Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledges 2012 visit to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island as lawmakers scrutinise past ties
Testifying on Capitol Hill, Lutnick said he and his family stopped for a brief lunch during a Caribbean trip, as senators questioned discrepancies with earlier accounts of their contact.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has told lawmakers he visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private Caribbean island in two thousand twelve, a disclosure that intensified scrutiny of his past relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender during a tense congressional hearing.
Under questioning on Capitol Hill, Lutnick said the visit occurred during a family trip and involved a short lunch on the island.
He stressed that his wife and children were present, described the stop as brief, and rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing.
The admission landed amid renewed public and political focus on the extent of Lutnick’s contacts with Epstein after newly released official records prompted lawmakers to press him on whether his earlier descriptions of their relationship were complete.
During the hearing, senators framed the central issue as credibility and transparency rather than alleging criminal conduct by Lutnick.
Lutnick has previously portrayed his interactions with Epstein as limited and has described distancing himself after an earlier encounter.
In the hearing, he sought to narrow the timeline and scope of their contact, while lawmakers pointed to records that suggest the relationship continued in ways that are difficult to reconcile with a clean break.
The episode has quickly become politically charged, with calls for resignation emerging alongside arguments that a cabinet official’s judgment and candour are inseparable from public trust.
Lutnick has denied any improper behaviour and has portrayed his disclosures as consistent with a limited, incidental connection.
The controversy is now set to turn on what subsequent documentation shows about the frequency and nature of contact, how the administration and Congress respond to the credibility questions raised in the hearing, and whether the political pressure escalates into formal oversight actions or personnel consequences.