Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, admitted under oath Tuesday that he visited Jeffrey Epstein's island for lunch in December 2012 — four years after Epstein's conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. The admission, extracted during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen, directly contradicts Lutnick's own public statements from last year that he severed all contact with Epstein in 2005.
A file from the Department of Justice's massive Epstein document release — over three million files dropped last month — shows Lutnick arranged the island lunch for his wife, four children, nannies, and another couple with their children. Lutnick confirmed the visit but framed it as incidental.
I did have lunch with him, as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation.
My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. And we had lunch on the island, that is true, for an hour. And we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife, all together. We were on family vacation.
The problem isn't the lunch. It's what Lutnick said before anyone found the file.
Last year, on the New York Post's Pod Force One podcast with Miranda Devine, Lutnick painted a vivid picture of disgust. He described being creeped out by a massage table he saw in Epstein's New York City house after buying the property next door. He said he cut off contact — socially, for business, and even for philanthropy.
If that guy was there, I wasn't going because he's gross.
He also stated he would "never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again." Those are strong words. They are also, based on the DOJ files, not true — or at best, badly misleading. You don't arrange a lunch on a convicted sex offender's private island seven years after you supposedly walked away from him forever.
Van Hollen drove the point with precision during Tuesday's hearing:
You misled the country and the Congress based on your earlier statements suggesting that you cut off all contact when in fact you had not.
I mean, you made a very big point of saying that you sensed that this was a bad person in 2005 and then of course in 2008 he was convicted of soliciting prostitution of a minor and, and yet you went and had this trip and other interactions.
Lutnick reportedly responded that he did not see anything other than staff working for Epstein on the island. That may well be true. But it doesn't answer the question Van Hollen was actually asking — which is why a man who publicly declared Epstein "disgusting" arranged a social visit to his island four years after a child sex conviction.
What makes this story unusual is that the sharpest call for accountability isn't coming from the left. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky — the man who spearheaded the release of the Epstein Files last year — went on CNN Sunday and didn't mince words:
Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island if we believe what's in these files. He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted. You know, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes.
So, he's got a lot to answer for. But really, he should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign.
At least a dozen members of Congress have called for Lutnick to resign since the DOJ released the Epstein files, the Daily Mail reported. Massie is the only one named publicly, but his credibility on this issue is significant — he pushed to get these documents into daylight in the first place. When the person who fought to unseal the files tells you what he sees in them, it carries weight.
There is a reasonable debate to be had about proximity and culpability. Epstein moved in elite circles for decades. Plenty of powerful people shook his hand, attended his dinners, or flew on his plane. Not all of them knew what he was doing. Some surely did. Drawing that line matters, and drawing it fairly is important.
But that debate requires honesty as the starting point. What makes Lutnick's situation corrosive isn't the 2012 lunch itself — it's the gap between what he told the public and what the documents show. He didn't say "I regret maintaining contact longer than I should have." He built an elaborate narrative of moral clarity — the massage table, the instant revulsion, the clean break in 2005 — and then the files contradicted it.
Conservatives have spent years demanding transparency on the Epstein files precisely because the ruling class protected itself behind sealed documents and mutual silence. The entire point was that no one — regardless of party, wealth, or position — should be able to hide behind connections. That principle doesn't come with exemptions for people on our side of the aisle.
If Lutnick's explanation begins and ends with "it was just lunch, my family was there," he needs to explain why he spent a year telling a completely different story. Under oath is not the place to start revising your timeline for the first time.
Lutnick remains in his position. No formal resolution or legislative action has been filed beyond the public calls for resignation. But the DOJ released over three million files, and the December 2012 lunch is just one document. If there are "other interactions" — as Van Hollen referenced — more shoes may drop.
Massie said Lutnick should make life easier on the president and resign. That framing matters. This isn't about relitigating the Epstein saga for political entertainment. It's about whether a cabinet secretary misled Congress and the public about his relationship with a convicted sex offender — and whether that becomes a weight the administration has to carry indefinitely.
The Epstein files exist because people demanded the truth. The truth doesn't stop being the standard when it reaches someone with a title.
