Steven Pinker and Jeffrey Epstein: How a Linguistic Favor Entered the Defense

UpdatedAugust 17, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

The celebrated Harvard psychologist says he did not know Epstein was the client. His expertise still appeared in the 2007 effort to narrow the federal case, and later records document polite yeses after Epstein became a convicted sex offender.

Snapshot

Steven Pinker did not treat Jeffrey Epstein or examine a minor for him. He is not a psychiatrist or a clinical therapist. He is a cognitive psychologist and language expert whose public authority made a different kind of contribution valuable.

In July 2007, Epstein’s lawyers sent federal prosecutors a lengthy defense submission. One section relied on Pinker’s linguistic analysis of a federal child enticement statute. The lawyers quoted him while arguing that the statute should be read narrowly. Pinker later said he answered an unpaid question for his Harvard colleague and friend Alan Dershowitz, did not know Epstein was the client, never discussed the matter with Epstein, and regretted providing the analysis.

That distinction matters. The record proves that Pinker’s expertise entered Epstein’s defense. It does not prove that Pinker joined the defense team, knew who would benefit when he answered the question, approved the full submission, or caused prosecutors to offer Epstein his extraordinary nonprosecution agreement.

The wider record is not limited to that opinion. Pinker flew once on Epstein’s aircraft in 2002 and appeared with him at a Harvard gathering in 2004, both before Epstein’s crimes became public. In 2012, four years after Epstein’s conviction, Pinker told an assistant that he would be delighted to meet him. The proposed meeting did not occur. In 2014, Pinker helped organize an Arizona State University conference that Epstein told prospective guests he was sponsoring. Pinker and Epstein had direct contact there. In 2015, Epstein’s office helped Pinker obtain contact information for Stephen Hawking, and Pinker sent thanks.

None of this proves that Pinker participated in abuse, knew the full scope of Epstein’s crimes, received Epstein funding, visited Epstein’s island or homes, or committed a crime. It does document something more consequential than a name in an address book: a famous scholar’s expertise, presence, and professional courtesy remained available to Epstein before and after his conviction.

This dossier is part of EpsteinWiki’s broader investigation, The Psychologists Who Helped Jeffrey Epstein Stay Powerful.

Why Pinker matters

Epstein did not survive reputationally through one grand conspiracy. He accumulated smaller acts of validation.

A photograph with a celebrated professor could make him look intellectually serious. A place at a scientific gathering could make him look welcome. A technical opinion from a renowned language scholar could be placed inside a legal argument. A polite introduction could show that his office still opened doors.

Pinker matters because his record shows several of those mechanisms at once. It also shows why precision is essential. Some contacts happened before the public knew Epstein was a sex offender. One proposed meeting never happened. A later conference encounter did happen. The legal assistance was real, while Pinker’s knowledge of the client is disputed and supported only by his own later account.

The strongest article is not the one that calls every contact complicity. It is the one that shows exactly what each person supplied and refuses to turn an inference into a fact.

Who Steven Pinker is

Harvard identifies Pinker as the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology and an experimental cognitive psychologist whose work concerns language, mind, social relations, and violence. He is the author of prominent books including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Enlightenment Now. See the Harvard Department of Psychology profile.

Pinker is not a psychiatrist. The reviewed record does not identify him as a licensed clinical psychologist, therapist, evaluator, or provider to Epstein or anyone in Epstein’s orbit. His relevance is his expertise in language and his status as one of Harvard’s most recognizable public intellectuals.

That status is central to the story. Pinker was not valuable to Epstein because he could provide therapy. He was valuable because his name carried authority.

The early contacts came before Epstein’s crimes were public

Pinker has said that he first encountered Epstein around 2000 at a coffee arranged by mutual acquaintances who presented Epstein as intelligent and interested in science. Pinker said he formed a less favorable impression. This is Pinker’s retrospective account, not an independently preserved calendar entry.

In 2002, Pinker flew on Epstein’s aircraft with a group traveling from an East Coast TED event to California. Pinker said his literary agent, John Brockman, arranged the invitation, nothing suspicious occurred, and Epstein’s crimes were not known to him at the time. An archived Edge item reproduced in EFTA00261202 places Pinker with the group on the trip.

