International Peace Institute
How a convicted sex offender’s money, access, and private relationship with the president of a respected peace institute crossed into institutional life
Snapshot
The International Peace Institute is an independent United States nonprofit think tank founded in 1970 and headquartered across from United Nations headquarters in New York. It was known as the International Peace Academy until 2008. From 2005 to October 2020, it was led by Norwegian diplomat Terje Rød Larsen.
IPI received five donations totaling $650,000 from two Jeffrey Epstein affiliated entities between 2011 and 2019. It also received a $14,158.88 reimbursement for a Lawrence Summers flight. A KPMG forensic review commissioned by IPI identified the transactions in the institute’s books. Epstein had already pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to offenses involving a minor when every identified IPI donation was made.
The institutional relationship was not limited to passive receipt of money. Epstein received donor communications, was associated with a named fellowship, promoted IPI in his own publicity, communicated repeatedly with Rød Larsen, and appeared in records involving diplomatic meetings, fundraising, travel, and a proposed or planned dinner with senior figures. IPI personnel also appear in logistical correspondence connected to Epstein’s invitation to the 2010 Sir Bani Yas Forum.
IPI’s board accepted Rød Larsen’s resignation on October 29, 2020. It later published a forensic review and a board commissioned probity review, adopted or revised donor vetting and conflict policies, and directed that the Epstein linked amount be donated to organizations supporting survivors of human trafficking and sexual assault.
As of September 8, 2026, Norwegian authorities are investigating Rød Larsen for alleged contribution to aggravated corruption in a case centered on benefits allegedly connected to his wife Mona Juul’s public positions. The investigation is not a conviction, and the official announcement does not accuse IPI itself of corruption or participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse.
EpsteinWiki involvement assessment: Level 4 of 5, sustained financial and operational relationship. This score measures documented connection, not criminal guilt.
Core rule: Connection is not culpability; classify by sources.
Overview
IPI occupied a valuable position in international affairs. It was independent of the United Nations, yet physically close to it, trusted by diplomats, funded substantially by governments, and able to convene senior officials in settings unavailable to the public. That made the institute useful to legitimate peace and policy work. It also made association with IPI potentially useful to a donor seeking status and access.
The Epstein relationship illustrates how reputational laundering can work without a written quid pro quo. A donor does not need to purchase a formal office. Money can support a fellowship, a cultural event, research, travel, or general operations while the donor gains proximity to respected people and institutions. The evidentiary task is to distinguish what the records prove from what that pattern may suggest.
Here, the proof is substantial. The amount and dates of Epstein linked funding are established by IPI’s own accounting review. Emails establish direct contact between Epstein and IPI’s president, the circulation of internal donor material, fundraising discussions, private meetings, and travel coordination. Other records show Epstein using his association with IPI in publicity. The record also demonstrates that IPI’s name and staff were present in access making activity after Epstein’s conviction.
What remains less clear is how much the board knew at each stage, which staff understood the source and history of the funds, what benefits Epstein expected, and whether every planned meeting occurred. Those are governance and evidence questions. They are not permission to accuse uninvolved employees, researchers, donors, or diplomats.
Legal Identity and Corporate History
The legal entity is International Peace Institute, Inc., a nonprofit corporation recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code. Its employer identification number is 03-0213226. The institute’s 2024 Form 990 lists its principal address as 777 United Nations Plaza, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10017.
According to IPI’s official history, the organization was founded in 1970 by Ruth Forbes Young and Major General Indar Jit Rikhye in consultation with United Nations Secretary General U Thant. It originally operated as the International Peace Academy. On March 24, 2008, it adopted the International Peace Institute name to reflect its evolution from a training academy into a policy institute.
The institute is not a United Nations agency, subsidiary, or intergovernmental organization. Its relationship with the UN is close but legally separate. This distinction matters. Messages from an IPI officer are not automatically UN communications, and access created through IPI does not by itself prove authorization by the UN.
Historical documents in the Epstein corpus include a proposal to establish an international organization linked to IPI’s Vienna operation. EFTA02009893 describes a proposed structure. The existence of that proposal does not establish that IPI became an intergovernmental body. Its current public filings identify a United States nonprofit corporation.
Ownership, Control, and Leadership
IPI has no shareholders or private owner. Its board of directors is the legal governing body with fiduciary responsibility. The president and chief executive officer manages the institution and serves on the board ex officio.
Rød Larsen became president in 2005 and remained in office until his resignation in October 2020. His long tenure, diplomatic standing, fundraising role, and control over high level relationships made him the central institutional actor in the Epstein connection. The record does not justify treating every act of Rød Larsen as an authorized board act, but the conduct of a chief executive is institutionally significant.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein became president and chief executive officer in March 2021. As of the fact check date, IPI lists Jean Todt as board chair and Zeid as president and chief executive officer. The listed board also includes Valerie Amos, Mads Nipper, Owen Pell, Amy Towers, Suzy Wahba, and Michelle Yeoh, with Cliff Perlman identified as board member emeritus.
