Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Questioned Under Oath About Jeffrey Epstein Contacts in House Committee Interview
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick appeared voluntarily before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, for a nearly four-hour transcribed interview focused entirely on his past interactions with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Lutnick — who lived next door to Epstein on Manhattan’s Upper East Side for 14 years — testified that he had only three brief, “meaningless and inconsequential” in-person interactions with Epstein across that entire period: a 2005 coffee visit that ended abruptly after Epstein made a sexually suggestive comment, a 2011 doorstep conversation about scaffolding, and a 2012 group lunch on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Democratic members pressed Lutnick extensively on statements he made during a 2025 podcast in which he implied he had cut off all contact with Epstein after the first meeting, characterizing his description as misleading. Lutnick pushed back firmly, insisting that his podcast remarks were accurate informal shorthand for a decision never to pursue a personal or professional relationship with Epstein — a distinction he maintained under sustained questioning even as members challenged his parsing of the word “I.” The interview also revealed an unexpected business connection: Cantor Fitzgerald’s venture capital arm and Epstein had both signed the same investment agreement for a now-defunct online advertising company called AdFin Solutions, though Lutnick testified he was unaware Epstein was a co-investor until the Epstein files were released. Assistance from Claude AI.
Participants
Witness
- Howard W. Lutnick — Secretary of Commerce, United States; former Chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald
Lutnick’s Legal Counsel and Staff
- Zachary Terwilliger — Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP (lead counsel for Lutnick)
- Michael Crowley — Associate, Vinson & Elkins LLP
- Austin Mayron — Attorney, Department of Commerce
- Thomas Barnhorst — Special Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce
Members of Congress Present
- Rep. James Comer (R-KY) — Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
- Rep. William Timmons (R-SC) — Majority member
- Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) — Minority member
- Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) — Minority member
- Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — Minority member
- Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA-11) — Minority member
Committee Majority Staff (Chairman Comer)
- Jack Emmer — Chief Counsel for Investigations (lead majority questioner)
- Billy Grant — Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations
- Peter Spectre — Director of Oversight
- Ellison Tolan — Counsel
- Hannah Cathey — Professional Staff Member
- Emily Feyerabend — Counsel
- Brittany Brignac — Senior Counsel
- Daniel Ashworth — General Counsel
- Will Harnice — Professional Staff Member
- Ashlee Vinyard — Deputy Staff Director
- Jessica Collins — Communications Director
- Mark Marin — Staff Director
Committee Minority Staff (Ranking Member Garcia)
Minority staff members participated in questioning but their names were redacted in the released transcript.
Background: What Is This Investigation?
To understand why Lutnick was called before Congress, some context helps.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been conducting an investigation into the criminal network of Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier who was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and died in federal custody that same year. The committee has been examining how Epstein ran his trafficking operation, how he cultivated relationships with powerful figures, and whether any federal officials or laws were compromised.
The investigation gained new momentum after the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which directed the Department of Justice to release a large trove of Epstein-related documents. Those files included photographs, emails, financial records, and scheduling logs that named — or referenced — a number of prominent individuals, including Lutnick.
Lutnick, who spent his entire career at Cantor Fitzgerald before joining the Trump administration as Commerce Secretary, came to Congress’s attention because he lived at 11 East 71st Street in Manhattan — literally the townhouse next door to Epstein’s residence at 9 East 71st Street — for approximately 14 years. Released Epstein documents also showed some email exchanges referencing Lutnick, a photograph of him at Epstein’s island, and a shared business document.
The interview was requested by Chairman James Comer. Lutnick agreed to appear voluntarily and was not placed under oath, though he was reminded that under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1001) he was required to answer congressional questions truthfully, and that knowingly false statements could result in criminal prosecution.
Lutnick’s Opening Statement: “Meaningless and Inconsequential”
Lutnick opened with a prepared statement in which he framed his contact with Epstein as minimal, coincidental, and driven entirely by their shared neighborhood — not by any personal or professional interest.
He described purchasing his townhouse at 11 East 71st Street in 1997, though it was in such poor condition (he described it as home to “pigeons and mice”) that extensive reconstruction delayed his family from actually moving in until 2005. Their first encounter with Epstein came shortly after that move-in, when Epstein’s staff knocked on their door to invite Lutnick and his wife for coffee.