The flight proves travel and association. It does not prove abuse, knowledge of abuse, or a visit to Epstein’s island. The pejorative nickname often applied to Epstein’s aircraft adds heat but no evidence.

Photographs from a September 2004 gathering at Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics show Pinker in a group that included Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Lawrence Summers, Robert Trivers, and Martin Nowak. Pinker later said Nowak invited Pinker and Epstein separately and that he had no role in Epstein’s presence. The Miami Herald and Boston Globe reported on the Harvard network and gathering.

These early contacts deserve documentation, but chronology matters. They occurred before Epstein’s 2006 arrest and before the public record of his sexual abuse was widely known.

The 2007 opinion that entered Epstein’s federal defense

The central record is a July 6, 2007 letter from Epstein’s attorneys to federal prosecutors. The submission sought to dissuade the government from bringing federal charges. A section addressing 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) said the lawyers had asked Pinker to analyze the statute’s language. They quoted his conclusion in support of their proposed reading. See EFTA00191396.

The statute criminalizes knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a person under eighteen to engage in prostitution or unlawful sexual activity, or attempting to do so, while using the mail or a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce. The current text and amendment history are available from Cornell Legal Information Institute.

Epstein’s lawyers focused on how the interstate communication element connected to the persuasion or enticement. Their submission argued that the communication facility itself had to be the vehicle through which the prohibited persuasion occurred. They invoked Pinker’s linguistic judgment to call that construction the rational reading of the English sentence.

Pinker was supplying a language opinion, not deciding the law. Courts determine statutory meaning. The defense nevertheless used his prestige and expertise to strengthen a legal argument aimed at narrowing the possible federal case.

The same submission, or overlapping portions of it, appears under several production numbers, including EFTA00226396, EFTA00284175, EFTA01660165, EFTA00190116, EFTA00176507, EFTA00184224, and EFTA02756447. These are duplicate or overlapping productions. They do not represent eight separate opinions or favors.

What Pinker says he knew

Pinker has said Dershowitz asked him an abstract question about statutory language as an unpaid favor between Harvard colleagues. According to Pinker, he did not know Epstein was the client, did not communicate with Epstein about the issue, did not serve as an expert witness, and did not join the defense team.

In 2019, Pinker said that, knowing what he later learned, he regretted writing the analysis. Inside Higher Ed reported his explanation and the criticism that followed.

In a 2026 interview, Pinker framed the matter somewhat differently. He said he believed in the constitutional right of an accused person to legal representation and did not believe he had done anything wrong. He added that if he had known the extent of Epstein’s crimes and known the analysis would be used in Epstein’s defense, he might have had second thoughts. See Boston Magazine.

Those statements are not necessarily irreconcilable, but the change in emphasis is worth preserving. In 2019 he expressed regret. In 2026 he defended the general legitimacy of legal representation while saying fuller knowledge might have changed his decision.

No reviewed primary record disproves Pinker’s claim that he did not know the client when he answered Dershowitz. No reviewed primary record independently verifies it either. It should be reported as Pinker’s account.

What the opinion did not prove or cause

The 2007 defense letter is important because it shows completed assistance. It does not establish causation.

The reviewed record does not show how much weight prosecutors gave Pinker’s analysis. It does not show that this argument produced the nonprosecution agreement. The letter contained many factual and legal arguments, and the agreement emerged from a much larger negotiation.

It would therefore be inaccurate to write that Pinker personally secured Epstein’s deal or caused federal charges to disappear. It would be equally inaccurate to say he had no role at all. His specialized judgment was obtained and placed inside the defense’s attempt to avoid federal prosecution.

A proposed Florida list is not an attendance record

In 2009, Epstein asked for names of people described as smart and unconventional who might be invited to gatherings in Florida. Pinker’s name appeared on the resulting list. See EFTA02412962.

The document proves that Pinker was proposed as a possible guest. It does not prove that he saw the list, received an invitation, traveled to Florida, or attended a gathering.

Other records containing Pinker’s name are similarly weak. Some are article references, book discussions, copied biographies, or third party comments. A corpus search count is not a contact count.

