Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Joscha Bach

Posted
Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Joscha Bach

Snapshot

Joscha Bach is a German cognitive scientist and artificial intelligence researcher. Jeffrey Epstein introduced him to MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito in 2013. An MIT investigation found that Epstein gave the university $300,000 for Bach’s research and that the Media Lab hired Bach in large part because Epstein subsidized the cost.

The support went beyond MIT. Released emails show Epstein helping bridge the gap between Bach’s university salary and his family’s expenses. Records also document discussions about rent, travel, school payments, taxes and an immigration arrangement. A joint German investigation estimated that Epstein apparently supplied more than $1 million in support associated with Bach from 2013 through 2019. That estimate includes different forms of support and must not be added to the $300,000 MIT figure.

Bach has acknowledged Epstein’s funding and a visit to his island. He says Epstein did not direct his research and that he did not witness or know of criminal activity after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The available records establish a sustained financial, professional and intellectual relationship. They do not establish Bach’s participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking.

Key Takeaways

  • Epstein promoted Bach’s research to Joi Ito in 2013. MIT later received three donations totaling $300,000 for Bach’s work.
  • In October 2013, Ito and Epstein discussed an MIT salary of approximately $60,000 a year, while Epstein would address the difference between that amount and the income Bach said his family needed. This was a direct part of the hiring discussion.
  • Martin Nowak allowed Bach to use Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics offices between 2014 and 2019. Harvard listed Bach as a research scientist but found that it never paid him or received Epstein funds for his work.
  • Epstein’s support extended to family and household costs. A financial presentation among the released files identifies payments to a Boston school believed to relate to Bach’s children. Other correspondence concerns rent, health insurance, travel, moving costs and taxes.
  • A 2016 visa arrangement involved Humanity+ and Epstein’s Enhanced Education. Emails discuss organizational funding and a proposed salary. The amounts proposed, approved and ultimately transferred require separate treatment.
  • Bach appeared in Epstein’s meeting schedules, corresponded with him about scientific and social questions, stayed in an apartment arranged through Epstein’s office, and has acknowledged spending an evening on Epstein’s island.
  • Bach’s July 2017 letter shows that he understood Epstein’s sex offender reputation and discussed the unequal power in Epstein’s interactions with young women. The letter is evidence of awareness of those concerns, but it does not prove knowledge of a particular later crime.
  • Bach continued seeking Epstein’s support after public reporting renewed scrutiny of Epstein in 2018. He says the financial and immigration dependence ended when he obtained another visa and a position in San Francisco in 2019.

Bach’s Background and Research

Bach completed his doctorate at the University of Osnabrück in 2007. His work uses ideas from cognitive science, computer science, psychology and philosophy to explore how minds represent the world, form goals and make decisions. His MIT MicroPsi project described a computational architecture for motivated cognition.

Bach’s research interests helped bring him into Epstein’s circle of scientists. The distinction between Bach’s scientific work and his funding relationship is important. MIT’s findings concern how a convicted sex offender helped finance Bach’s appointment and obtained access to researchers. They do not constitute an institutional finding that Epstein chose Bach’s research conclusions.

The 2013 Introduction to MIT

Bach says the artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel brought his work to Epstein’s attention. In Bach’s later account, Roger Schank and Stephen Kosslyn also discussed Bach’s ideas with him and recommended that Epstein provide support.

The released June 2013 introduction correspondence, EFTA02570976, shows Epstein contacting Joi Ito about Bach’s artificial intelligence research and asking whether someone could show him around the Media Lab. The thread describes Bach’s interest in computational models of motivation and emotion. Epstein was thus acting as a broker of access before MIT made its later funding decisions.

The timing matters. Epstein’s 2008 conviction was already public. Bach says he knew of it but accepted assurances from academics he respected that Epstein had changed his behavior. Those assurances describe what Bach says he was told. They do not establish that Epstein had stopped offending.

The Salary Gap and MIT’s $300,000

The October 2013 salary correspondence, EFTA00632206, adds detail that a simple account of the MIT donations misses. Ito told Epstein that, from MIT’s perspective, Bach should receive about $60,000 a year, while Bach wanted $100,000. Ito discussed processing the MIT appointment at the lower amount and having Epstein work with Bach on the difference. The exchange also raised the possibility of funding through the John Templeton Foundation. The Epstein Data examination of the related correspondence identifies the institutional and outside salary discussions.

The discussion establishes the intended arrangement. It does not mean that Templeton ultimately funded Bach, nor does it prove that every dollar discussed was paid. It does show that Epstein’s proposed personal support was intertwined with the decision to bring Bach to MIT.

The MIT fact finding report identifies three completed Epstein donations for Bach’s research, made in November 2013, July 2014 and September 2014. They totaled $300,000. MIT concluded that the Media Lab hired Bach in large part because Epstein subsidized the cost.

MIT received ten Epstein donations totaling $850,000 overall, including $750,000 after his conviction. The $300,000 for Bach was part of that total. It was support given to MIT for Bach’s research, not a finding that MIT handed Bach a $300,000 personal payment.