The first interaction (2005): Lutnick and his wife went next door for coffee. Epstein offered a tour of his home. When he opened a door that Lutnick expected to be a dining room, there was instead a massage table surrounded by candles. Lutnick asked how often Epstein got massages. Epstein replied that he had one “every day,” and — Lutnick testified — leaned in close and added “the right kind of massage.” Lutnick and his wife exchanged a look and left. Walking back to their own home, they discussed that Lutnick would avoid establishing any personal or professional relationship with Epstein.
The second interaction (2011): Epstein’s office contacted Lutnick’s office requesting a call; Lutnick’s office attempted to arrange it but the two never connected by phone. Eventually, Lutnick testified, he rang Epstein’s doorbell on a Sunday walk with his wife and dogs to hear what Epstein wanted. He sat in the foyer with his dog, listened to Epstein talk about upcoming scaffolding work that would affect their adjacent properties, and left. Lutnick described this as “meaningless and inconsequential.”
The third interaction (2012): Epstein’s staff contacted Lutnick’s office around Thanksgiving of 2012, somehow already aware that Lutnick’s family planned to vacation near Epstein’s private island, Little Saint James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands over the Christmas holidays. On December 23, 2012, Lutnick, his wife, his four children, another couple and their four children, and staff — roughly 15 to 16 people in total — visited the island for lunch. They sat outside, ate, and left. Lutnick described it as “boring.”
“Each and every one was meaningless and inconsequential,” Lutnick stated in his opening. “To put this in perspective, Epstein lived in the house next door to my family for 14 years, and in that entire time, I interacted with him in person only three times.”
Lutnick also referenced a October 1, 2025 appearance on the Pod Force One podcast with host Miranda Devine, in which he had publicly recounted his relationship with Epstein in informal terms. He acknowledged that his podcast language was imprecise — calling it a casual, informal retelling — but insisted the core substance was accurate.
Topic 1: The 2005 Coffee Visit — The Massage Table Encounter
Majority counsel Emmer walked Lutnick through the first interaction in significant detail. Lutnick testified that he had no prior knowledge of who Epstein was when he first met him. He did not know Epstein’s profession, had no social connection to him, and had not noticed anything unusual about him before moving in.
When the tour reached the massage table room, Lutnick recalled asking Epstein how often he had a massage. Epstein replied “every day.” Then, Lutnick testified, Epstein got “weirdly close” to him and added the words “the right kind of massage” — with Lutnick’s wife standing right next to him. Lutnick testified that he interpreted this to mean “it would become in some form sexual in nature.” The couple excused themselves and left almost immediately.
On the artwork: Majority counsel asked whether Lutnick had seen any disturbing artwork — photographs or paintings of nude women or girls — that the Epstein files later revealed decorated his home. Lutnick said he had not, and added that he would have noticed if there were any. He only saw the living room and briefly one other room.
On Epstein’s lack of boundaries: When asked what specifically triggered his description of Epstein as having “a clear lack of boundaries,” Lutnick clarified it was the verbal comment, not the massage table itself. The table just raised the question; the answer was what unsettled him.
Topic 2: The Pod Force One Podcast — Did Lutnick Mislead the Public?
This section consumed the most time in the interview, particularly during the minority’s questioning hour. At issue were statements Lutnick made during his October 2025 podcast appearance, which were later called into question when the Epstein files revealed he had in fact visited Epstein’s island.
The key quote under scrutiny: During the podcast, Lutnick described the walk back from Epstein’s home after the massage table incident and said: “My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.” He also used the phrase “one and absolutely done” and said “I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy.”
Minority staff members — and members of Congress — challenged these statements methodically, pointing out that Lutnick had, in fact, been in Epstein’s presence twice more after the first meeting, including at a social lunch on the island.
Lutnick’s explanation: Lutnick maintained throughout that his podcast remarks were not meant to be taken literally. He said he was describing an informal conversation with his wife about a decision to avoid forming any personal or professional relationship with Epstein — and that “I” in his statements referred to himself as an individual man, not accompanied by his wife. Because both subsequent interactions involved his wife being present, Lutnick argued, he had effectively kept his commitment to never be with Epstein alone or in a socially, professionally, or philanthropically intentional way.