The 2012 meeting Pinker accepted but did not attend

The first clear post conviction exchange requires two parts.

In March 2012, Epstein asked staff to determine whether Pinker would be available during a Boston visit. The initial scheduling requests appear in EFTA01838961, EFTA00672174, and EFTA01988524. On March 28, Pinker replied that he would be away on Sunday, April 15, but back the following day and would be delighted to meet Epstein. See EFTA00709846.

Duplicate or overlapping copies include EFTA01839143, EFTA02000981, and EFTA00416793. They document one response, not four acceptances.

The scheduling chain then breaks against the claim of a completed meeting. Epstein’s assistant said Epstein expected to return to New York on April 15 but would advise Pinker if the schedule changed. See EFTA00416798. Martin Nowak separately asked Epstein whether he should invite Pinker. See EFTA00659409. Epstein ultimately replied that Pinker was out of town. See EFTA00932823 and the duplicate EFTA01875146.

Pinker told Boston Magazine in 2026 that the meeting did not occur. The surrounding records are consistent with that statement.

The accurate finding is still significant. Four years after Epstein became a convicted sex offender, Pinker was willing to meet him and used warm language. The record does not show that this particular meeting happened.

The 2014 Arizona conference and confirmed contact

The clearest post conviction encounter occurred at Arizona State University in April 2014.

Lawrence Krauss told Epstein in July 2013 that Pinker had agreed to organize a panel for the following April. See EFTA00717817. The event became Transcending Our Origins: Violence, Humanity and the Future, a fifth anniversary program for the Origins Project. Arizona State University lists Pinker as a participant on the panel about violence.

On March 24, 2014, Epstein invited prospective guests to the event and wrote that he was sponsoring it. He also invited them to join his private conversations with Pinker concerning violence. See EFTA01751017. Overlapping copies include EFTA01929149, EFTA01931087, EFTA01933518, and EFTA00986231.

Event materials naming Pinker appear in EFTA01933923, EFTA01937290, and EFTA01191992.

On April 4, Epstein’s assistant asked Krauss whether Epstein could meet Craig Venter, Pinker, and other participants. Krauss answered that he would arrange it. See EFTA00371852 and duplicate EFTA02109578. Epstein then wrote that he was in Arizona with Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Venter. See EFTA00987400, with duplicates EFTA00987408 and EFTA01928658. A photograph also shows Pinker, Epstein, and Krauss together at the event.

Pinker told Boston Magazine that Krauss asked near the end of the event whether Epstein could come to the table and say hello. Pinker agreed. He said he should perhaps have refused and would not knowingly have agreed to an event branded as associated with Epstein. The magazine reported that the conference was largely funded by Epstein.

Separate gift records identify Epstein’s foundation as a supporter of an Origins Project prize and lectureship, but they do not establish a payment to Pinker or, standing alone, the exact amount supporting this conference. See EFTA00613866 and EFTA01201165.

The primary records establish that Epstein represented himself as the sponsor, that Krauss agreed to facilitate access to Pinker, and that Pinker and Epstein were together at the event. They do not establish that Pinker knew the source or extent of the event funding when he agreed to organize the panel. They also do not prove that Pinker participated in the private conversations Epstein advertised to other guests.

The distinction is crucial. This was a completed post conviction contact at an event Epstein said he sponsored. It is not proof of a private partnership or of Pinker’s knowledge of the financial arrangement.

The 2015 affidavit link

In January 2015, Pinker posted a link to an affidavit by Dershowitz responding to allegations connected to Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, and Prince Andrew. Contemporary reporting described the accompanying text as neutral rather than an explicit endorsement. See Inside Higher Ed.

The post is relevant because it circulated a defense document to Pinker’s audience. The available text does not establish why Pinker shared it or whether he accepted every assertion in it. A link must not be converted into a belief without evidence.

The 2015 Stephen Hawking introduction

In June 2015, a third party sought Epstein’s help obtaining contact information for Stephen Hawking so Pinker could request an interview for a publication. Epstein directed staff to handle the request. His office supplied the contact route, and Pinker replied with thanks and asked that Epstein be thanked as well. The chain appears in EFTA00346457.

