For the past two years, United Nations staff around the world have been threatened, warned, and at times explicitly intimidated by senior management for daring to speak publicly about the genocide committed by Israel in Palestine. Multiple internal broadcasts were circulated across the UN system, emphasizing “neutrality” and the Organization’s intolerance for public commentary that could “damage” its reputation. In some duty stations, staff were effectively told that speaking out, even as private individuals, to denounce the genocide, could trigger disciplinary action leading to dismissal.
What makes this file explosive is not merely what it reveals about Fabrice Aidan. It is what it reveals about the United Nations itself: an organization that has spent the past two years policing staff speech on Gaza with threats of disciplinary action, while a UN official spent nearly eight years using his official UN email account to correspond with Jeffrey Epstein, circulating Security Council briefings, facilitating elite diplomatic access, and arranging protocol-level coordination for Epstein’s presence in high-level Middle East forums. This conduct unfolded quietly, without sanction, without apparent investigation, and without any comparable invocation of “neutrality” or “duty of discretion.” Discretion, it seems, is enforced only against those who speak about Palestine not against those who leak the Organization’s most sensitive material to sexual predators and child rapists.
The UN staff member is Fabrice Aidan.
His name appears unredacted in the Epstein files. Aidan was not a contractor, a consultant or an outsider. The correspondence identifies him as:
“Special Assistant to the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General” a staff member at a P-4 or P-5 level.
Aidan was a French civil servant at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his diplomatic trajectory is particularly relevant. Before joining the UN system, he served at the French Embassy in Israel between 1998 and 2000. After his UN tenure for 8 years working as the Special Assistant of Terje Rød-Larsen, he transitioned into elite financial and influence networks, later becoming an advisor to the Edmond de Rothschild Group. This post-UN transition matters because it reflects continuity: the same individual who acted as a political access facilitator inside the UN system later resurfaced inside Europe’s high finance ecosystem.
His public footprint is also telling. Aidan’s own X/Twitter account reflects the type of political ecosystem in which he appears comfortable. In October 2023, he reposted a tweet by Hugues Serraf stating, in French, that
“life is always simpler when one is far-right, far-left, and/or a religious fanatic, because such people believe they hold absolute truth, have no moral hesitation, and can shout “death to so-and-so” with total serenity”
This repost is not a harmless political observation. It is Aidan publicly amplifying a message that treats extremist ideology as a lifestyle choice and makes “death to so-and-so” sound like an acceptable form of political expression. For a former French diplomat and UN insider, this is not merely tone-deaf. It is consistent with the profile emerging from the Epstein correspondence: a man for whom institutional norms were always negotiable, and for whom discretion was never about protecting the public interest, only about protecting the network.
The paper trail begins in May 2010. On 5 May 2010, Jeffrey Epstein appears to have identified Terje Rød-Larsen as a strategic entry point into UN Middle East diplomacy. Epstein wrote to none other than Peter Mandelson asking:
“do you know Therje Roed-Larsen. –Oslo accord United nations envoy?” EFTA00891863
Minutes later, after Mandelson replied “No, why?”, Epstein followed up, effectively justifying why Rød-Larsen mattered and why an introduction was worth pursuing. He described him as:
“one of the most powerful figures in the middle east. both sides- under sec general u.n.. in london for a few days” EFTA01812397
The language describes Rød-Larsen as a geopolitical lever.
Within months, Fabrice Aidan emerges in the correspondence as the operational channel through which Epstein is integrated into the UN-linked diplomatic orbit surrounding Rød-Larsen.
By October 2010, Aidan is already communicating with Epstein as if Epstein’s attendance at a closed diplomatic retreat is a normal administrative matter. The retreat in question was the 2010 Sir Bani Yas Forum, the inaugural edition of a high-level invite-only gathering hosted by H.H. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The forum was designed as a discreet setting for ministers and senior global figures to discuss Middle East peace and security away from public scrutiny.
Epstein wanted in.
The correspondence shows Aidan handling the request personally. In one exchange, Aidan writes to Epstein:
“I need to speak with the FM UAE to add you on the list first and then they will contact you. What should be your title/affiliation for the invitation?” EFTA007532276
Epstein responds with a deliberately evasive and mocking suggestion, treating the invitation process as a joke and assuming, correctly, that UN officials would accommodate him anyway:
“I assume we can’t just write„- just an ordinary good guy, with a colorful past and a bright future?”