“I was never — Howard Lutnick — I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or philanthropically, alone in a situation where I could be at all with a person who I found inappropriate,” he said.
Democratic members pressed hard on this distinction. Rep. Subramanyam pointed out directly that in the 2011 scaffolding conversation, both men were physically together — even if others were nearby — and asked how Lutnick could claim otherwise. Lutnick acknowledged being physically present but maintained his interpretation. Rep. Walkinshaw argued that most married people hearing a spouse say “I will never be in a room with that person again” would understand it to mean “we should both stay away,” not just “I won’t go alone.”
Rep. Khanna asked whether Lutnick had any regrets about the podcast statements — not legally, but morally — given that many people now felt misled. Lutnick said no. He believed his words, understood in the way he intended them, were accurate.
On “one and done”: Asked what “one and absolutely done” meant to him, Lutnick said it meant he was never in a situation with Epstein — he was “never with him” in any meaningful sense. Democratic members argued the plain reading of the phrase implies only one interaction ever occurred.
The minority’s unnamed lead questioner offered what appeared to be a fair summary of Lutnick’s position: that what Lutnick actually intended to say was “I was never in the room with him alone, unaccompanied by my wife, socially, for business, or philanthropy.” Lutnick agreed that was closer to his meaning, though he maintained his original phrasing was still accurate.
Topic 3: The 2012 Island Visit — Little Saint James
The committee examined the island visit in considerable detail. Several facts emerged that were notable:
How the invitation happened: An email introduced as Majority Exhibit 1 — sent November 20, 2012, from Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff to “Howard Lutnick” — showed that Epstein’s office reached out to Lutnick’s office proactively, apparently already aware that Lutnick’s family would be vacationing near the Virgin Islands. Lutnick testified that he found this “inexplicable and unsettling” — he had not told Epstein’s staff about his plans, and he still has no idea how they learned of his travel.
Lutnick clarified an important detail about how his emails were routed: emails addressed to “Howard Lutnick” went to his longtime assistant Matthew Gilbert, not to Lutnick himself. Only emails addressed to “HWL” went directly to him. This meant Lutnick would not have seen or responded personally to the November 2012 invitation.
The visit itself: Lutnick described arriving with roughly 15 to 16 people — his wife, four children, another family of four, staff, and boat staff — sitting outside under a covered area, having lunch, walking briefly to look at the water from a cliff, and leaving. He said he did not go inside any buildings, saw no unusual artwork, saw no young women or girls, and heard no discussion of anything other than chitchat. He described the conversation as “inconsequential” to the point of having no memory of anything specific being said.
The photograph: The committee introduced as Majority Exhibit 2 photos released by the Department of Justice showing a room at Epstein’s island with multiple face masks on the wall and a dentist chair. One of those masks, Lutnick was told, had been speculated online to resemble him. His response was blunt: “You’ve got to be kidding me. That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I’ve ever heard.” He pointed out that the mask depicted a bald man and he has hair, and added at the end of the interview that he did not grow a beard until after Epstein’s death in 2019.
Did Lutnick know about Epstein’s 2008 conviction? Multiple members asked whether Lutnick was aware, at the time of the 2012 visit, that Epstein had pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution in Florida. Lutnick said he did not believe he knew. He argued that if he had known his neighbor was a registered sex offender, he would have remembered, and both he and his wife would never have agreed to go. Rep. Ansari expressed skepticism, noting the case had been widely covered in the news. Lutnick countered that Epstein did not become a nationally recognized figure until 2019 after his federal arrest.
Topic 4: AdFin Solutions — The Business Connection
One of the more unexpected revelations from the Epstein files was that Cantor Fitzgerald’s venture capital arm and Jeffrey Epstein both signed the same investment agreement for a company called AdFin Solutions, which attempted to create an online advertising exchange. The company ultimately went out of business.
Lutnick testified that AdFin was an investment made by Cantor Ventures, a venture capital subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald that invested in small, high-risk companies. He said he was not personally an investor in AdFin — it was a corporate investment by the subsidiary — and that he had no idea Epstein was also a co-investor until the documents were released publicly.