Copies and surrounding records include EFTA00346461, EFTA00853637, EFTA02076136, EFTA02076078, EFTA00695049, and EFTA00853631.

The private contact information itself should not be republished.

This was a completed professional courtesy routed through Epstein’s office. It was limited, and the record does not show a meeting with Epstein, payment, or further collaboration. It nevertheless complicates any absolute claim that no professional favor ever passed between them.

Pinker’s public account and the documentary record

Pinker has said he spoke with Epstein only about three times across more than a decade, disliked him, tried to keep his distance, never received his research funding, and never visited his island or properties. Yahoo Finance and the Washington Post reported versions of that account.

The documentary record is compatible with a limited relationship, but it adds texture that the phrase no relationship can obscure.

It documents a 2002 flight, a 2004 group gathering, expertise that entered the 2007 defense, willingness to meet in 2012, direct contact at the 2014 Arizona event, and a 2015 professional introduction through Epstein’s office. Some were group settings. Some did not involve direct communication. One proposed meeting failed. None proves a close friendship.

The fairest description is limited but recurring association, with one important act of technical assistance and at least one confirmed post conviction encounter.

No evidence identifies Pinker as an accused perpetrator

Online discussions have sometimes tried to connect Pinker to an allegation involving a Harvard professor referred to as Stephen. The reviewed evidence does not identify Pinker as that person. Pinker’s first name is Steven, and the later legal record connected the allegation to a different Harvard psychologist.

Pinker has denied visiting Epstein’s island or residences. No reviewed record places him there, and no reviewed victim allegation accuses him of sexual abuse.

Association, even troubling association, is not evidence of perpetration. EpsteinWiki does not repeat a serious allegation against the wrong person because two first names sound alike.

Professional complaints and controversies

Pinker has faced substantial criticism unrelated to Epstein. The most formal public episode reviewed was a 2020 letter signed by hundreds of scholars asking the Linguistic Society of America to remove him from two honorary or public facing roles. The signers accused him of a pattern of minimizing racist and sexist violence and of selectively framing evidence.

The society declined the request, explaining that its processes were not designed to police members’ opinions or public expression. See Boston.com and the Harvard Crimson. Pinker published a detailed response to the letter, arguing that the cited passages were distorted or stripped of context.

This was a public professional petition and an intellectual dispute. It was not a finding of research misconduct, a licensing action, or a legal judgment.

Critics including philosopher Kate Manne have also challenged Pinker’s treatment of rape, feminism, and gendered violence. Pinker disputes those readings and points to his writing about declines in violence against women. These arguments are relevant to evaluating his public work, but they cannot be relabeled as disciplinary findings.

Legal, regulatory, and financial checks

As of August 17, 2026, this review located no verified public finding that Steven Arthur Pinker committed research misconduct, violated a professional license, committed a crime, or incurred Epstein related civil liability.

No relevant federal research integrity finding, retraction, or disciplinary order was located. Court searches returned references to Pinker’s books and ideas rather than a relevant case against him. Pinker is an academic cognitive psychologist, not a clinician identified in the reviewed records, so the absence of a clinical licensing file is not surprising.

The review also located no evidence that Epstein paid Pinker personally, financed his research, invested with him, or transferred money to him. Epstein’s claimed sponsorship of the 2014 Origins event concerned the Arizona State University project and does not by itself establish a payment to Pinker.

These are negative research findings, not guarantees that no undisclosed complaint, sealed matter, or private financial record exists. They should be updated if reliable contrary evidence emerges.

Harvard’s review did not name Pinker

Harvard’s 2020 report on Epstein’s connections to the university documented approximately $9.1 million in gifts between 1998 and 2008, office access, visiting status, and extensive contact with the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. A text search of the report located no reference to Pinker.

That absence is not an exoneration and does not erase independent records. The report had a defined institutional scope, and later document releases have exposed contacts not discussed in it. In 2026, the Harvard Crimson reported omissions from Harvard’s earlier review and continuing scrutiny of newly released records.

