Category: Epstein Files

Response to the Spokesperson of the Secretary-General: Re-Fabrice Aidan, Terje Rød-Larsen

Following my open letter to the Secretary-General on Fabrice Aidan, we have received a minimal and highly partial answer through the Spokesperson of the Secretary-General during yesterday’s noon briefing at UNHQ. The response does not resolve the questions raised; instead, it introduces a contradiction that undermines the credibility of the UN’s position. The Spokesperson’s response is worth examining carefully and contains multiple inaccuracies, to say the least.

The exchange is quoted verbatim as follows:

Question:  My second question.  There is a UN staff.  His name is Fabrice Aidan, whose name had been mentioned several times in Epstein files. He was passing messages from UN email to Terje Rod-Larsen to Epstein.  And you have received a letter, and the SG received a letter asking why he was not investigated.  When some UN staff showed some sympathy for Palestinians, they were instructed…

Spokesman:  Well, I mean…

Question:  To be quiet.  But this case…

Spokesman:  Abdelhamid, it’s a very valid question, but I wish you’d get your facts right.  Mr. Aidan is not a UN staff member.  He was a French diplomat who was seconded to the United Nations from about 2003 to 2013. He resigned in April 2013.  At the time of his resignation, there was a disciplinary process under way against him on a specific matter.  Now like many people, I’ve looked at a lot of the Epstein documents, and I can tell you that obviously there was no way for us to be aware of, we don’t monitor staff’s emails, so we have no way of, or people’s emails, we have no way of knowing what people are doing with their emails. It is clear that looking at what was sent, it was violation of procedures to send from a UN email documents that he should not have been sharing outside of the UN.

Question:  What about Terje Rod-Larsen?  He was a UN staff, and you know he was.  And… and also, Aidan was a UN staff, and he signed his letters as [cross-talk].

Spokesman:  Right.  But what is your point?  Because I’m telling you, he has not worked in the United Nations since April 2013. He resigned.  At the time of his resignation, he was under investigation. Mr. Larsen stopped being a full time UN staff member on 31 December 2004.  He was then, when actually employed, or a dollar a year, envoy while he served as President of IPI.  I can tell you that our focus and everybody’s focus should be on ensuring that everyone follows our procedures and, also, focused on the victims of Mr. Epstein.

The Spokesperson instructed the journalist to “get your facts right.” The facts are not in dispute. They are documented, public, and verifiable. What is in dispute is the UN’s attempt to reframe those facts through selective terminology and incomplete disclosure.

1- Seconded Personnel Remain Subject to UN Administrative Jurisdiction

The UN Staff Regulations and Rules explicitly contemplate secondments and arrangements whereby individuals serve within the Secretariat under a UN appointment while remaining linked to their government administration. In practice, these individuals receive an index number, occupy a post, exercise UN functions, and are subject to UN internal governance and conduct requirements.

    A person seconded from a government does not become exempt from UN accountability simply because the salary originates elsewhere. A secondment does not create a parallel moral universe where UN ethics do not apply.

    The UN itself has a clear administrative framework for this category of personnel. Accordingly, the attempt to present Mr. Aidan’s secondment as proof that he was “not UN staff” is misleading and has no bearing on the applicability of the UN’s Staff Regulations, Rules, and disciplinary jurisdiction.

    2- The UN cannot deny staff status while invoking an internal OIOS disciplinary process

    The Spokesperson’s answer collapses under its own weight in the very next sentence.

    He claims Aidan was “not a UN staff member,” but then states:

    “At the time of his resignation, there was a disciplinary process under way against him…”

    An internal OIOS disciplinary process presupposes UN jurisdiction, and therefore UN staff status. Aidan was apparently not “not UN staff”, yet the UN confirms he was under an internal OIOS disciplinary process. 

    OIOS and the UN disciplinary framework exist to investigate alleged misconduct within the Organization and to ensure compliance with the Staff Regulations and Rules by staff members serving under UN authority.

    Either Mr. Aidan was subject to a UN OIOS disciplinary process, or he was not.