IPI’s International Advisory Council is not its legal board. It provides strategic advice and connections to governments, diplomats, academics, and donors. Conflating the advisory council with fiduciary governance would overstate the responsibility of its members.
Organizational Structure
IPI’s public structure has included:
- A New York headquarters serving as the principal legal and administrative center.
- Research programs focused on multilateral cooperation, peace operations, peacebuilding, women, peace and security, climate, and sustainable development.
- Convening and policy dialogue involving UN officials, member states, civil society, scholars, and private sector participants.
- The Global Observatory, an IPI publication platform.
- Historical offices or activities in Vienna and Manama, Bahrain.
- A board of directors with fiduciary authority and an International Advisory Council with a nonfiduciary advisory role.
During the period covered by the Epstein records, IPI staff named in communications included Rød Larsen, Andrea Pfanzelter, Walter Kemp, Francesco Mancini, Maureen Quinn, Camilla Reksten Monsen, Jilla Moazami, David Witt, Susan Waugh, and Pim Valdre. Their appearance in a document does not establish misconduct. Each record must be read for the person’s actual role.
The organization’s model depended on government grants, foundation support, private donations, events, and relationships. That mixed funding model made donor screening and conflicts management especially important.
Background and Ordinary Operations
IPI’s ordinary work includes research, policy recommendations, diplomatic dialogue, publications, closed expert roundtables, and public events. Its location opposite UN headquarters gives it access to diplomats and officials, but its public record also reflects substantive work by researchers and practitioners across numerous peace and security fields.
IPI’s official history reports thousands of events, hundreds of research papers, and partnerships with hundreds of organizations since 1970. Its 2024 Form 990 reported approximately $7.88 million in revenue, $7.69 million in expenses, and $6.27 million in year end assets. The return described research and policy development, meetings, events, and dialogue as core program services.
The institute has historically relied heavily on governments and philanthropic foundations. That funding profile is ordinary for an international policy nonprofit, but it creates two recurring risks: donors may seek influence over programs, and association with a prestigious institute may improve a donor’s reputation. Neither risk proves a corrupt exchange. Both require disclosure, screening, board oversight, and documentation.
Nothing in the evidence reviewed for this article discredits IPI’s entire research output or the legitimate work of employees who had no role in accepting Epstein linked money.
Documented Connection to Jeffrey Epstein
Five donations after Epstein’s conviction
The KPMG review identified five donations totaling $650,000:
| Check date | Epstein affiliated entity | Amount | IPI ledger description |
|---|---|---|---|
| October 11, 2011 | Enhanced Education | $125,000 | Funding for the Rick Hooper fellowship |
| May 8, 2017 | Gratitude America Ltd. | $150,000 | Reimbursement of tickets to the Oslo play |
| June 12, 2017 | Gratitude America Ltd. | $125,000 | Contribution |
| November 1, 2017 | Gratitude America Ltd. | $100,000 | Oslo play contribution |
| April 5, 2019 | Gratitude America Ltd. | $150,000 | Contribution |
KPMG also found a March 2014 reimbursement of $14,158.88 from Enhanced Education for Lawrence Summers’s flight connected to an IPI project.
Fellowship and publicity
EFTA00935269 records Epstein saying the 2011 $125,000 contribution was for the Rick Hooper Distinguished Fellowship Fund. EFTA00923330 is an IPI donor brief forwarded by Rød Larsen to Epstein that announced the fellowship without naming the donor. EFTA02721041 shows press links being sent to Epstein after publicity described him as connected to the fund.
EFTA02006494 is a self promotional release from an Epstein controlled website. It praised IPI’s opening in Bahrain, asserted that Epstein’s foundation supported peace initiatives, and invoked the Hooper fellowship. It is evidence of Epstein’s reputation strategy, not an independent account of his philanthropy.
Access and diplomatic convening
EFTA02420850 records the process by which Epstein was added to the 2010 Sir Bani Yas Forum after his conviction. The chain says Rød Larsen, following discussions with a person identified only as “HH,” invited Epstein. IPI official Pim Valdre and UN official Fabrice Aidan appear in the chain. EFTA00753276 concerns the biographical description used to present Epstein as a business participant. EFTA02416113 is travel documentation associated with the trip.
This access chain was reconstructed by EpsteinWiki using research associated with Greg Conners, Rye Howard Stone, and the Butterfly Bureau in How Jeffrey Epstein Reached an Invitation Only Foreign Ministers Forum After His Conviction. The underlying receipts, not any investigator’s reputation, control the finding.