Evidence table

Date	Event	Evidentiary status	Principal record
Around 2000	Pinker says he first met Epstein at coffee with mutual acquaintances	Retrospective account, not independently documented here	Yahoo Finance
2002	Pinker travels on Epstein’s aircraft with a group headed to California	Confirmed group travel, no wrongdoing shown	EFTA00261202
September 2004	Pinker and Epstein attend a Harvard gathering	Confirmed group event before public charges	Miami Herald
July 6, 2007	Epstein’s lawyers quote Pinker’s linguistic analysis in a federal defense submission	Completed technical assistance, client knowledge disputed	EFTA00191396
2009	Pinker appears on a proposed Florida guest list	Proposed invitation only	EFTA02412962
March and April 2012	Pinker says he would be delighted to meet Epstein	Accepted proposal, meeting did not occur	EFTA00709846, EFTA00932823
April 2014	Pinker helps organize an Origins panel and has contact with Epstein at the event	Confirmed event and contact, funding knowledge not established	EFTA00717817, EFTA01751017, EFTA00371852
January 2015	Pinker shares a link to a Dershowitz affidavit	Confirmed public link, endorsement not established	Inside Higher Ed
June 2015	Epstein’s office supplies a Hawking contact route for Pinker	Completed limited professional courtesy	EFTA00346457

What the record proves

The reviewed evidence supports the following findings:

Pinker had limited social contact with Epstein before Epstein’s crimes became public.
Pinker supplied a linguistic analysis to Dershowitz, and Epstein’s lawyers quoted it in a 2007 submission seeking to narrow the potential federal case.
Pinker expressed willingness to meet Epstein in 2012 after Epstein’s conviction, but the meeting did not occur.
Pinker helped organize a panel at a 2014 event that Epstein said he sponsored.
Pinker and Epstein had direct contact at that event.
Epstein’s office later facilitated a limited professional introduction for Pinker.
Pinker has given public explanations, including that he did not know Epstein was the client in 2007, received no funding, and regretted or had second thoughts about aspects of the association.

What the record does not prove

No reviewed evidence establishes that Pinker:

sexually abused or trafficked anyone;
treated, diagnosed, examined, or referred an Epstein victim;
knew Epstein was Dershowitz’s client when he answered the 2007 language question;
reviewed or approved the complete defense letter;
caused the nonprosecution agreement;
attended the proposed 2009 Florida gathering;
completed the proposed 2012 meeting;
knew the source or extent of the 2014 event funding when he agreed to organize a panel;
received money, a grant, an investment, or research support from Epstein;
visited Epstein’s island or residences;
committed research misconduct or a professional licensing violation; or
was the Harvard professor accused in the victim allegation sometimes misattributed to him online.

Assessment

Steven Pinker belongs in the technical assistance and elite legitimacy tier of Epstein’s network, not in the clinical facilitation tier and not in the perpetrator tier.

His most consequential documented act was not a photograph or a flight. It was an expert language opinion that Epstein’s lawyers deployed while trying to prevent a federal prosecution. Pinker’s stated lack of knowledge about the client is important and not contradicted by a reviewed primary record. The completed benefit to Epstein’s defense is also important and cannot be erased by that explanation.

The post conviction record is a study in polite availability. Pinker was willing to meet in 2012. He did not actually meet Epstein then. He later allowed contact at an event Epstein said he sponsored. Epstein’s office then provided a small professional favor. Each fact has a different weight. Together they show that Epstein was still able to approach a famous Harvard authority after his conviction.

This is how elite rehabilitation can work. It does not require every person in the room to know every crime. It requires enough respected people to keep answering, appearing, and treating the relationship as manageable.

Pinker has acknowledged that he should have been more willing to say no. The surviving records show why that admission matters.

Unanswered questions

What exact question did Dershowitz put to Pinker in 2007, and did the request identify the client or factual context?
Are there contemporaneous emails between Dershowitz and Pinker that would independently confirm what Pinker knew?
Did Pinker see the final July 2007 defense submission or know that his language would be quoted to federal prosecutors?
What weight, if any, did prosecutors give the statutory argument?
When did Pinker first learn the details of Epstein’s 2008 conviction and the allegations behind it?
Did Pinker know before the April 2014 event that Epstein was a sponsor or funder?
What occurred during Epstein’s contact with Pinker at the Arizona event, and did any advertised private conversation take place?
Did Pinker or Harvard ever conduct a contemporaneous review of his contacts after Epstein’s 2019 arrest?