    The United Nations cannot simultaneously assert that an individual falls outside the staff system, while also confirming that the individual was subject to an internal OIOS disciplinary process. It presupposes UN administrative jurisdiction and applies to personnel serving under UN authority and bound by the Staff Regulations and Rules.

    The UN cannot rely on the terminology of “secondment” to dilute or recharacterize accountability. Staff members seconded from government service or from other organizations remain subject to the UN regulatory framework, including the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. Secondment is an administrative modality; it does not constitute an exemption from UN obligations, nor does it remove an individual from the Organization’s disciplinary jurisdiction.

    Mr. Aidan was not operating in a vacuum. He was serving as a full-time P-5 official within the UN Secretariat under a letter of appointment reflecting his secondment from the French Government. That administrative detail has no bearing whatsoever on the applicability of the UN’s internal legal framework to his conduct.

    3- The Spokesperson confirmed the breach of UN confidentiality procedures

    In the most consequential part of the briefing, the Spokesperson expressly acknowledged that the material transmitted from the official UN email account constituted a breach of UN procedures. He stated:

    “It is clear that looking at what was sent, it was violation of procedures to send from a UN email documents that he should not have been sharing outside of the UN.”

    This statement amounts to a public confirmation by the UN Secretariat that the correspondence released in the Epstein files reflects an unauthorized disclosure of internal UN documents. the Secretariat itself has acknowledged that the conduct was incompatible with UN rules governing confidentiality and the handling of official information.

    4- Terje Rød-Larsen: the UN’s own rules on gratis personnel prohibit precisely this conduct

    The Spokesperson further attempted to neutralize Mr. Terje Rød-Larsen’s involvement by emphasizing that he ceased to be a full-time UN staff member on 31 December 2004 and later served as a “dollar-a-year” envoy while he served as President of IPI. This distinction is legally irrelevant. Whether staff or non-staff, Mr. Rød-Larsen was operating under UN authority and entrusted with access to sensitive information. The applicable obligations of confidentiality and discretion therefore remained fully engaged.

    The Spokesperson’s explanation does not exonerate Mr. Rød-Larsen. On the contrary, it confirms that he continued to operate within the UN system under an engagement modality that falls squarely within the Organization’s administrative framework governing non-staff personnel.

    The applicable instrument is ST/AI/1999/6 (Gratis personnel), which governs individuals serving within UN offices while not holding a standard staff appointment. The instruction is explicit: such personnel are bound by UN rules on confidentiality and are prohibited from communicating non-public information to external persons.

    Section 11.2 of ST/AI/1999/6 provides:

    “Gratis personnel shall exercise the utmost discretion in all matters relating to their functions. Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate official in the receiving office, they may not communicate at any time to the media or to any institution, person, Government or other external authority any information that has not been made public, and which has become known to them by reason of their association with the United Nations or the receiving office.

    They may not use any such information without the written authorization of the appropriate official, and such information may never be used for personal gain. These obligations shall continue after the end of their service with the United Nations.”

    Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that Mr. Rød-Larsen’s engagement was on a “dollar-a-year” basis, the UN’s own administrative instructions make clear that he remained bound by strict confidentiality obligations. The transmission of Security Council briefings, internal diplomatic readouts, and privileged conversations, or other non-public UN information to an external private individual would constitute a direct breach of the applicable UN regulatory framework.

    The Secretariat’s attempt to emphasize Mr. Rød-Larsen’s contractual modality therefore does not constitute an explanation. It underscores the institutional failure: individuals operating under UN authority, whether staff or gratis personnel, appear to have been able to transmit sensitive information externally over an extended period without effective oversight, accountability, or transparent consequences.

    5- UNESCO’s subsequent recruitment of Fabrice Aidan is indefensible

    It is now established that the UN Secretariat introduced an explicit, systematized mechanism for recording misconduct-related separations through ST/AI/2017/1 (26 October 2017), which provides for a “note to file” in the Official Status File when a staff member resigns before completion of disciplinary proceedings.

    ClearCheck was subsequently introduced as a system-wide vetting mechanism in 2018.

    But even before ClearCheck existed, every UN entity had a duty to conduct meaningful reference checks and consult prior UN service records.