Instead of doing the one thing a UN official is paid to do, Aidan plays the role of facilitator and damage-control officer, treating Epstein’s fake “bio” as workable and framing potential objections as a problem to be contained:
“For me it would suffice, but you have some rigid people there too, that we need to contain.”
That phrase “we need to contain” is the type of language used by insiders protecting an operation, not by UN staff safeguarding institutional integrity.
The internal chain confirms that Epstein’s entry into Sir Bani Yas was not merely facilitated by Aidan but was directly tied to Terje Rød-Larsen’s intervention at the highest level. A message circulated among organizers states:
“Terje, after discussions with HH, has invited Mr. Jeffrey Epstein…” EFTA02421131
The same message apologizes for Epstein being added late:
“With apologies for this last minute addition, Terje would like that Mr. Epstein be added to the list of participants.”
Aidan himself confirms that the invitation was cleared with UAE leadership:
“As terje indicated, he cleared with HH that Jeffrey Epstein should be invited to the SBF.” EFTA2421068
The machinery then moves rapidly. UAE protocol officials request passport copies and photographs, explicitly referencing that the request was relayed through Aidan, who by then was the recognized channel for Epstein’s participation.
At this stage, the UN’s role is not subtle. The correspondence reflects a UN political office inserting Epstein into a closed forum where foreign ministers and high-level decision-makers convened under Chatham House rules. Epstein is processed through security clearance and logistics, while his team provides private jet details, passport pages, and headshot photographs as if this were a routine addition to an official diplomatic guest list.
By January 2011, the relationship evolves from invitation facilitation into protocol-level coordination involving Gulf leadership.
On 25 January 2011, Fabrice Aidan sends Epstein an email marked “Urgent” from his official UN address:
“Just tried to call you. Sh abdallah accepts the dinner with b gates. They need urgently a phone number for protocol coordination.” EFTA00648501
The message is notable not only for its content, but for its assumption: Epstein is treated as a relevant operational link in an interaction involving Sheikh Abdullah and Bill Gates. This is a UN staff member coordinating protocol requirements through Epstein.
The most serious part of the file, however, is not about access or dinners. It is about leaks.
In August 2011, a document titled:
“SG’s telephone conversation with FM of Turkey” EFTA02693326
appears in the correspondence chain reaching Epstein. The document concerns the former Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon’s private telephone conversation with Turkey’s Foreign Minister: a type of confidential readout that is normally restricted to a narrow circle within UN Headquarters.
The chain shows that the material was routed through the UN office channel associated with Fabrice Aidan.
The same pattern appears with Security Council-related documents. In October 2011, a document titled:
“Briefing_to_the_SC – 14th semi annual 1559 report…”
is transmitted into the Epstein email chain. The embedded header confirms the origin of the file within the UN office:
“Sent by Fabrice Aidan, United Nations”
By May 2012, Aidan dispenses with any attempt at formal framing. He sends Epstein an email titled:
“Briefing of Terje to the Security Council”
and the body reads simply:
“here it is” EFTA02698388
The tone clearly suggests this was not exceptional, and it was a routine transmission of UN reports to Epstein.
Then comes a detail that might seem absurd if it were not embedded in the same correspondence trail as Security Council briefings.
In August 2012, Epstein’s office requests shoe sizes for a luxury gift: personalized Stubbs and Wootton shoes with initials. Fabrice Aidan replies:
“Finally got the answer
Edward size 7 EJRL
Terje size 9 TRL” EFTA00553532
A UN official who had access to confidential Middle East diplomatic reporting and Security Council material was also providing personal details to facilitate luxury gifting from Epstein. It is the kind of exchange that signals closeness, loyalty, and a relationship cemented not only by political access but by personal indulgence.
By October 2013, the correspondence indicates that Aidan was actively shifting communications away from the UN as he was already working for Edmond de Rothschild Group.
He writes to Epstein:
“I saw that you sent me an email to my UN address. I check it not that often anymore. Best is to write to my personal one” EFTA01951288
This is a critical moment in the file. It suggests that what is publicly visible may only represent the portion of communications captured through UN systems. Anything routed through private addresses remains outside the record.
