Leaked documents show MIT Media Lab hid the extent of Jeffrey Epstein's fundraising role, which also involved helping raise $7.5M through donors like Bill Gates
New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epstein's status as a convicted sex offender, and that Epstein directed contributions …
New YorkerRonan Farrow
Context & Ripple Effects
The New Yorker leak lands on an institution that had already publicly distanced itself from Epstein: MIT had 'disqualified' him as a donor, and these documents show the Media Lab knew his convicted status while he directed contributions anyway. Within a day, director Joi Ito resigned over the concealment.
The story also pulls in Bill Gates, whom Epstein helped cultivate as a donor; reporting soon after documented Gates' repeated meetings with Epstein starting in 2011, turning a university fundraising scandal into a reputational problem for one of tech philanthropy's most visible figures.
First-order effects
Joi Ito's position becomes untenable immediately, and MIT faces direct questions about why a donor it formally disqualified was still brokering $7.5M in gifts to the Media Lab.
Donors routed through Epstein — Gates foremost among them — must account for how their money reached MIT through a convicted sex offender.
Second-order effects
Other universities and labs that accepted Epstein's money come under pressure to disclose their own records, since the Media Lab leak proves institutional concealment rather than ignorance.
Elite research fundraising shifts toward formal donor-vetting and disclosure regimes, because the alternative — quiet disqualification on paper while accepting brokered money — is now provably discoverable through leaks and government releases.
The 2019 pattern recurs at scale in 2026, when DOJ-released emails between tech figures and Epstein reignite public scrutiny and even congressional testimony, suggesting institutional concealment of Epstein ties converts into a permanent oversight liability rather than a closed scandal.
The trend: Philanthropic funding of elite tech-adjacent institutions is being re-priced around donor-vetting risk, with leaks and successive government releases converting private fundraising discretion into permanent public accountability.
How an elite university research center concealed its relationship with a sex offender—documents show MIT Media Lab accepted donations directed by Jeffrey Epstein far in excess of what the university has admitted to, and worked to cover it up: https://www.newyorker.com/...
@RonanFarrow Related: A list of 20 boards on which Joi Ito, MIT's disgraced director of the MIT Media Lab, sits. https://joi.ito.com/... https://twitter.com/...
I told the @nytimes everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside @MIT and @Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths. @joi is on the board of the NYT. THANK GOD FOR @RonanFarrow https://www.newyorker.com/...
For people asking what the MIT Media Lab does, might be helpful to look at their 2010 list of top 25 commercialized products: http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/ ... E-ink, Scratch, Guitar Hero, as well as a clock that runs away and “karaoke-on-demand”: pic.twitter.com/dGyeerlXtU
Within MIT's internal politics this is probably the end of the Lab's privileged status within the Institute. This is *precisely* what the faculty feared when Nicholas and Wiesner convinced President Gray to let them raise their own money from non-standard donors and own their IP.
I'm a skeptical about how much “directing” Epstein did. Joi and Nicholas et al have contacts with Gates and all major private and institutional donor. And Epstein always exaggerated his connections and influence. But to be clear, this Farrow piece is a catastrophe for the Lab.
New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epstein's status as a convicted sex offender, and that Epstein directed contributions to the lab far exceeding the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted. @ronanfarrow https://www.newyorker.com/...
Holy crap. “In 2014, Joi Ito wrote to Jeffrey Epstein soliciting a cash infusion, asking, “Could you re-up/top-off with another $100K?” Epstein replied, “yes.” Forwarding the response to a staff member, Ito wrote, “Make sure this gets accounted for as anonymous.” ...
I have asked @Joi and @reidhoffman and members of the Disobedience Award jury by email if @RonanFarrow bombshell changes any of their minds about anything. No word yet. https://twitter.com/...
In October, 2014, Media Lab received $2M donation from Bill Gates; Ito wrote in an internal email, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Cohen replied, “For gift recording purposes, we will not B mentioning Jeffrey's name as the impetus for this gift h…
Jeffrey Epstein was marked as “disqualified” in MIT's official donor database, but its Media Lab continued to accept donations from him and avoided disclosing the full extent of his contributions. @ronanfarrow https://www.newyorker.com/...
“...although Epstein was listed as “disqualified” in M.I.T.'s official donor database, the Media Lab continued to accept gifts from him, consulted him about the use of the funds, and, by marking his contributions as anonymous, avoided disclosing their full extent...”
More enablers. Glad they're getting called out. Don't stop. That's what will minimize pathetic men like Epstein & Nassar. When institutions are ashamed to enable them. https://twitter.com/...
The donations were listed as “anonymous.” I've always assumed anonymous donors were people too humble to want recognition. What a rube. https://twitter.com/...
Ito wrote in an internal e-mail, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Cohen replied, “For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey's name as the impetus for this gift.” https://www.newyorker.com/...
Dear @Joi, After this report from @RonanFarrow, detailing your complicity with Epstein, it's over. I always found you nice. You've mentored many of my friends. But unless you want to drag MIT and @nytimes down with you, find the dignity to resign. https://www.newyorker.com/...
The effort to conceal the lab's contact with Epstein was so widely known that some staff in the office of the lab's director, @Joi, referred to Epstein as Voldemort or “he who must not be named.” @ronanfarrow https://www.newyorker.com/...
This is what moral bankruptcy looks like. The scope and scale of the deliberate deceit is breathtaking. Ito should be forced off every board he sits on, especially those of grantmaking and journalism institutions. https://twitter.com/...
This shouldn't be a Friday night news drop. This is really, really fucked up. First the Aaron Swartz mess and now this. Sorry, MIT, it's now clear that whatever “innocent” explanations that were tried before this, that's all bullshit. https://twitter.com/...
This piece from @RonanFarrow adds devastating detail to what was already a devastating story. MIT needs to face up to this, and now. https://twitter.com/...
Well that's that. Hose the place out: How An Élite University Research Center Concealed Its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein https://www.newyorker.com/...
This new @RonanFarrow report should erase any doubt that @Joi has no business running @medialab and @MIT must do a complete, independent examination of Epstein's involvement. In addition, all those people who endorsed Joi staying on should reconsider. https://twitter.com/...
After Epstein was a convicted sex offender, listed as “disqualified” from donating in MIT's database, MIT Media Lab worked closely with Epstein, secretly taking donations from him or labeled as having been secured at his direction, from his contacts, including Bill Gates. pic.twi…