Further correspondence shows that funding remained a concern. An Ito message about Bach, EFTA00996798, addressed additional support in September 2014. A March 2015 message, EFTA00698946, discussed funding needed to extend Bach’s appointment and preserve his visa situation. A request in correspondence is evidence of what was sought, not proof that the requested amount was subsequently donated.

MIT also recorded an Epstein visit on February 7, 2016, during which he met Bach. Its investigation found no evidence that Epstein interacted with students on that visit. Bach did not participate in an interview requested during MIT’s fact finding.

Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics

Epstein introduced Bach to Martin Nowak, who led Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. According to Harvard’s investigation, Nowak allowed Bach intermittent office access from 2014 through 2019. The program’s website listed Bach as a research scientist during that period, while his primary MIT affiliation ran from 2014 to 2016.

Harvard found that it never paid Bach and did not receive Epstein gifts to support Bach’s work. It also found no visitor participation agreement documenting his office access. Bach often met Epstein at the program’s offices. At least two papers published after Bach’s MIT departure acknowledged Epstein and the Harvard program.

Harvard said it could not determine from its own investigation whether Epstein funded Bach directly after MIT. That was a limit of Harvard’s records, not a finding that the support stopped. Later released correspondence, reporting and Bach’s own statements describe continued support. Bach did not respond to Harvard’s invitation to be interviewed for its investigation.

Epstein also used Nowak’s program as a place to assemble guests. September 2016 scheduling correspondence, EFTA00439984, names Bach among people Epstein wanted at a gathering that included scientists and other prominent contacts. A guest list or proposed schedule establishes planning; attendance at each individual meeting must be assessed from the relevant record.

Living Expenses and School Payments

Bach told SFGATE that Epstein covered costs associated with his family’s stay in the United States between 2013 and 2019. He identified relocation, rent, medical expenses, school fees, the gap between his salary and living costs, and conference travel.

The released financial material provides an important independent check. A Deutsche Bank presentation, EFTA01681865, identifies payments to the German International School Boston and states that the children connected to those payments appear to be Bach’s children. Its listed school payments include $4,713 in June 2015, $16,850 in April 2016 and $14,280 in July 2017. The presentation’s wording is qualified, so the identification should remain qualified.

Other correspondence shows the recurring expense requests:

These documents do not all have the same evidentiary meaning. A request shows what Bach sought. A bank record can show a listed payment. Neither should be silently converted into a comprehensive total of money personally received by Bach.

The Overall Funding Estimate

A joint investigation by ZDF, DER SPIEGEL and DER STANDARD examined emails, communications and financial records and reported that Epstein apparently supplied more than $1 million in support connected with Bach between 2013 and 2019. DER SPIEGEL’s report also describes an apparent total above $1 million.

That figure is a reported estimate across several channels. The underlying material includes MIT donations, direct household support, school payments, organizational funding and financial authorizations. Some records concern proposals or requests. Some may describe the same support from different angles. Adding every visible number together would risk counting money twice or treating an authorization as a completed payment.

The supported conclusion is substantial and sustained Epstein financing. The released materials do not provide a single audited figure for Bach’s personal receipts.

Humanity+, Enhanced Education and Immigration

A 2016 email chain, EFTA00630075, shows immigration lawyers working on a visa petition for Bach with Humanity+ as a proposed sponsoring employer. Goertzel told the lawyers that Humanity+ had little cash on hand and had previously served as a channel for Epstein donations.

The lawyers discussed whether Epstein could provide a much larger deposit to establish the organization’s financial capacity. Goertzel said the organization would accept funding for work within its charitable purpose but rejected the idea of simply sending money through its account and back out. Epstein’s response in the chain discussed a salary of approximately $50,000 a year backed by $150,000 in funding.

A later message in the same chain reports Epstein’s approval of $150,000 from Enhanced Education to Humanity+. The documents establish the proposed structure and approval. They should not be read as proof that all larger figures contemplated by the lawyers were paid. Nor is a grant to Humanity+ automatically the same thing as personal income received by Bach. Epstein Data’s document based account of Goertzel traces the distinction between the proposals, the approved amount and the organizational role.

Bach said in his 2026 interview that his immigration situation and his family’s expenses made the relationship psychologically difficult. He said a new visa and a job in San Francisco let him end that dependence in 2019.

Travel, Lodging and Scientific Gatherings

The released records depict more than a remote donor relationship. An Epstein office record, EFTA00285124, says Bach was in New York and would stay in apartment 11B. This documents lodging arranged through Epstein’s operation without establishing how often he used the apartment.

A dinner schedule, EFTA00285104, places Bach in a planned gathering with Martin Nowak, Noam Chomsky, George Church and Epstein. April 2016 scheduling records concerning Reid Hoffman, EFTA02054827, and other Cambridge visits illustrate Epstein’s practice of linking donors, technology figures and researchers. These records should be read as evidence of particular appointments and plans, not as proof that everyone named in Epstein’s wider network attended every event.