The financial dimension becomes more explicit in 2014, a time when Aidan was working with the Rothschild group. The correspondence includes discussions of transfers and wiring instructions linked to Terje Rød-Larsen and Epstein. One message states:
“Now being told 2 more days before we receive Terje 130,000”
Aidan then confirms that he personally intervened with the bank to resolve a transfer issue:
“I called the bank that suspended the transfer because of insufficient info related to the beneficiary bank id. All is set now. Apparently for amount above 50k, they are extra careful” EFTA00983426
By 2016, Epstein remains in direct contact with both Terje Rød-Larsen and Fabrice Aidan. In April 2016, he forwards them a link titled:
“Un scandale de pedophilie etouffe par le Quai d’Orsay” EFTA02466465
This is not a random link. Epstein is forwarding an article about a pedophilia scandal allegedly buried by the Quai d’Orsay to Terje Rød-Larsen and to Fabrice Aidan, a former French diplomat whose career was built inside that same institutional ecosystem. The obvious question is why Epstein assumed they would be receptive to this material, and what kind of familiarity or shared context made him comfortable circulating pedophilia-related content to them as if it were ordinary reading.
By 2017, Aidan appears fully embedded in elite private networks. Ariane de Rothschild writes to Epstein referencing travel and social encounters, and makes the following remark:
“I saw an amazing picture of a very happy Fabrice Aidan with MBS… Wow !” EFTA00954267
At that point, Fabrice Aidan is no longer merely a “former UN staff member” whose name happens to appear in an embarrassing email dump. He is the portrait of a system that protects the well-connected while policing the powerless. Because this is what the correspondence shows in plain sight: a UN staff member using his official UN email account to serve Jeffrey Epstein, sending Security Council briefings, arranging elite invitations, coordinating protocol with Gulf leadership, and facilitating access that no ordinary person could ever obtain.
And this unfolded quietly, year after year, without sanction, without apparent investigation, and without any serious enforcement of the UN’s own Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, standards that are not subject to selective application.
The UN’s rules on confidentiality are explicit. Paragraph 39 of the Standards of Conduct states:
“Because disclosure of confidential information may seriously jeopardize the efficiency and credibility of an organization, international civil servants are responsible for exercising discretion in all matters of official business. They must not divulge confidential information without authorization. International civil servants should not use information to personal advantage that has not been made public and is known to them by virtue of their official position. These obligations do not cease upon separation from service. Organizations must maintain guidelines for the use and protection of confidential information, and it is equally necessary for such guidelines to keep pace with developments in communications and other new technology.”
This is precisely what makes the Fabrice Aidan correspondence so damning. The conduct documented in the DOJ files is not a grey zone. It is a direct contradiction of the UN’s own written standards: a UN staff member using his UN title, UN office, and official UN email account for nearly three years to transmit sensitive material, circulate Security Council briefings, and treat confidential diplomatic readouts as routine attachments while facilitating privileged access for Jeffrey Epstein.
Today, UN staff members are dismissed, disciplined, or threatened for the smallest perceived breach of outside activity rules, for speaking out, or for expressing the most basic solidarity with Palestinian children being dismembered under Israeli bombardment. Yet one of its own officials was allowed to operate as a political concierge for Jeffrey Epstein not in secrecy, but through an email trail so blatant that it reads like a parody.
This raises the question the UN will not answer: what kind of oversight, governance, ethics framework, or internal accountability does the Organization claim to have, if a staff member could conduct this level of misconduct in plain view for so many years? Or is “ethics” simply a disciplinary tool reserved for staff who are disposable while immunity, protection, and silence are extended to the elite, exactly as they were to Epstein?
It also raises a parallel question for the French government. Aidan was not a random opportunist. He was a French civil servant, posted to sensitive diplomatic assignments, including the French Embassy in Israel, later embedded in the UN, and then absorbed into elite financial networks. If the French state cannot account for how one of its own diplomats became operationally entangled with Epstein’s network, then the problem is not merely UN governance. It is national governance.
How many other Fabrice Aidans operated inside the UN system or still operate inside it, serving two masters, cultivating private allegiances, and treating public office as a currency of access? And how many more files remain buried simply because the names involved are too connected, too protected, too untouchable?