Private travel and relationship
EFTA01870016 contains a March 2011 message attributed to Rød Larsen thanking Epstein for a day on a “wonderful” island and saying that the family had enjoyed it. EFTA02172802 records planning for Rød Larsen to travel by helicopter from Puerto Rico to Epstein’s island on April 4 or 5, 2012. Related logistics appear in EFTA02172068 and EFTA02172529.
These documents establish planned travel and, for the 2011 message, a contemporaneous acknowledgment of a visit. They do not establish that Rød Larsen witnessed or participated in abuse.
Timeline
| Date | Event | Evidentiary status |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 | International Peace Academy founded. | IPI official history |
| 2005 | Terje Rød Larsen becomes president. | IPI official history |
| March 24, 2008 | Organization changes its name to International Peace Institute. | IPI official history |
| June 30, 2008 | Epstein pleads guilty in Florida to solicitation offenses, including one involving a minor. | Court and public record |
| November 2010 | Epstein attends the Sir Bani Yas Forum through an invitation chain involving Rød Larsen, IPI’s Pim Valdre, and others. | EFTA correspondence and travel records |
| March 2011 | Rød Larsen sends a message thanking Epstein after a family island visit. | EFTA01870016 |
| October 11, 2011 | Enhanced Education issues $125,000 for the Rick Hooper fellowship. | KPMG review and EFTA correspondence |
| April 2012 | Staff coordinate a planned helicopter visit by Rød Larsen to Epstein’s island. | EFTA02172802 and related records |
| July 1, 2013 | Epstein account records show a $130,000 transfer to a Norwegian bank under a promissory note. | Banking records and later admission, attribution requires care |
| September 2013 | Emails discuss a small New York dinner involving Epstein, Rød Larsen, Thorbjørn Jagland, and Bill Gates. | EFTA02131084 and EFTA02131313, occurrence not independently proved here |
| February to March 2014 | IPI pays a $100,000 honorarium to LHSummers Economic Consulting for a Mongolia advisory board and receives a $14,158.88 Epstein linked flight reimbursement. | KPMG review and EFTA02106305 |
| 2017 | Gratitude America makes three IPI donations totaling $375,000, including funding related to the play Oslo. | KPMG review and check images |
| January 2018 | Rød Larsen claims $179.64 for birthday flowers to Epstein, then reimburses IPI. | KPMG review |
| April 5, 2019 | Gratitude America gives IPI $150,000. | KPMG review |
| July 2019 | Epstein is arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in New York. | Federal criminal record |
| December 4, 2019 | IPI board directs that Epstein linked donations be given to survivor support organizations. | IPI statement |
| October 23, 2020 | Rød Larsen publicly acknowledges the $130,000 personal loan and calls it a serious error of judgment. | IPI and press reporting |
| October 29, 2020 | IPI board accepts Rød Larsen’s resignation and commissions reviews. | IPI statement |
| December 22, 2020 | IPI releases the KPMG forensic review and probity review. | IPI publication |
| March 2021 | Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein becomes president and CEO. | IPI official history |
| February 9, 2026 | Norway’s Økokrim announces an investigation of Mona Juul for alleged aggravated corruption and Rød Larsen for alleged contribution to aggravated corruption. | Økokrim announcement |
| September 8, 2026 | No public criminal finding against IPI located; the Norwegian personal investigation remains separate from the institute. | Current fact check |
Evidence Appearances
Accounting records
IPI’s ledger, nonpublic donor schedules, checks, bank records, invoices, and reimbursements were reviewed by KPMG. These are the strongest sources for the amount, timing, and bookkeeping treatment of the institutional payments.
Direct and forwarded communications
The Epstein corpus contains direct exchanges with Rød Larsen, messages forwarded by him, staff coordination, donor material, and scheduling records. Forwarding a message establishes transmission, not necessarily authorship, endorsement, or completion of the proposed activity.
Travel and event records
Sir Bani Yas correspondence, participant lists, flight documentation, island logistics, and calendars provide independent categories of evidence. Contemporaneous logistics are stronger than a later recollection, but a proposed itinerary is not proof that travel occurred unless supported by completion evidence.
Publicity material
Epstein controlled websites promoted his connection to IPI. Such releases are reliable evidence of what Epstein wanted the public to believe. They are weak evidence that the claims were true unless corroborated.
Institutional reviews and current investigations
The 2020 KPMG review and IPI probity review provide detailed institutional findings but were commissioned by IPI and had defined limitations. The 2026 Økokrim investigation concerns alleged conduct by Rød Larsen and Mona Juul. It is a live investigation, not a finding of guilt and not a charge against IPI.