The committee introduced as Majority Exhibit 4 a May 2018 email chain in which Epstein emailed Lutnick’s personal “HWL” address directly, asking about AdFin’s prospects. Lutnick responded (this email was to him personally, he confirmed) that AdFin was “producing revenue finally” and that the next 12 months would be critical for it to become self-sufficient. Epstein then joked about buying Lutnick’s townhouse as a “guesthouse,” confusing the address with the Pierre Hotel apartment Lutnick owned. Lutnick responded with a two-word reply: “Probably 4 years. Pierre.”
Why was Epstein emailing about AdFin at all? Lutnick theorized that because AdFin was aggressively marketing to potential clients and investors, it was contacting anyone it could, and that Epstein probably learned about the company through that outreach — not through any direct connection with Lutnick. He said he did not find it unusual that people knew about AdFin because it was actively seeking attention.
On having Lutnick’s signature page: The committee noted with some interest that a stock purchase agreement bearing Cantor Fitzgerald’s signature — signed by Lutnick in his corporate capacity — was found in Epstein’s personal files. This struck Lutnick as “inexplicable and unsettling,” since co-investors in a venture deal typically do not possess each other’s signature pages.
Lutnick’s attorney Terwilliger offered an important clarification for the record: despite widespread reporting that the agreement was signed in December 2012 — potentially overlapping with the island visit — the actual Cantor Fitzgerald signing occurred in spring 2013, after the pitch was made to Lutnick in May 2013. He offered to provide Bates numbers to committee staff to document this.
Topic 5: The Email Record — What Lutnick Did and Didn’t See
A recurring theme throughout the interview was the question of which emails Lutnick personally saw versus which were handled by his assistant. Lutnick explained the system clearly:
Any email addressed to “Howard Lutnick” or “Lutnick, Howard” went to Matthew Gilbert, his longtime office assistant of 20 years. Gilbert would respond either in his own name or sometimes in Lutnick’s name — but Lutnick himself would never see those emails. Only emails bearing the designation “HWL” went directly to Lutnick.
This routing system was significant because several of the emails in the Epstein files were addressed to “Howard Lutnick” — including the November 2012 island invitation. Lutnick’s testimony was that he would not have personally read those communications.
The only email exchange he confirmed as personally his — because it bore the “HWL” designation — was the May 2018 AdFin conversation with Epstein, which he read and responded to himself.
The Frick expansion emails: A 2018 email chain showed that someone in Lutnick’s office contacted Epstein’s office about opposing a proposed expansion to the Frick Collection museum, which neighbors worried would block park views. Lutnick explained that a group of building owners on the block had asked him to involve Epstein, since Epstein was also a neighbor. But the actual contact, he testified, was made by Matthew Gilbert on his behalf — not by Lutnick personally.
Topic 6: Other Documents Introduced
The committee walked through a series of additional documents from the Epstein files, each representing a potential point of contact.
October 2009 outreach (Majority Exhibit 5): An email showed that someone named Rich Barnett, an employee of Lutnick’s at Cantor Fitzgerald, had passed along a message to Epstein’s office suggesting Lutnick wanted to speak with Epstein. Lutnick said he had no recollection of this, but speculated it may have been construction-related, since Barnett handled construction matters for him. He emphasized he did not actually speak with Epstein as a result.
April/May 2011 scheduling documents (Majority Exhibits 6 and 7; Minority Exhibits C, D, and E): Multiple documents from spring 2011 showed an extended attempt to schedule a call between Lutnick and Epstein. Lutnick said the two were never actually able to connect by phone, which is ultimately why he rang Epstein’s bell in person on May 1, 2011 — the scaffolding conversation. One document (Minority Exhibit E) showed that Epstein’s schedule for May 1 had listed “drinks” with Lutnick. Lutnick disputed this was accurate: “This is incorrect. I did not have drinks.” He said it was a brief foyer conversation, nothing more. He also noted, somewhat wryly, that he would definitely have remembered if he’d encountered Woody Allen and his wife Soon-Yi, who were listed later on that same schedule — and he did not see them.
