Norway’s Epstein hearing is putting the country’s Foreign Ministry under scrutiny over how it handled personal networks, conflicts of interest, sensitive information and public funding. The two-day parliamentary hearing began on 30 September and brings together former ministers and senior officials to examine whether existing safeguards were strong enough.
The hearing, formally focused on “control and culture in the Foreign Service”, comes after revelations about Norwegian figures’ connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But the scope is broader than Epstein himself. The Storting is examining how the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Utenriksdepartementet) supervised organisations receiving public money and whether informal relationships could have affected internal controls.
Among those questioned on the first day were Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, who served as foreign minister from 2005 to 2012, former foreign minister Børge Brende and former foreign minister Ine Eriksen Søreide. Aftenposten followed the first day of testimony.
Brende admits giving a false answer about Epstein
One of the clearest admissions came from Brende, who served as foreign minister between 2013 and 2017 before later becoming president of the World Economic Forum.
Brende said he had no contact with Epstein while serving as foreign minister, but met him three times afterwards and exchanged a number of messages with him. He also acknowledged that he had previously given Aftenposten a false answer when asked whether the two had been in contact.
“I should not have answered Aftenposten’s question untruthfully. I showed poor judgment, and I am sorry about that.”
Brende said he had been afraid that the contact would be interpreted as something more significant than it was. He also maintained that he had done nothing illegal.
Mona Juul’s security clearance was downgraded
The hearing also produced new information about diplomat Mona Juul, whose security clearance was downgraded in 2021.
Foreign Ministry official Torgeir Larsen told the committee that the decision was partly connected to new information that had emerged publicly in 2019. When asked after the hearing what information he was referring to, Larsen declined to elaborate.
The testimony did not establish publicly that the downgrade was directly caused by Juul’s or her husband Terje Rød-Larsen’s connections to Epstein.
Søreide, who was foreign minister from 2017 to 2021, also addressed her relationship with Juul. When taking office, she declared herself unable to handle personnel and appointment matters involving Juul because the two were friends and asked for another minister to deal with those cases.
She did not make the same assessment regarding Rød-Larsen and told the committee that she would not make a different decision today.
Questions over Norway’s funding of IPI
A central part of the hearing concerns the International Peace Institute (IPI), the New York-based think tank previously led by Rød-Larsen. Epstein had connections with Rød-Larsen and IPI, while Norwegian government support for the organisation increased during Støre’s years as foreign minister.
Støre defended that support, arguing that IPI was considered a useful meeting place for senior figures around the United Nations and that other Nordic and European countries also funded the organisation.
As DR reported from the parliamentary hearing, Støre said he had never met or had contact with Epstein and rejected the suggestion that Epstein had influenced Norwegian policy.
“I have no knowledge that Jeffrey Epstein had any influence on Norwegian foreign policy, development policy or other decisions we made.”
The prime minister also rejected the idea that the cases uncovered around Epstein were enough to characterise the Foreign Ministry as having a systemic culture problem.
The hearing is about more than Epstein
The central question for parliament is therefore broader than whether individual Norwegian officials knew Epstein.
The scrutiny concerns how the Foreign Ministry managed conflicts of interest, grants, sensitive information and informal networks, and whether its systems were capable of identifying risks involving people in positions of trust.
Former development ministers Erik Solheim and Heikki Eidsvoll Holmås also appeared on the first day. Both rejected claims of a broader unhealthy culture inside the ministry, while acknowledging the need for controls around public funding and personal networks.
The hearing continues on 1 October with further former ministers as well as current Development Minister Åsmund Aukrust and Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide.
The parliamentary hearing does not itself determine criminal responsibility. Its purpose is to examine political and administrative accountability and whether Norway’s existing oversight mechanisms were adequate.