Evidence Matrix
| Claim | Best evidence | Confidence | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPI received $650,000 from Epstein affiliated entities | KPMG ledger review, checks, correspondence | High | Review relied on records supplied by IPI except for limited completeness work |
| All five donations followed Epstein’s 2008 conviction | KPMG dates and Florida case record | High | None material |
| The first gift funded the Rick Hooper fellowship | KPMG ledger and EFTA00935269 | High | Public donor brief did not name Epstein |
| Epstein used IPI for reputation building | EFTA02006494 and EFTA02721041 | High | Self published material does not prove IPI approved every claim |
| IPI linked intermediaries helped secure Sir Bani Yas access | EFTA02420850 and related documents | High | “HH” remains unidentified in the receipt |
| Rød Larsen visited Epstein’s island in 2011 | EFTA01870016 | High | Message does not establish what occurred during the visit |
| A 2012 island visit was planned | EFTA02172802 and logistics chain | High | Completion is not proved solely by planning records |
| IPI paid Epstein or an Epstein entity | KPMG review found no such payment | High within review scope | Not a government audit or assurance engagement |
| Epstein received a quid pro quo for donations | IPI probity review found no evidence | Moderate | Absence of located evidence is not universal proof of absence |
| IPI participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse | No supporting evidence located | High that claim is presently unsubstantiated | Future evidence could change assessment |
| IPI itself is a target of the 2026 Norwegian corruption case | Økokrim announcement does not name IPI as a suspect | High as of fact check | Investigation may evolve |
Epstein Data Evidence Files
Funding and donor recognition
- EFTA00923330: IPI’s November 2011 donor brief announcing the Rick Hooper fellowship, forwarded by Rød Larsen to Epstein.
- EFTA00935269: Epstein states that the $125,000 gift was for the Rick Hooper fellowship fund.
- EFTA02721041: Press links about the fellowship and Epstein are sent to him.
- EFTA02006494: Epstein controlled publicity links his foundation to IPI, Bahrain, and the fellowship.
- EFTA01348694: Image of a May 8, 2017 Gratitude America check to IPI for $150,000.
- EFTA01357098: Image of a June 12, 2017 Gratitude America check to IPI for $125,000.
- EFTA01362302: Image of a November 1, 2017 Gratitude America check to IPI for $100,000.
Access, meetings, and institutional communications
- EFTA02420850: Sir Bani Yas invitation and logistics chain involving Rød Larsen, Pim Valdre, Fabrice Aidan, and UAE contacts.
- EFTA00753276: Biographical packaging for Epstein’s forum participation.
- EFTA02416113: Etihad travel documentation associated with the forum trip.
- EFTA01982013: Forum participant material listing Rød Larsen among high level officials.
- EFTA02131084: Discussion of a small September 2013 dinner involving Epstein, Gates, Rød Larsen, and Jagland.
- EFTA02131313: Follow up scheduling for the proposed dinner.
- EFTA01754172: Rød Larsen forwards Epstein notice that IPI received $1.25 million from the Gates Foundation.
- EFTA02106305: IPI accounting correspondence about the $100,000 Lawrence Summers honorarium and tax documentation.
Private travel and relationship
- EFTA01870016: Rød Larsen thanks Epstein after a 2011 island visit.
- EFTA02172802: Planning for an April 2012 helicopter trip to Epstein’s island.
- EFTA02172068: Follow up concerning helicopter collection from Puerto Rico.
- EFTA02172529: Operational discussion with Little Saint James staff.
- EFTA01589726: Wire instruction for $130,000 to a Nordea Bank account on July 1, 2013.
- EFTA01482299: Account statement entry describing a $130,000 transfer to Nordea Bank in Oslo under a promissory note.
These are direct document links. Duplicate productions and adjacent page numbers should not be counted as separate events.
Key People Connected to the Organization
| Person | Institutional role | Relevance to the evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Terje Rød Larsen | President, 2005 to 2020 | Central relationship holder, fundraiser, recipient of personal loan, correspondent, traveler, and access intermediary |
| Mona Juul | Norwegian diplomat and Rød Larsen’s wife | Appears in private relationship and travel context; not shown to have governed IPI |
| Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein | President and CEO from 2021 | Post crisis leader, not implicated in the historical transactions reviewed here |
| Kevin Rudd | Former IPI board chair | Led the board during part of the institutional response period |
| Cliff Perlman | Board officer and author of probity review | Conducted the board commissioned policy review; his board role is relevant to independence assessment |
| Pim Valdre | IPI official | Appears in the Sir Bani Yas invitation chain |
| Andrea Pfanzelter | IPI Vienna director | Appears in project, donor, and external coordination records |
| Jilla Moazami | Executive assistant to Rød Larsen | Appears in scheduling and travel logistics; presence is not evidence of misconduct |
| David Witt | Finance and administration director | Appears in funding notifications and accounting records |
| Susan Waugh | Senior accountant | Appears in correspondence concerning the Summers honorarium |
| Lawrence Summers | Mongolia advisory board participant | His consulting entity received an IPI honorarium; KPMG found it was not an Epstein entity |
| Bill Gates | Foundation leader and proposed dinner participant | Appears in fundraising and meeting records; his foundation independently funded IPI |
| Thorbjørn Jagland | Norwegian political and diplomatic figure | Appears in proposed meeting records involving Epstein and Rød Larsen |
| Fabrice Aidan | UN official in the records | Appears in Sir Bani Yas coordination, distinct from IPI’s legal structure |
Financial Relationship
The institutional financial relationship totaled $650,000 in five donations plus $14,158.88 in one flight reimbursement, according to KPMG. The donations came through Enhanced Education and Gratitude America Ltd., not through checks bearing Epstein’s personal name. That structure made beneficial donor identification a governance issue.