2015 Dubin Breast Center event (Majority Exhibit 9): An invitation for a Dubin Breast Center event was found in Epstein’s files, with Lutnick’s name on the invite list. Lutnick said he donated to the center but had no role in selecting who was invited. He said he did not remember whether he attended, and if he did, he had no recollection of any interaction with Epstein there.
2015 Hillary Clinton fundraiser (Majority Exhibit 10): An email from November 2015, sent by Matthew Gilbert in Lutnick’s name, referenced a fundraising event for Secretary Hillary Clinton. Lutnick confirmed the event, described it as a standard political fundraiser, and noted that Clinton had been supportive of Cantor Fitzgerald and New York after September 11th. He said he did not interact with Epstein at the event — and added: “He wasn’t there.”
2017 UJA Wall Street Dinner (Majority Exhibit 11): An email from financier John Paulson to Lesley Groff — forwarded to Epstein — invited Epstein to a UJA (United Jewish Appeal) Wall Street dinner honoring Lutnick, describing Epstein as “a close friend of the Lutnicks.” Lutnick said Epstein was not a close friend, he had no idea how Paulson came up with that characterization, he did not direct Paulson to invite Epstein, and he did not solicit or thank Epstein for any donation to the event. Records suggest Epstein did in fact donate. Lutnick said he has no recollection of seeing or interacting with Epstein at the event.
Nanny resume (Majority questioning; Minority Exhibit G): Released Epstein files included a resume of one of Lutnick’s former nannies, apparently sent to Epstein staffer Richard Kahn with the note “attached is a resume of Lutnick nanny.” Lutnick said he had absolutely no knowledge of this, never encouraged any of his nannies to contact Epstein, and does not know whether the person named is the same nanny who accompanied his family on the 2012 island trip.
Topic 7: Ghislaine Maxwell
The committee asked Lutnick about Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate who was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking.
Lutnick testified that he knows Maxwell only “from the newspapers.” He met her exactly once, at a charity fundraiser for the Rockefeller University (a premier medical research institution in New York City). He could not recall the year. He did not know she had any connection to Epstein at the time of the meeting. He recalled her conversation as “meaningless and inconsequential.”
His best recollection was that she had attended the event as a guest of Leon Black, the financier, with whom Lutnick described having a “friendly, intermittent relationship.” He testified he had no knowledge of any blackmail role in the Epstein-Black relationship, though he recalled hearing that their relationship “ended badly.”
Topic 8: Lutnick’s Blackmail Speculation — A Walkback
During the 2025 podcast, Lutnick had speculated that Epstein was “the greatest blackmailer ever” and that massages were his mechanism for extracting compromising material from powerful people. He also speculated that Epstein may have traded video recordings to the Department of Justice in exchange for his lenient plea deal in 2008.
When Rep. Khanna pressed him on the basis for these claims, Lutnick walked them back substantially. He said all of it was “raw speculation” for the podcast, not based on any personal knowledge. He said he had no direct or indirect knowledge of anyone Epstein had blackmailed, had never heard anyone say they felt pressured to pay Epstein, and had no personal knowledge of any video recordings.
Most notably, Lutnick said he no longer believes Epstein engaged in blackmail at all. When Khanna asked why his view had changed, Lutnick said: “Because there have been people from the administration who have all of the details who have said so, and I credit what they’ve said.”
When pressed on which public statements from which administration officials he was referring to, Lutnick said he was thinking of public comments — but Rep. Walkinshaw challenged him on this, saying he was unaware of any such statements. Terwilliger interjected that Ranking Member Garcia had referenced relevant material in a committee letter, suggesting Walkinshaw was unaware of his own ranking member’s correspondence.
Topic 9: Questions About President Trump — Declined
Minority members asked whether Lutnick had ever spoken with President Trump about Epstein or the Epstein files. Lutnick declined to answer questions about conversations with the President, citing the sensitivity of such communications. He was careful to add: “I’m not even suggesting I had them. I’m just saying, I won’t go there.”
He confirmed he had never discussed Epstein with Trump during the period when Trump was a private citizen (before and during the Biden years), and that he had no direct or indirect knowledge of the nature of the relationship between Epstein and Trump beyond public reporting.
He also confirmed that his Epstein connections were not raised, to his recollection, during his vetting and nomination process for the Commerce Secretary position.
