US commerce secretary acknowledges meeting Epstein after his conviction

Under questioning from Democrats on Tuesday, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that he had met Jeffrey Epstein twice after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a child, reversing Mr Lutnick’s previous claim that he had cut ties with the late financier after 2005.

Mr Lutnick once again downplayed his relationship with the disgraced financier who was once his neighbour in New York City as he was questioned by Democrats during a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

He described their contact as a handful of emails and a couple of meetings that were years apart.

“I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with him,” Mr Lutnick told the hearing.

But Mr Lutnick is facing calls from several politicians for his resignation after the release of case files on Epstein contradicted his claims on a podcast last year that he had decided to “never be in the room” with Epstein again after a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Mr Lutnick and his wife.

The commerce secretary said on Tuesday that he and his family actually had lunch with Epstein on his private island in 2012 and he had another hour-long engagement at Epstein’s home in 2011.

Mr Lutnick, a member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, is the highest-profile US official to face bipartisan calls for his resignation amid revelations of his ties to Epstein.

His acknowledgement comes as politicians are grasping for what accountability looks like amid the revelations contained in the so-called Epstein files.

In other countries, the Epstein files have triggered resignations and the stripping of royal privileges, but so far, US officials have not met the same level of retribution.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Mr Lutnick “remains a very important member of President Trump’s team, and the president fully supports the secretary”.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, the Democrat who questioned Mr Lutnick, told him: “There’s not an indication that you yourself engaged in any wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein. It’s the fact that you believe that you misled the country and the Congress based on your earlier statements.”

Mr Van Hollen stopped short of calling for Mr Lutnick’s resignation, but requested documentation from Mr Lutnick on any of his ties to Epstein.

“It’s absolutely essential that he provide Congress with those documents, given the misrepresentations he’s made, and then we’ll go from there,” he said.

Mr Lutnick said during the Senate hearing that he would give that request some thought, adding: “I have nothing to hide.”

But several Senate Republicans were also questioning Mr Lutnick’s relationship with Epstein.

Senator Roger Wicker said the visit to Epstein’s private island “would raise questions”.

And Senator Thom Tillis told reporters: “It’s something I’m concerned with.”

Senate majority leader John Thune did not mention Mr Lutnick by name, but told reporters on Tuesday that those mentioned in the Epstein files were “going to have to answer questions around that”.

“I think the American people are going to have to make judgments about whether or not they think those answers are sufficient,” Mr Thune said.

Mr Tillis also stayed away from calling for Mr Lutnick to leave his post, but added that “he would do himself a service by just laying out exactly what did and what did not happen over the course of what seems to be an interesting relationship that included business entanglements”.

Meanwhile, House members who initiated the legislative effort to force the release of the files are calling for Mr Lutnick to resign.

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky called for that over the weekend after emails were released that alluded to the meetings between Mr Lutnick and Epstein.

Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, joined Mr Massie in pressuring Mr Lutnick out of office on Monday.

“Based on the evidence, he should be out of the Cabinet,” Mr Khanna said.

He added: “It’s not about any particular person. In this country, we have to make a decision. Are we going to allow the rich and powerful people who are friends and (had) no problem doing business and showing up with a paedophile who is raping underage girls, are we just going to allow them to skate?”