KPMG calculated that the five donations represented about 0.9 percent of IPI’s total revenue from 2011 through 2019. A small percentage can still be significant when the donor receives repeated contact, recognition, or access. Percentage of revenue does not answer whether accepting the money was prudent.
The $130,000 loan was personal to Rød Larsen, not a loan to IPI. KPMG reported finding no IPI payments connected to it. Banking receipts in the Epstein corpus corroborate a $130,000 transfer under a promissory note, while Rød Larsen later acknowledged and said he repaid the loan. A chief executive’s private borrowing from an institutional donor created a conflict that should have been disclosed to the board.
KPMG found no payments by IPI to Epstein or his affiliated entities. It identified a $122.72 IPI reimbursed lunch involving Rød Larsen and Epstein in 2011. It also found a $179.64 flower expense for Epstein’s birthday in 2018 that Rød Larsen later repaid to IPI.
Political donations and political finance
IPI is a 501(c)(3) public charity, a status that prohibits intervention in political campaigns for or against candidates. The institute’s current public filing does not disclose candidate campaign activity. No verified record reviewed for this article establishes that IPI used Epstein linked funds for political donations.
That is separate from diplomatic influence. IPI’s government donors, convenings, and access to officials belong in a foreign policy funding analysis, not automatically in a United States campaign finance category. Individual political contributions by employees, if any, would be personal unless evidence ties them to the institution.
Communications and Meetings
The records show a relationship that was repeated rather than incidental. Rød Larsen forwarded institutional information to Epstein, discussed people and meetings, and involved Epstein in fundraising and policy networks. Epstein’s staff coordinated with IPI staff on schedules and travel.
EFTA01754172 is particularly revealing. Rød Larsen forwarded Epstein an internal message announcing receipt of a $1.25 million Gates Foundation installment. The document establishes that Epstein received timely information about a major IPI grant. It does not prove that Epstein caused the grant.
EFTA02131084 and EFTA02131313 discuss a small dinner involving Epstein, Rød Larsen, Jagland, and Gates in September 2013. The scheduling is well documented. These receipts alone do not prove the dinner occurred on the proposed date.
Calendar entries and email sets can produce inflated meeting counts because one event may appear in multiple reminders, forwards, and revised schedules. Claims that the corpus shows a precise number of meetings should therefore publish the deduplication method and event list. This article treats the records as evidence of a sustained relationship without presenting every calendar hit as a completed meeting.
Properties, Assets, and Operations
IPI’s principal operational address is 777 United Nations Plaza, directly across from UN headquarters. That location enhanced its convening power and gave staff routine proximity to missions and UN officials.
Historical records also refer to IPI operations in Vienna and an office in Manama. The Bahrain expansion matters because Epstein promoted it in EFTA02006494, presenting his foundation as a supporter of peace diplomacy. The release’s claims require independent verification because it came from Epstein’s publicity operation.
IPI’s name appears in travel, hotel, event, and accounting records because it convened international programs. The appearance of an institutional address or signature block does not prove that IPI paid for, approved, or knew about every related activity.
Epstein’s Little Saint James property was not an IPI asset. Travel by Rød Larsen to the island was personal unless a document proves an institutional purpose. Describing the island as part of IPI’s operations would be false.
Lawsuits, Investigations, and Regulatory Actions
No public criminal prosecution or regulatory finding reviewed for this article accuses IPI as an entity of participating in Epstein’s trafficking operation.
In 2020, IPI commissioned KPMG to review financial transactions between the institute and Epstein affiliated entities from January 1, 2010 through October 31, 2020. KPMG analyzed more than 152,000 transactions and a list of 56 Epstein affiliated entities. Its engagement was advisory, not an audit, examination, or assurance opinion. Except for completeness testing of general ledger detail, KPMG relied on information provided by IPI and did not independently confirm all records.
IPI also commissioned a probity review by Cliff Perlman, an attorney who served as the institute’s board treasurer. The review found no evidence of legal or policy violations under rules then in effect, but concluded that Rød Larsen should have disclosed the donations and should not have accepted a personal loan. Perlman’s board role should be disclosed whenever the review is described as independent.