When asked about the First Lady Melania Trump’s public calls for a full investigation and the release of remaining Epstein files, Lutnick declined to express a personal opinion, deferring to “the administration itself.”
Topic 10: The Video Controversy — Minority Objection
Before the minority’s questioning round began, the unnamed lead minority staff member delivered a pointed statement for the record criticizing the majority’s decision not to videotape the interview.
The minority argued that the committee had videotaped testimony from other prominent Epstein-related witnesses — including Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Les Wexner, President Bill Clinton, and Secretary Hillary Clinton — and released those videos publicly within days. The minority argued that Lutnick, as a sitting Republican cabinet official, was being afforded different treatment than those witnesses had been.
The minority also noted that during the Biden-era “autopen” investigation, Oversight Republicans had videotaped all 14 interviewed White House officials — including the 11 who participated in transcribed (not deposition) format — and released every video to the public.
“Committee Republicans have set one standard for officials in a Democratic administration and a separate and less transparent standard for officials in a Republican administration,” the minority stated. “That is a political distinction, not a principled one.”
Lutnick was asked directly whether he had refused videotaping. His attorney Terwilliger declined to discuss the negotiation details, citing privilege. Lutnick himself said he preferred to “just answer questions about my three meaningless and inconsequential meetings as briefly as possible.”
After a recess mid-interview, Chairman Comer went on record to push back on statements Democrats had apparently made to the press during a break, calling them “completely false” and defending the committee’s investigation as serious and credible. He also made a remark about Rep. Walkinshaw being in a “tough race against a transgender candidate,” a comment that appeared unrelated to the proceedings.
Topic 11: Questions About Epstein’s Crimes — Direct Denials
Near the close of the majority’s questioning hour, Emmer asked Lutnick a series of direct, explicit questions about potential personal involvement in Epstein’s crimes. Lutnick’s responses were categorical denials:
He said he never witnessed Epstein have sexual contact of any kind with any young woman or girl. He never saw Epstein receive a massage from young women or girls. He never had sexual contact with any young woman or girl in Epstein’s presence. He never received a massage from any person introduced to him by Epstein or Maxwell. He never engaged in sexual activity with any person introduced to him by Epstein or Maxwell. He never saw any young women or girls on the island or at Epstein’s New York home.
He also testified he had never visited Epstein’s Palm Beach home, his New Mexico ranch, his Paris apartment, his New Albany (Ohio) home, or any London apartments. He never flew on Epstein’s private planes and Epstein never flew on his. His last known communication with Epstein was the 2018 email exchange about AdFin.
Notable Exchanges
On the mask photo: After being shown a photo of face masks hanging on Epstein’s island with a dentist chair in the center, and told that internet speculation had identified one as resembling him, Lutnick replied: “You’ve got to be kidding me. That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I’ve ever heard. What, a bald man? I have hair. Look.” He returned to this at the very end of the interview, unprompted, to note for the record that he did not grow a beard until after Epstein’s death — meaning the mask, which appeared bearded, could not represent him.
On how Epstein knew his travel plans: Multiple times throughout the interview, Lutnick returned to his unresolved discomfort about the November 2012 email showing that Epstein’s office knew he would be near the Virgin Islands over Christmas. “I find it inexplicable and unsettling,” he said more than once. He testified that no one on his staff, to his knowledge, had a connection with Epstein’s staff, and that he still has no explanation for how the information was obtained.
On “I” vs. “we”: In what became the interview’s most philosophically intensive thread, Lutnick defended his podcast statement that he was “never in the room with him socially” by arguing that the personal pronoun “I” meant him specifically as a man acting alone — not him in the company of his wife. He framed the conversation with his wife as a discussion about his personal conduct: she was advising him, specifically, to avoid Epstein. The island lunch and scaffolding foyer visit both involved his wife, which he said placed them in a different category. Multiple members of Congress — including Subramanyam, Walkinshaw, and the lead minority questioner — said they found this interpretation strained and difficult to follow.
Citation
Interview of Howard W. Lutnick. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 119th Congress, 6 May 2026, Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Transcribed interview conducted under House Rule X. Released publicly May 12, 2026.