Which universities had faculty who received funding linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Executive summary
Jeffrey Epstein’s money touched faculty work at multiple American universities; the clearest, well-documented instances are Harvard and MIT, where faculty and programs received gifts or donor introductions associated with Epstein [1] [2]. Reporting and institutional reviews also identify ties or allegations involving Arizona State University and some other schools, though the record beyond Harvard and MIT is more fragmented and sometimes contested in secondary sources [3] [4].
1. Harvard: the most thoroughly documented faculty funding trail
Harvard’s internal review concluded the University accepted roughly $9.1 million in gifts from Epstein between 1998 and 2008 to support research and faculty activities, and the report documents specific faculty programs—most notably the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics—that received Epstein’s money or were associated with him [1]. The university’s public statements acknowledge that Epstein introduced other donors to Harvard faculty, and that at least two faculty members received funding from donors Epstein had introduced after his 2008 conviction [1]. Independent press reporting and follow-up coverage confirm the scale and public scrutiny of Harvard’s ties, including that most of the funds were spent years earlier and that the university has redistributed remaining unspent balances to survivor-focused organizations [5] [6].
2. MIT: Media Lab and individual faculty engagements
MIT’s fact-finding and public disclosures established that Epstein gave funds that flowed to the Media Lab and to specific faculty members, and that senior MIT figures have apologized and pledged equivalent donations to survivor charities as a result [2]. Journalistic investigations revealed that Media Lab director Joi Ito accepted undisclosed funds tied to Epstein and that other faculty received donations or engaged with him; MIT’s outside review documented roughly $850,000 in amounts tied to those engagements and led to institutional remediation measures [7] [2]. Public reporting emphasizes MIT’s mixed record of compliance with gift rules and the university’s subsequent review of anonymous and off‑books donations [7] [8].
3. Arizona State, Rutgers and other institutions: reported but less uniformly corroborated links
Commentary and investigative pieces name Arizona State University as a locus of faculty connections to Epstein, including personalities who maintained relationships with him, and later reporting continued to associate individual professors (such as Lawrence Krauss) with Epstein-linked funding or contact; these accounts appear in reputable outlets but vary in detail and institutional confirmation [3] [9]. A smaller strand of reporting and compilations suggests donations or funding tied to Epstein at other universities—including references to Rutgers and to post‑conviction gifts that funded particular researchers—but these items are unevenly sourced and sometimes originate in secondary or blog accounts rather than formal institutional reviews [4]. In short, beyond Harvard and MIT the evidence is patchier: named faculty and programs appear in reporting, but institution-level accounting and transparent audits are less consistently available [3] [4].
4. Defining “linked to Epstein”: direct gifts versus introductions, timing and provenance
The phrase “funding linked to Jeffrey Epstein” covers distinct situations revealed by the records: direct gifts from Epstein to a university or program; payments to faculty routed through Epstein’s foundations or intermediaries; and third‑party donations arranged by Epstein or given after introductions he brokered [1] [2]. Institutional reviews at Harvard and MIT differentiate those categories and cite how some faculty later received money from donors Epstein introduced even after the university had stopped accepting Epstein’s own funds [1]. Many reports caution that donor provenance can be opaque, that universities historically used different vetting standards, and that public documentation varies greatly by institution [8] [7].
5. What the record proves — and where reporting remains incomplete
Firm, institution-backed findings exist for Harvard and MIT: both universities documented gifts or faculty funding tied to Epstein and undertook internal reviews and remedial steps [1] [2]. Reporting names other universities and individual faculty (Arizona State, Rutgers among them) as connected in various ways, but those links often rely on journalistic accounts, secondary compilations, or incomplete disclosure rather than formal university audits [3] [4]. The public record provided here does not allow a comprehensive, definitive list of every university whose faculty ever received Epstein‑linked funding; it does, however, establish Harvard and MIT as the best‑documented cases and points to additional institutions where credible reporting has raised concerns and calls for greater transparency [1] [2] [3].