On February 9, 2026, Økokrim announced that Mona Juul was under investigation for alleged aggravated corruption and Rød Larsen for alleged contribution to aggravated corruption. Authorities said they were investigating whether Juul received benefits connected to her Foreign Ministry positions. Both are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The announcement did not charge IPI.
Norway’s parliament later backed a broader independent examination of Foreign Ministry and Epstein links, including past aid and diplomatic relationships. That public inquiry may produce information relevant to Norwegian support for IPI, but an inquiry is not a finding that grant funds were misused.
Allegations and Responses
Allegation: IPI knowingly sold access to Epstein
The record supports a serious access concern. Epstein donated money, received communications, attended or was invited to elite events, and benefited from Rød Larsen’s network. No located document expressly states that a specific donation purchased a specific invitation. IPI’s probity review reported no evidence of a personal benefit exchanged for donations. The proper conclusion is that access and funding overlapped, while a contractual quid pro quo remains unproved.
Allegation: IPI helped recruit victims
Norwegian reporting in 2026 described a 2019 tip to United States authorities involving short IPI internships for young Eastern European women and photographs shared with Epstein. This allegation requires exceptional care. Aftenposten reported that counsel for women connected to the reporting said neither IPI nor Rød Larsen was involved in their sexual abuse or exploitation. No public charge against IPI on this theory was located. It must not be repeated as an established trafficking fact.
Allegation: IPI concealed donations
KPMG found that the donations appeared to have been disclosed to the IRS as required, including on nonpublic Schedule B donor schedules. Tax disclosure is not the same as public disclosure or board awareness. IPI stated that Rød Larsen should have informed the board.
Rød Larsen’s response
Rød Larsen apologized for what he called a grave error of judgment, acknowledged the personal loan, and resigned. Through counsel, he has denied corruption allegations and indicated cooperation with Norwegian authorities.
IPI’s response
IPI condemned Epstein’s crimes, accepted Rød Larsen’s resignation, published reviews, strengthened policies, and directed the Epstein linked amount toward survivor support. Those actions are relevant remediation. They do not erase the years during which a convicted offender’s money and relationships entered institutional life.
Court and Regulatory Findings
The following distinctions are essential:
- Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction was established before IPI received any of the five identified donations.
- Epstein’s later federal sex trafficking case ended after his death without a trial verdict against him in that case.
- No court has found IPI liable for Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking in the sources reviewed.
- IPI’s commissioned probity review found no evidence that laws or then existing policies were violated. That is not a judicial ruling or regulator’s clearance.
- KPMG did not issue an audit opinion, legal conclusion, or assurance regarding IPI’s controls.
- The 2026 Norwegian investigation of Rød Larsen and Juul is ongoing. Investigation status must not be rewritten as guilt, indictment, trial, or conviction.
These boundaries protect both accuracy and survivors. Inflated claims are easier to discredit and can obscure the strong evidence of actual institutional failures.
Institutional Response
IPI’s board said it first directed remediation in December 2019, when it resolved to donate the Epstein linked amount to organizations supporting survivors of human trafficking and sexual assault. After accepting Rød Larsen’s resignation in October 2020, it commissioned the KPMG and probity reviews.
IPI reported adopting a gift acceptance policy in December 2019 requiring review of donor character. It also updated its conflict of interest, ethics, whistleblower, and anti fraud policies and said staff and board members would receive training on conflicts.
The response had meaningful strengths: the institute disclosed transaction amounts, published the KPMG report, acknowledged governance failures, changed leadership, and identified policy reforms. Its limitations are equally important. The reviews were commissioned by IPI, the probity reviewer was a board officer, KPMG’s scope began in 2010, and neither review was a criminal investigation into the full social relationship.
Current leadership should maintain a public implementation record showing where the $650,000 remediation went, how donor screening operates, how conflicts are reported, and how the board tests compliance.
Survivor Impact
Epstein’s donations were made after a conviction involving a minor. Accepting and publicly normalizing such a donor could help restore his legitimacy, widen his access, and communicate that elite institutions considered his money more important than the warning already contained in the public record.
For survivors, the harm is not only financial. Prestigious affiliations can make an abuser appear safe, connected, and untouchable. They can discourage reporting and deepen the belief that institutions will protect influential people. An evidence based account should therefore center the institutional choices without sensationalizing victims or publishing identifying details.
Remediation should not become public relations. Survivor support organizations should control whether their names and grant amounts are public. IPI should document the transfer while respecting recipient privacy and safety.
No survivor owes the public an account in order for the documented governance failure to matter.
What the Evidence Establishes
The evidence establishes that:
- IPI accepted $650,000 in five donations from Epstein affiliated entities between 2011 and 2019.
- Every identified donation occurred after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
- Enhanced Education reimbursed IPI $14,158.88 for a Lawrence Summers flight.