Bach says Epstein convened recurring discussions involving scientists such as Chomsky, Mikhail Gromov, Church and Seth Lloyd, along with political and business figures. His account describes different gatherings over time. Related correspondence includes a Bach message about Chomsky, EFTA01744605. See also Epstein’s conferences and gatherings.

In the Die Zeit interview Bach republished in English, he confirmed that he spent an evening on Epstein’s island with the director of a science foundation and that person’s family. He said he saw no illegal activity during that visit. His admission establishes that he visited. It does not establish what happened elsewhere on the property or what Bach knew about Epstein’s offenses.

The Controversial Emails About Human Differences

Released Bach and Epstein correspondence contains assertions and speculation about race, cognitive development, sex differences and political systems. SFGATE’s examination reported Bach’s generalizations about Black children’s development and women’s interests. The Atlantic examined the race discussion in the context of Epstein’s interest in claims about intelligence. The Verge reported other disturbing parts of the exchange concerning population engineering and fascism.

In his November 2025 statement, Bach described his argument about prolonged childhood development and neuroplasticity as a speculative attempt to understand cognition. He rejected racial superiority, discrimination and the idea that a person’s value depends on intelligence. He also said he lacked special expertise to resolve the heritability questions involved.

Bach’s later explanation belongs alongside the emails. It does not turn his earlier assertions into established science or remove his responsibility for what he wrote. He acknowledged that a documentary that influenced his thinking was not scientific evidence. The record establishes that he engaged Epstein in these subjects; it does not establish that Epstein directed Bach’s published research.

The July 2017 Letter About Epstein’s Reputation

The July 7, 2017 letter, EFTA02645850, is among the most consequential records for understanding what Bach knew about Epstein’s reputation. Epstein had described a college student who reacted negatively when he offered to help her obtain grants and said she could not be bought. Epstein invited Bach to explain how others perceived him.

Bach’s lengthy reply discussed Epstein’s public identification as a sex offender, his interest in young women, and the unequal power that Bach perceived in his interactions with them. Bach wrote that people around Epstein tended to compartmentalize the issue. He considered how Epstein might present a different account of his life to regain acceptance and used language about victims that minimized their position. He also warned that Epstein could not regain standing while appearing unrepentant about his interest in immature girls.

Anand Giridharadas’s examination of the correspondence draws out the letter’s central tension: Bach recognized the reputation, the power imbalance and others’ discomfort while remaining financially dependent on Epstein. Bach ended the exchange with gratitude for Epstein’s support.

The letter is evidence that Bach understood the nature of Epstein’s known conviction and social reputation. It is not evidence, by itself, that he witnessed trafficking or knew the details of a later offense. Bach’s hypothetical discussion of a story that might improve Epstein’s reputation must not be presented as a factual account of Epstein’s childhood.

Contact After Renewed Public Scrutiny

The relationship did not end when the Miami Herald’s 2018 investigation renewed public attention to Epstein’s plea agreement and the experiences of survivors. Giridharadas’s review of Bach’s emails describes a February 2019 message in which Bach expressed concern about the turmoil surrounding Epstein while discussing his own family’s dwindling funds. This supports a narrower conclusion than speculation about Bach’s motives: contact and financial need continued after that reporting became public.

Bach says he left Epstein’s orbit after obtaining another visa and a position in San Francisco in 2019. He has said the allegations associated with Epstein’s second arrest shocked him and that he had not witnessed new illegal conduct. In his 2026 interview, he acknowledged that, in hindsight, he should have taken his ethical concerns more seriously.

What the Record Establishes and What Remains Open

  • Established by MIT: Epstein gave MIT $300,000 for Bach’s work, and the subsidy was a major reason the Media Lab hired him.
  • Established by Harvard: Bach had intermittent access and a research scientist listing at the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Harvard did not employ or pay him and did not receive Epstein gifts for his work.
  • Established by correspondence and financial records: Epstein discussed covering Bach’s salary gap and other needs. The record includes expense requests, school payments, travel and lodging arrangements, and organizational funding tied to an immigration plan.
  • Reported estimate: Investigative journalists concluded that the overall support apparently exceeded $1 million. That estimate is not a verified statement of Bach’s personal cash income.
  • Acknowledged by Bach: He accepted support, met Epstein repeatedly and visited his island. He says Epstein did not control his research and that he did not know of later criminal activity.
  • Open questions: The exact reconciled value of all completed payments, the final disposition of every proposed organizational transfer, and the full extent of Bach’s knowledge of Epstein’s conduct are not settled by the records cited here.

The significance of Bach’s case lies in the documented combination of institutional sponsorship, personal financial dependence and continued access to Epstein after his conviction. His presence in the files is not evidence of participation in Epstein’s crimes.

Evidence Appearances

Sources

Tags:
Previous Jeffrey Epstein’s Conferences and Gatherings: A Master Evidence Index
Next Lawrence Krauss: Sexual Misconduct Allegations, University Findings, and the Epstein Files
Table of Contents