The Norway–Epstein Network

IPI donations

Five Epstein-affiliated foundations donated a combined $650,000 to IPI from 2011–2019, according to the KPMG review published by IPI.

The 2015 payment

Norwegian reporting based on released records describes Epstein instructing a 250k transfer to Rød-Larsen in December 2015. Later reporting says Rød-Larsen's lawyer called it a taxable “remuneration”. The public record still does not clearly explain what service the payment covered.

Access to the Oil Fund

Released correspondence reported by E24 shows Epstein trying to use Rød-Larsen as a route toward the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund in connection with a potential Cushman & Wakefield transaction. The deal did not materialise.

Rothschild money → Rød-Larsen

Large Rothschild-related transfers into Epstein's Southern Trust and the Rød-Larsen payment can be placed in the same broader period. That does not prove the incoming funds financed the outgoing payment. A direct tracing requires ledger-level evidence.

Foreign-policy influence and pressure risk are explicitly inside the mandate

The commission must examine relations between Epstein's network and current or former Norwegian politicians, officials, state employees and other actors linked to Norwegian authorities. The mandate also includes whether networks, ties or information exchange may have affected Norwegian foreign-policy priorities or created vulnerabilities to pressure or influence.

Stortinget — Vedtak 610, mandate adopted 15 April 2026

Oslo, top international jobs and public grants are explicitly included

The commission's minimum scope includes Norway's campaigns for top positions in international organisations; relations with external organisations, foundations and networks; allocation and use of aid and other public grants; and culture, archival practice, conflicts of interest and personnel security in the foreign service.

Crucially, the mandate says the time period must include the process that led to the 1993 Oslo Accords and subsequent matters. That does not mean wrongdoing in the Oslo process has been established. It means Parliament has ordered the commission to examine that period.

The commission can reach material normal public searches cannot

Within its mandate, the commission is to receive all relevant information notwithstanding statutory, instruction-based or contractual secrecy. The decision explicitly includes security-classified and protected information, and allows individuals to be compelled to give explanations under the special law.

The final report is due to the Storting by 31 January 2028; interim reports are permitted.

Criminal investigations remain open

As of 10 September 2026, Økokrim told Norwegian media that the investigations concerning Mona Juul, Terje Rød-Larsen and Thorbjørn Jagland were still ongoing, with evidence collection and international police cooperation continuing. A charge or investigation is not a conviction.

Aftenposten / NTB, 10 September 2026 — current-status report

Økokrim, 9 February 2026 — official opening of Juul/Rød-Larsen investigation

Questions and answers remain attributed to their speakers

The transcript records scrutiny of IPI grants, Foreign Ministry controls and institutional culture. Those exchanges are evidence of what was asked and answered in Parliament—not independent proof that every statement is correct.

The Foreign Minister’s position

Espen Barth Eide told the committee that he knew of nothing indicating Epstein had influenced Norwegian foreign policy. The independent commission’s broader remit remains open, so neither that statement nor the questions raised at the hearing settle the issue.

The independent commission reports later

At the hearing, the committee said a separate commission was examining the wider record and was due to report by 31 January 2028. The hearing transcript is not a substitute for that investigation or for the ongoing criminal process.

Økokrim was still waiting for approval

On 9 September, The Washington Post attributed to prosecutor Marianne Bender the statement that U.S. authorities had not approved Norway’s request for information. An iNyheter report published on 11 September, citing her interview with Nettavisen, distinguished the submitted Juul/Rød-Larsen request from a separate Jagland request then being prepared. The requests themselves are not public in the sources reviewed here.

Raskin asks for a broad account by 4 November

In a letter dated 21 October, Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department for records on foreign mutual-legal-assistance requests concerning Epstein investigations and on DOJ decisions about state and local requests. He asked for a response by 5 p.m. on 4 November. The letter does not name Norway as a request DOJ denied; it seeks records across foreign requests generally.

An oversight demand is not a finding of obstruction

Raskin describes DOJ’s conduct as obstruction. DOJ told The Washington Post on 9 September it had not refused to assist any jurisdiction; on 22 October the department confirmed it had received Raskin’s letter and that the request was under review. DOJ’s reported “overly broad” explanation concerned New Mexico’s separate request. Former DOJ officials said assistance requests can take weeks or months. The public records cited here do not establish which explanation accounts for Norway’s pending request.