- The 2011 donation was associated with the Rick Hooper fellowship.
- Epstein used the IPI relationship in self promotional publicity.
- Rød Larsen maintained a repeated personal and professional relationship with Epstein.
- Rød Larsen accepted a $130,000 personal loan from Epstein and did not disclose it to IPI’s board at the time.
- Rød Larsen and family members visited Epstein’s island in 2011, according to a contemporaneous message.
- Another island visit was planned for April 2012 through Epstein’s helicopter operation.
- IPI linked personnel participated in correspondence that helped secure Epstein’s Sir Bani Yas invitation after his conviction.
- Rød Larsen forwarded institutional donor and grant information to Epstein.
- IPI’s board concluded that Rød Larsen should have disclosed the donations and should not have borrowed personally from the donor.
- IPI changed leadership and policies after the relationship became public.
What Is Not Established
The available evidence does not establish that:
- IPI as an organization participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking.
- IPI employees generally knew about Epstein’s abuse beyond the public conviction record.
- Every staff member appearing in an email knew the source or significance of Epstein linked funding.
- The United Nations owned, controlled, or authorized IPI’s relationship with Epstein.
- A written agreement exchanged donations for diplomatic access.
- Every proposed dinner, trip, or meeting in the calendars occurred.
- Lawrence Summers’s consulting entity was controlled by Epstein. KPMG found the entity was associated with Summers.
- IPI made payments to Epstein or his affiliated entities during KPMG’s review period.
- The board knew of Rød Larsen’s personal loan when it was made.
- Current IPI leadership participated in the historical relationship.
- The 2026 Norwegian investigation has produced a finding of guilt against Rød Larsen, Juul, or IPI.
Involvement Scale Assessment
Level 4 of 5: Sustained financial and operational relationship.
This classification is supported by repeated post conviction donations, direct executive contact, donor recognition, staff logistics, event access, private travel, fundraising communications, and the president’s undisclosed personal loan from the donor. The relationship reached institutional accounting, programming, publicity, and access functions.
IPI is not placed at Level 5 because the reviewed evidence does not establish institutional participation in Epstein’s trafficking or abuse, concealment of those crimes, or a court finding of related criminal liability.
The rating applies to the documented organizational relationship during Rød Larsen’s presidency. It is not a guilt score for the institute’s current personnel, researchers, board members, or programs.
Connection is not culpability; classify by sources.
Network and Institutional Significance
IPI offered three forms of value to Epstein: respectable affiliation, information from inside a diplomatic policy network, and routes to high status gatherings. Epstein offered money, travel resources, social connections, and introductions. The relationship demonstrates how philanthropy, diplomacy, and private networking can reinforce one another even without a proven corrupt contract.
The Sir Bani Yas chain is especially important because it shows access being operationalized. Rød Larsen’s standing helped initiate an invitation, IPI and UN linked intermediaries moved the request, UAE personnel handled official logistics, and Epstein was packaged as a business participant. That is more probative than a photograph or address book entry.
The fundraising records also show Epstein positioning himself between institutions and major donors. When Rød Larsen forwarded news of Gates Foundation money or included Epstein in dinner planning, Epstein gained visibility into and proximity to legitimate philanthropy. This does not prove he controlled the funding. It shows why intermediaries matter in network analysis.
Related nodes include Enhanced Education, Gratitude America, the United Arab Emirates Government, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, and the United Nations diplomatic community.
Reliability and Limitations
High confidence sources
The strongest sources are IPI’s accounting records as summarized by KPMG, check images, bank statements, direct email chains, official nonprofit filings, court records, and official investigative announcements.
Moderate confidence sources
Calendars, itineraries, forwarded messages, and participant drafts are strong evidence of planning but may not prove completion. Institutional statements accurately describe IPI’s stated position but are not independent adjudications.
Important limitations
The KPMG engagement was not an audit or assurance examination. It relied substantially on material provided by IPI. Its review period began in 2010, while the relationship may have earlier roots. The probity review was conducted by a board officer. Public Form 990 copies omit donor names from Schedule B. OCR can corrupt names, dates, and numbers.
The Epstein Data corpus contains duplicates and adjacent page identifiers. A search hit count is not a meeting count. Documents created by Epstein or his publicity operation may exaggerate his role. Recent Norwegian investigations are continuing and may change the factual record.
Sleuth research is valuable for locating document chains, but every conclusion in this article is tied back to a receipt, official record, or identified report. No investigator’s interpretation substitutes for the underlying evidence.
