as a Threat
  77. The Claim Arrives First

Publication sections

The Open RecordInvestigationsCommentaryMethodAbout

Publication utilities

CorrectionsRSS 2.0

In the thread The Academic Circle

The Trust

On October 15, 2017, 8 years after the Non-Prosecution Agreement and 21 months before his arrest, Jeffrey Epstein received a tax question from Noam Chomsky. Epstein's reply was 7 words. The exchange sits in a single email in the 2025 DOJ release.

Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C. (March 2026).
The Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington.Photo: APK, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Documents
1
document
Citations
16
citations
People
3
people
Pages of record
10
pages of record
Reading time
4
minutes to read
Source discipline

15 primary, 0 corroborating, 1 tertiary. 16 citations in all.

  • T1 Primary
  • T2 Corroborating
  • T3 Tertiary
People in this piece
  • Noam Chomsky, Adjacent
  • Jeffrey Edward Epstein, Principal, Deceased
  • Lawrence Krauss, Adjacent
Reading key
Miami HeraldSource 14reportingSarah KellenResearch Vault referenceEditorial essayargumentargument or opinion

The email arrived in Jeffrey Epstein's personal Gmail account on Sunday afternoon, October 15, 2017, 21 months before he would be arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in New York. It had been forwarded from Noam Chomsky and carried a short question above his signature.

"Could you let us know whether this makes any sense? Especially about no withdrawals until '23. Impossible to live under that condition. Noam." EFTA00988381EE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document

Below the question was the email chain Chomsky was asking Epstein to evaluate: 6 weeks of correspondence between Chomsky, his wife Valeria, their accountants in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, and a research associate at the Boston investment firm that handled his IRA distributions.

The question was about tax planning. Chomsky had taken $580,000 out of his retirement accounts in the first 9 months of 2017 ($513,000 from his own IRA and $67,000 from an inherited IRA), and none of it had been set aside for taxes. His accountants at Abrams Little-Gill Loberfeld PC were working through whether he should file as a full-year Massachusetts resident, a full-year Arizona resident, or a part-year resident in each, while the firm's lead on the file, Nick Nichols, worked out a recommendation for how to cover the year's tax liability without triggering further penalties.

Nichols's recommendation, laid out in a September letter forwarded inside the thread, was that Chomsky take no additional IRA distributions until October 23, 2023. A 6-year hold. EFTA00988381EE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document

The 2 sentences carrying Chomsky's objection to that hold were not composed as a reply to Nichols. They were part of the cover note Chomsky wrote to Jeffrey Epstein when he forwarded the chain.

Epstein's answer came back the same day.

"Ask for the money from thx trust." EFTA00988381EE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document

The Trust, and the Trusts

The answer establishes that Epstein and Chomsky shared knowledge of a specific trust from which Chomsky could draw, and suggests Epstein was familiar enough with Chomsky's financial architecture to name the right instrument in a single line. The email does not say which trust, and it does not say whether Chomsky was a beneficiary, a grantor, or both. Those facts are not in the document.

The chain contains a second reference. On September 7, 6 weeks earlier, Chomsky's CPA supervisor, Matthew Mazotas, had written to Kathleen O'Malley at Bainco International Investors in Boston: "The two trusts do not need any Q3 or Q4 estimates as they have overpayments that have been applied to 2017." EFTA00988381EE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document

Mazotas's reference to "the two trusts" suggests that the instrument Epstein named in his reply is one of them, though the chain does not make the mapping explicit. Neither trust is identified by name in the verified text.

The Timing

October 2017 is 9 years after Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty under the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement to 2 Florida state charges, 8 years after he completed his 13-month work-release sentence at the Palm Beach County Stockade, and 21 months before his July 6, 2019 arrest in Teterboro on federal sex-trafficking charges.

Chomsky was 88. He was moving from MIT, where he had spent most of his career, to a new chair at the University of Arizona. The EFTA corpus records additional contact between the two men across 2015 to 2018; that material is not the subject of this piece.

The email in the EFTA corpus is not a social note. It is a tax question routed past Chomsky's accountants to Epstein on a Sunday when the CPAs had recommended a 6-year hold that Chomsky called "impossible to live under" in his cover note to Epstein. Epstein answered in one line. The line was Epstein as counselor, not Epstein as dinner companion.

What the Record Does Not Show

Whether Chomsky followed the advice, whether the money was in fact drawn from the trust, whether Epstein held any formal fiduciary role in either of the trusts referenced in the chain, and whether there were further exchanges between the two men on the tax-residency question after October 15 are questions the verified primary source does not answer.

The CPAs' correspondence shows them writing to Chomsky and Valeria only. Chomsky forwarded their output to Epstein privately, outside the accountant chain.

Several Items Remain Open

Neither trust is identified by name in the document. The record does not establish whether the October 15 advice was followed or with what amount. The Chomsky-Epstein correspondence currently indexed in the EFTA corpus begins in 2015, and a full sweep of the thread is the next step.

Documentary artifact

The thread, interactive

3 messages.

The Chomsky–Epstein tax thread

Reconstructed from the indexed email chain — the 6-week accountant exchange Chomsky forwarded to Epstein, the 2-sentence cover note asking for a workaround, and Epstein’s reply.

Recommendation to cover the 2017 tax liability without triggering further penalties: take no additional IRA distributions until October 23, 2023.

Context: Chomsky had taken $580,000 out of retirement accounts in the first 9 months of 2017 — $513,000 from his own IRA and $67,000 from an inherited IRA — with no tax set-aside.

Source.EFTA00988381, at justice.govEE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document

The cover note above the forwarded accountant thread. The objection — “impossible to live under that condition” — is written to Epstein, not to the accountants. The 2 sentences are the whole of Chomsky’s ask.

Source.EFTA00988381, at justice.govEE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document

Seven words. Sent the same day the forward arrived.

The reply establishes that Epstein and Chomsky shared knowledge of a specific trust from which Chomsky could draw, and suggests Epstein was familiar enough with Chomsky’s finances to direct him to it by name. The question of which trust, and whether Chomsky took the advice, is not answered by the indexed record.

Source.EFTA00988381, at justice.govEE, EFTA00988381 on Epstein Exposed, an alternative host for the same document