Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick told senators Tuesday that he visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island in December 2012, years after he claimed to have severed all contact with the convicted sex offender following a 2005 encounter that Lutnick said left him "disgusted."

As reported by The Hill, the admission came during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) confronted Lutnick with evidence from recently released Epstein files that contradicted the Commerce Secretary's prior account of his relationship with the disgraced financier.

Van Hollen, the subcommittee's ranking member, put the question plainly:

"Why do the Epstein files show you coordinating a meeting and planning a visit with Jeffrey Epstein on his private island in December of 2012?"

Lutnick confirmed the visit. But the explanation he offered raised more questions than it answered.

"I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation."

He elaborated that his wife, four children, nannies, and another couple with their children were all present — and that the visit lasted about an hour. He insisted the only people he saw on the island were Epstein's staff.

The gap between 'disgusted' and 'lunch on the island'

The problem for Lutnick isn't just the visit. It's the distance between his prior testimony and the documentary record now emerging from the Department of Justice's release of Epstein-related files.

Lutnick had previously told senators he was alarmed by Epstein's character after their first meeting in 2005, when Epstein allegedly made sexual innuendos about a massage table in his Manhattan apartment. The impression Lutnick left was unambiguous: he found Epstein repulsive and walked away for good.

Van Hollen drove the contradiction home:

"You led people to believe that you had cut off all contact with Jeffrey Epstein after the 2005 encounter you and your wife had in his apartment. As I'm sure you know, the Epstein files show a very different record of interaction."

The island visit happened after Epstein had already pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution. Lutnick knew who Epstein was. Everyone did.

The memory gets selective

Lutnick tried to minimize the scope of his contact with Epstein, framing it as negligible over a long period:

"Over the next 14 years, I met him two other times that I can recall. Two times. None for six years. Six years later, I met him. And then a year and a half after that I met him, and never again."

He pointed to the volume of Epstein's records as exculpatory context:

"Of these millions and millions of documents, there may be 10 emails connecting me with him, probably 10 emails connecting me with him. Over a 14-year period, I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person."

Ten emails over fourteen years doesn't sound like much — until you remember the man on the other end of those emails was a convicted sex offender whose island was the site of alleged sex crimes. The bar for "acceptable contact" with Jeffrey Epstein after his guilty plea is zero. "Barely anything" doesn't clear it.

The Woody Allen dinner

Van Hollen also asked about a document suggesting Lutnick joined a dinner with Woody Allen at Epstein's residence in 2011. Lutnick said, "No. I actually don't know what you're referring to."

But he then acknowledged finding a document referencing a separate meeting with Epstein — "in May," he said, "for an hour at 5 o'clock." He characterized it as neither dinner nor anything more. An email from Epstein's assistant to Lutnick read, "It was nice seeing you."

So the man who claimed total separation from Epstein after 2005 visited his island in 2012, may have met him in 2011, and can't quite explain why any of it happened. When pressed on the island visit specifically, Lutnick said, "I don't recall why we did it."

What this is really about

Senate Democrats are using the Epstein files, released by the Department of Justice, to challenge Lutnick's credibility. Van Hollen said the disclosures "call into question" Lutnick's reliability as a witness before Congress. That's the political play, and it's not subtle.

But strip away the partisan maneuvering and the core issue remains: a sitting Cabinet secretary told Congress one story about his relationship with a convicted sex offender, and the documents tell a different one. That matters regardless of who's asking the questions.

This isn't about guilt by association. Plenty of powerful people crossed paths with Epstein before his crimes were fully understood. But Lutnick's own timeline doesn't hold. He said he was disgusted in 2005. Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution. And then, years later, Lutnick brought his family to the man's island for lunch.

The question Van Hollen kept circling back to is the one that still doesn't have a satisfying answer:

"Secretary Lutnick, I think you understand the root of concern here. It's the way you described very emphatically his first encounter with him in his apartment. You said you were disgusted, would never have any contact with him again."

Lutnick insists his wife and children were present, that nothing untoward occurred, that the visit was brief and unremarkable. Maybe so. But "unremarkable" visits to Jeffrey Epstein's island don't exist. The address itself is the indictment.

If Lutnick wants this behind him, vague memory and volume-of-documents defenses won't do it. The files are out. Congress has them. And "I don't recall why we did it" is not an answer — it's an invitation for more questions.