Editorial note

This article distinguishes an invitation from attendance, willingness from a completed meeting, an expert opinion from membership on a legal team, and association from knowledge or complicity. Repeated productions of the same email or legal submission are labeled as duplicates rather than counted as separate events.

The reporting of Julie K. Brown, Ellie Leonard, Nina Burleigh and American Freakshow, and Julie K. Brown’s Substack was reviewed for leads and broader context. No Pinker specific factual claim in this dossier depends on an indexed Substack post. Primary records control the findings. Julie K. Brown’s reporting on Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement and Harvard connections supplies essential case context, while Nina Burleigh’s work helps explain the elite network in which these contacts occurred.

Readers with additional primary records, corrections, or a documented response from Pinker, Dershowitz, Arizona State University, or Harvard should contact EpsteinWiki. Any substantive response should be added fairly and linked to its source.

Primary Epstein records

EFTA00191396: July 6, 2007 defense submission quoting Pinker’s linguistic analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
EFTA00226396: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA00284175: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA01660165: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA00190116: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA00176507: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA00184224: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA02756447: Duplicate or overlapping production of the 2007 defense submission.
EFTA00261202: Archived Edge material concerning the 2002 group trip on Epstein’s aircraft.
EFTA02412962: Proposed 2009 list of possible invitees for Florida gatherings. It is not proof of attendance.
EFTA01838961: Initial 2012 request to check Pinker’s availability during Epstein’s Boston visit.
EFTA00672174: Duplicate or overlapping 2012 scheduling request.
EFTA01988524: Duplicate or overlapping 2012 scheduling request.
EFTA00709846: Pinker says he will be away April 15, 2012, but would be delighted to meet Epstein on April 16.
EFTA01839143: Duplicate production of Pinker’s 2012 reply.
EFTA02000981: Duplicate production of Pinker’s 2012 reply.
EFTA00416793: Duplicate or overlapping production of Pinker’s 2012 reply.
EFTA00416798: Assistant explains that Epstein was expected to return to New York before Pinker was available.
EFTA00659409: Martin Nowak asks whether he should invite Pinker.
EFTA00932823: Epstein says Pinker is out of town.
EFTA01875146: Duplicate production of the message saying Pinker is out of town.
EFTA00717817: Krauss tells Epstein in 2013 that Pinker agreed to organize an April panel.
EFTA01751017: Epstein invites guests to the 2014 Arizona event, says he is sponsoring it, and advertises private conversations with Pinker.
EFTA01929149: Overlapping copy of the 2014 invitation.
EFTA01931087: Overlapping copy of the 2014 invitation.
EFTA01933518: Overlapping copy of the 2014 invitation.
EFTA00986231: Overlapping copy of the 2014 invitation.
EFTA01933923: Event material naming Pinker on the panel.
EFTA01937290: Duplicate or overlapping event material.
EFTA01191992: Duplicate or overlapping event material.
EFTA00371852: Epstein’s assistant asks Krauss to facilitate contact with Pinker and other participants. Krauss agrees.
EFTA02109578: Duplicate production of the event contact request.
EFTA00987400: Epstein writes that he is in Arizona with Pinker and other speakers.
EFTA00987408: Duplicate production of the Arizona message.
EFTA01928658: Duplicate production of the Arizona message.
EFTA00613866: Gift agreement identifying Epstein’s foundation as a supporter of an Origins Project prize and lectureship.
EFTA01201165: Duplicate or overlapping Origins Project gift agreement.
EFTA00346457: Chain showing Epstein’s office supplying a contact route for Stephen Hawking and Pinker’s thanks.
EFTA00346461: Overlapping copy of the Hawking contact chain.
EFTA00853637: Overlapping copy of the Hawking contact chain.
EFTA02076136: Overlapping copy of the Hawking contact chain.
EFTA02076078: Surrounding staff message seeking Epstein’s approval for the contact request.
EFTA00695049: Duplicate or overlapping staff message concerning the contact request.
EFTA00853631: Duplicate or overlapping staff message concerning the contact request.

Official and independent sources

PostedAugust 17, 2026