Fact Check
Fact checked through September 8, 2026.
| Claim | Verdict | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| IPI received $650,000 from Epstein linked entities | Supported | KPMG identified five donations and listed dates, sources, amounts, and ledger descriptions |
| Epstein personally wrote every check | Misleading | Payments came through Enhanced Education and Gratitude America Ltd. |
| The donations were made before Epstein’s conviction | False | The first identified donation was in 2011, three years after the 2008 conviction |
| IPI paid Epstein | Not supported | KPMG found no payments to Epstein or identified affiliated entities during the review period |
| Rød Larsen received a personal loan | Supported | He acknowledged it, and banking records show a $130,000 transfer under a promissory note |
| The personal loan was an IPI loan | False | It was a private loan to Rød Larsen; KPMG found no IPI transaction related to it |
| Epstein bought a specific IPI invitation | Not established | Funding and access overlapped, but no explicit exchange agreement was located |
| IPI was part of the United Nations | False | It is an independent nonprofit with a close working relationship and nearby headquarters |
| IPI was criminally found to have trafficked victims | False | No such charge or finding was located |
| The 2020 reviews cleared every aspect of the relationship | Misleading | They had limited scopes, were commissioned by IPI, and did not provide a judicial ruling |
| Rød Larsen is currently convicted of corruption | False | As of the fact check date, the Norwegian matter is an investigation and he denies wrongdoing |
| IPI’s current leaders accepted the Epstein donations | False | The identified transactions predated the current president’s March 2021 appointment |
Questions That Still Need Answers
- When did each IPI board member first learn that Epstein or his entities were funding the institute?
- Did Rød Larsen disclose Epstein’s 2008 conviction to staff or directors before accepting the 2011 gift?
- Which staff and board members approved each donation, and what screening was performed?
- What communications accompanied the April 2019 donation, made only months before Epstein’s federal arrest?
- Did Epstein request access, introductions, reports, invitations, or recognition in connection with any gift?
- Who was “HH” in the Sir Bani Yas invitation chain, and what authority did that person exercise?
- Did the proposed September 2013 dinner with Gates, Jagland, and Rød Larsen occur, and who attended?
- What was Epstein’s role, if any, in IPI’s Gates Foundation relationships?
- Why was major IPI grant information forwarded to Epstein?
- Did the board receive a written conflict disclosure concerning Rød Larsen’s private relationship with Epstein?
- What was the full repayment history of the $130,000 personal loan?
- Were any other gifts, travel benefits, hospitality, or in kind services provided to IPI personnel?
- Did IPI preserve and independently review all relevant email accounts, devices, calendars, and messaging platforms?
- Where did IPI direct the $650,000 survivor support remediation, and was the full amount transferred?
- What did Norwegian grant managers know about IPI’s donor controls during the funding period?
- Will Norway’s broader inquiry examine whether public grants indirectly supported donor cultivation involving Epstein?
- What did IPI learn from the reported 2019 referral concerning internships, and what investigation followed?
- Are current donor vetting and conflict rules tested by an independent reviewer?
- Does the board maintain a public register of material donor conflicts and exceptions?
- Will IPI publish an updated review if the 2026 investigations identify institutionally relevant evidence?
Related People and Organizations
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Terje Rød Larsen
- Mona Juul
- United Arab Emirates Government
- Qatar Government
- Enhanced Education
- Gratitude America Ltd.
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Lawrence Summers
- Thorbjørn Jagland
- Fabrice Aidan
- Pim Valdre
- Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- United Nations
- Økokrim
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
- Epstein Files Evidence Framework
- Epstein Network Levels of Involvement Scale
- Epstein Financial Network
- How Jeffrey Epstein Reached an Invitation Only Foreign Ministers Forum After His Conviction
- How to Vet Tips, Sources, and Whistleblowers
- Handling Contradictory Evidence
- EpsteinWiki Investigative Standards
- EpsteinWiki OSINT Resource Directory
Source List
Primary evidence and official records
- International Peace Institute, KPMG Forensic Review, December 18, 2020.
- International Peace Institute, Release of KPMG Forensic Review and IPI Probity Review, December 22, 2020.
- International Peace Institute, Our Mission and History.
- International Peace Institute, Board and Council.
- International Peace Institute, 2024 Form 990.
- Økokrim, Confirms New Investigation, February 9, 2026.
- Epstein Data Full Text Corpus, direct EFTA receipts indexed above.
Investigative and contextual reporting
- Aftenposten, Norwegian prosecutors alerted the FBI about young Eastern European women who received work at Rød Larsen’s think tank, 2026.
- Reuters, Norwegian diplomat steps down over Epstein ties in widening scandal, February 8, 2026.
- Associated Press, Norwegian ambassador resigns as she faces scrutiny over contacts with Epstein, February 9, 2026.
- The Guardian, Norway to investigate links between Jeffrey Epstein and foreign office, March 17, 2026.
- EpsteinWiki, Sir Bani Yas access reconstruction, incorporating document discovery associated with Greg Conners, Rye Howard Stone, and the Butterfly Bureau.