Revelations in the Jeffrey Epstein files raise questions about how elite influence, lobbying tactics, and geopolitical interests shape United States foreign policy decisions, writes Inderjeet Parmar, professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St. George’s, University of London, in his latest ‘American Imperium column’ just published in The Wire.
The article, titled The Epstein Network and Attempts to Discredit Israel Lobby Study Follow an Elite Playbook to Silence Dissenttouches on power and international networks of influence –issues that are of importance to the global Southasian community.
Documents released by Epstein’s estate reinforce claims made by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, argues Parmar – essentially, that a well-funded, politically influential pro-Israel network in the U.S. shapes foreign policy and acceptable public debate.
He points out that some things Epstein said and did, as exposed in the files, correlate to Walt and Mearsheimer’s findings. It’s not that this proves a conspiracy, notes Parmar, but rather that it illustrates a recurring pattern of damage control using philanthropic leverage, legal threats, and media influence to manage perceptions and restrict debate. For example, the words “deception, power, intellectual” written on a chalkboard in Epstein’s home, could be interpreted as strategy.
Parmar looks past Epstein to a long tradition of major U.S. foundations influencing intellectual life, as he notes in his 2012 research paper, Foundations of the American Century – private foundations like Ford and Rockefeller identified research considered to be threatening to U.S. global ambitions, responding by isolating critics. The response to Walt and Mearsheimer’s book followed a five-stage process that Parmar identifies:
Identify the threat: Donor networks aligned with major pro-Israel advocacy groups saw Walt and Mearsheimer’s “lobby thesis” as a challenge to U.S. interests.
Create counter-institutions: Think tanks like Foundation for Defense of Democracies were expanded to provide an intellectual base for pro-Israel and neoconservative positions.
Purchase gatekeepers: Generous fellowships and research posts drew in young scholars, while open engagement with the “lobby thesis” became professionally risky.
Racial-imperial deflection: Critiques of U.S. policy or Israeli actions were reframed as bias, and protests such as those over the Gaza War were cast as security threats rather than political dissent.
Structured silence: By the late 2010s, major academic venues stopped publishing work sympathetic to Walt and Mearsheimer, as donor pressure and reliance on aligned foundations created a climate of what Parmar calls soft, privatized censorship.
The Epstein scandal briefly unsettled donor networks, but institutions quickly dismissed any suggested links to pro-Israel advocacy as unfounded or antisemitic, writes Parmar, arguing that the deeper issue is the privatization of the U.S. knowledge system. Unlike earlier public-minded foundations, today’s donors often fund narrowly ideological projects. As a result, younger scholars rarely encounter structural critiques of pro-Israel lobbying, and frequently self-censor. A critical issues survey conducted by the University of Maryland indicates that for many Middle East scholars, the post-October 2023 climate has been the most repressive of their careers.
Parmar concludes that U.S. universities now pair “intellectual servitude” with financial dependence. He notes that until academia frees itself from tainted private funding and protects scholars who challenge established interests, American scholarship will remain formally free but substantively constrained.
– Regina Johnson / Sapan News
Lead Image: Jeffrey Epstein newspaper headlines. Screenshot from a 2024 news report “Stories behind the rich and powerful named in the Jeffrey Epstein court files, 60 Minutes Australia.”
Note on Southasia as one word: Like Himal Southasian, we use ‘Southasia’ as one word, “seeking to restore some of the historical unity of our common living space, without wishing any violence on the existing nation states”.
Appreciated the story? Support non-profit journalism. Help us meet our costs. Make a tax-deductible contribution to Sapan News.
Thank you!