    And yet, Fabrice Aidan reportedly was reemployed by UNESCO under Audray Azoulay’s leadership between 2019 and 2023.

    This raises the unavoidable question: how was a person who resigned from the UN Secretariat in 2013 while under a full-fledged disciplinary process later allowed to return to the UN system?

    Who facilitated his recruitment and how?

    6- Information Governance and Internal Security Controls

    While it is fully accepted that the United Nations does not and should not engage in indiscriminate monitoring of staff email communications, this does not absolve the Organization of its duty to maintain effective governance, information security controls, and safeguards over the handling of privileged and confidential material.

    The transmission of Security Council briefings, internal diplomatic readouts, and sensitive documentation is not an administrative triviality: it is precisely the type of information that should be protected through clear access controls, classification protocols, audit mechanisms, and enforceable confidentiality procedures.

    If such material can be repeatedly extracted from official UN channels and transmitted externally over an extended period without detection, mitigation, or consequence, the issue is no longer limited to individual misconduct, it reflects a systemic failure of internal oversight and information governance

    Finally, it is difficult to ignore the Spokesperson’s attempt to close the exchange by suggesting that “everybody’s focus should be… on the victims of Mr. Epstein.”

    No one disputes the centrality of the victims in this criminal case. However, coming from the United Nations, this statement is disingenuous. The UN has repeatedly failed to adopt a genuinely victim-centred approach in its own internal misconduct cases, particularly those involving harassment and sexual abuse.

    The Organization continues to receive and systematically mishandle countless reports from staff members, disproportionately women, many of whom refrain from reporting altogether due to well-founded fear of retaliation, and many of whom did report only to see their cases buried without meaningful consequence for perpetrators.

    The UN should begin by demonstrating accountability towards its own internal victims before invoking “victim-centred” rhetoric as a means of deflecting legitimate questions of institutional responsibility.

    It is also important to underscore that thousands of UN staff members are dismayed by the Fabrice Aidan case precisely because it stands in stark contrast to the stringent disciplinary measures routinely applied to ordinary staff members for minor deviations, perceived reputational issues, or administrative technicalities. Staff members are sanctioned, separated, or threatened for far less. Yet in this case, the documented misuse of official UN channels to transmit sensitive information externally appears to have unfolded over years with no transparent accountability. 

    This disparity raises serious questions not only about oversight and information governance, but also about vetting, institutional protection, privileged access, and the unequal application of rules within the Organization. It reinforces a perception widely shared among staff: that UN accountability is not applied uniformly, and that those embedded in elite networks or connected to influential figures are treated under a different standard than the workforce expected to comply without exception.

    The United Nations can do better and must do better.

    Response to Spokesperson open letter to SG Fabrice Aidan 12022026Download

    Open Letter to the Secretary-General– Fabrice Aidan, Epstein Correspondence, and the UN’s Duty to Disclose Disciplinary Measures (including ClearCheck)

    Today, I sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General with one straightforward question: was Fabrice Aidan ever investigated while serving as a staff member of the UN Secretariat, in light of the DOJ-released Epstein correspondence and recent French reporting?

    If the UN did investigate and took disciplinary action, then how was Aidan later able to re-enter the UN system and work at UNESCO between 2019 and 2023?

    Was his record ever entered into ClearCheck: the UN’s system-wide screening mechanism meant to prevent the rehiring of individuals linked to misconduct?

    And if the UN did not investigate, then what exactly did the Secretariat do when it was reportedly informed in 2013 of an FBI report concerning his alleged conduct?

    If the UN did not investigate, it must explain why

    If the UN did investigate, it must disclose the outcome.

    The United Nations cannot claim to uphold rules it applies selectively. Accountability cannot be something imposed on the powerless while those embedded in elite networks are shielded from scrutiny.

    Continued silence will only confirm what many staff have learned through experience: governance, ethics, and accountability operate in one direction only: downward.

    open letter to SG Fabrice Aidan 11022026Download

    Epstein’s UN Insider: Fabrice Aidan and the UN’s Double Standard

    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?

    Ex DOJ FADownload