Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has responded forcefully to repeated allegations by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi regarding the recently released Epstein files, asserting that his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein were minimal, entirely professional, and occurred before he joined the Union Cabinet in 2017. Speaking to the media, Puri emphasized that his name had been mentioned in public documents but that the references covered a period during which he served as India’s Ambassador to the United Nations and later as Secretary-General of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism, a project under the International Peace Institute. He clarified that these interactions were limited to three or four meetings and had no connection with any criminal activities associated with Epstein. Puri strongly criticized Rahul Gandhi’s repeated public references, calling them elements of “buffoonery,” and reiterated the importance of focusing on India’s economic and international agreements rather than unsubstantiated claims.
Clarifying Epstein Files and Professional Associations
Hardeep Puri addressed the controversy surrounding his name in the context of the Epstein files during a press conference, noting that his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein was strictly professional. “I want to remind you that today, during the Parliament session, my name was mentioned in the context of some developments elsewhere—the Epstein files. I just want to share some information… I want to clarify that these facts are all public,” Puri said. He detailed that between May 2009, when he joined as India’s Ambassador to the UN in New York, and his appointment as a Union Minister in 2017, there are references to only three or four meetings with Epstein among over three million emails released publicly. Puri clarified that during this period, his engagements were entirely in his official capacity, representing India or as part of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism (ICM), a project hosted by the International Peace Institute (IPI).
Puri explained that he was never a member of the IPI itself but had joined the ICM as Secretary-General shortly after resigning from his UN ambassadorial position. “My boss in the IPI, Terje Rod-Larsen, was the person who knew this particular infamous person Mr Epstein, and it is as part of a delegation of the IPI or the ICM that I met Mr Epstein on a few occasions, three or maximum four,” he clarified. The Union minister emphasized that these meetings had no connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, including charges of paedophilia, sexual exploitation, or the operations allegedly conducted on his private island. “The Epstein Files, the Yuva Neta should know, are about wrongdoing, criminal offences. The Epstein Files are about charges that he had an island where he used to take people to indulge their sexual fantasies, charges of paedophilia, and there are victims of this. Those victims have brought cases against people in authority. My interaction had nothing to do with that,” Puri said.
By outlining the chronology and context of his interactions, Puri sought to distinguish his professional engagements from the allegations surrounding Epstein, underscoring that public references do not imply culpability or involvement in criminal activity. He emphasized that the entire record is in the public domain and has been verified by multiple authorities. Puri’s explanation aimed to neutralize the political narrative being built around his name, insisting that Rahul Gandhi’s repeated remarks were designed more for spectacle than substance.
Political Exchanges and Defense of India-US Trade Deal
The Union minister also seized the opportunity to counter Rahul Gandhi’s criticisms of India’s economic policy and the India-US trade agreement. Amid the opposition’s focus on the trade deal, Puri highlighted that the pact was formulated in the context of global economic uncertainties and represented a strategic step for India’s growth trajectory. “On the one hand, you have leaders who dedicate their lives to transforming the country and work around the clock, and then you have elements of buffoonery. I am choosing my words carefully, elements of buffoonery. I did not call him a buffoon; I said elements of buffoonery,” Puri remarked, making a pointed distinction between dedicated governance and what he described as theatrical opposition politics.
Addressing Rahul Gandhi’s conduct in the Lok Sabha, Puri noted that while the Congress leader was supposed to speak on the budget, he began reading the Economic Survey instead, highlighting a lack of focus on pressing policy discussions. Puri underscored that international agreements, trade deals, and economic planning are crucial for India’s development, implying that politicizing such matters could distract from substantive debates. He reiterated that the India-US trade deal, far from being a compromise, was a pragmatic response to the complex global economic environment, and described it as “just a trailer” for further economic initiatives that would secure India’s interests.
Puri’s rebuttal also addressed the allegations raised by Rahul Gandhi regarding other figures mentioned in the Epstein files, including industrialist Anil Ambani. “There’s an industrialist whose name is also mentioned, but why hasn’t he been arrested? Why are you linking him? The camel is somewhere, and the dog is barking in another city. What are you linking to what? I’ve already said, there are elements of vulgarity in this. It is only for entertainment value,” Puri said, emphasizing the frivolous and sensationalist nature of the opposition’s narrative.
Rahul Gandhi had claimed possession of verified information regarding Epstein files and alleged that both Hardeep Puri and Anil Ambani were named in US Department of Justice documents. Gandhi also referred to summons issued in ongoing legal cases against Adani, asserting that the Indian government had not responded for 18 months. In a post on social media, Gandhi criticized the India-US trade deal, claiming it “has mortgaged the future of 140 crore Indians,” putting youth employment, farmers’ crops, and energy security at risk. He argued that such a surrender of national interest could only occur under extreme pressure, suggesting undue influence over the Prime Minister in matters of domestic policy and international agreements.
In his defense, Puri stressed that India’s economic growth and international engagements are the result of deliberate policy decisions designed to benefit the nation and are unrelated to sensational claims. By linking the Epstein files to domestic economic debates, Puri argued that the opposition was conflating unrelated matters, misrepresenting facts, and creating distractions from India’s broader strategic priorities.
Hardeep Puri’s remarks were part of a broader attempt to refocus the discourse on governance, policy, and economic planning. By clarifying his professional interactions with Epstein and criticizing the political theatre surrounding the allegations, he highlighted the importance of evaluating public servants based on their work, responsibilities, and contributions, rather than the selective and misleading presentation of partial records.
The minister also elaborated on his tenure at the UN and the role of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism in shaping international policy discussions. His interactions with Epstein occurred strictly within the framework of international diplomacy and professional obligations, with oversight from senior officials at the IPI. By providing a detailed timeline, Puri aimed to create transparency and counter the narrative suggesting wrongdoing, emphasizing the distinction between official duties and criminal behavior attributed to Epstein.
By juxtaposing his professional history with the current political criticism, Puri reinforced the need for factual clarity and responsible political discourse. He pointed out that media coverage, while extensive, should differentiate between verified public records and politically motivated claims, underlining the importance of evidence-based discussion in Parliament and in public forums. Puri’s approach was to present a comprehensive chronology, illustrating that his role was procedural and institutional rather than personal or complicit in any alleged crimes.
Puri’s statements also served as a defense of India’s ongoing economic and diplomatic strategies. By addressing the trade deal criticisms, he linked international policy with domestic outcomes, framing India-US engagements as necessary for economic stability and growth amid global uncertainties. His remarks suggested that opposition narratives often ignore strategic context, focusing instead on sensationalism without understanding the broader implications for the country.
Puri’s response combined a defense of personal integrity, an explanation of institutional processes, and a broader commentary on political accountability, media narratives, and the importance of substantive policy discussion. By addressing both the Epstein files allegations and critiques of India’s economic policies, Puri attempted to shift the focus from personal attacks and sensational claims to governance, policy-making, and India’s strategic interests on the international stage.
