- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Newly Released DOJ Files Reveal Epstein Pitched 'Behavior Engineering Institute' at Stanford
Emails show Epstein discussed forming a research institute with then-CASBS director Stephen Kosslyn, raising questions about donor influence on academia.
Feb. 1, 2026 at 11:55am
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
Newly released Justice Department documents suggest that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein floated the idea of creating a 'behavior engineering institute' at Stanford University and met with then-CASBS director Stephen Kosslyn in 2012 to pitch the concept. The correspondence, part of a massive federal document dump tied to the Epstein case, is now fueling fresh questions about how much sway deep-pocketed donors can have over academic research and the relationships between universities and controversial benefactors.
Why it matters
The revelations about Epstein's overtures to Stanford raise concerns about the influence wealthy donors can wield over academic institutions and the research they support. It also serves as a reminder for universities to carefully vet their relationships with controversial figures, even those who may have been celebrated benefactors in the past.
The details
According to the newly released DOJ documents, Epstein emailed investor Richard Merkin in August 2012, stating that he was 'looking at forming a behavior engineering institute' and planned to meet with Kosslyn the following day. Kosslyn, who was in the process of transitioning from Harvard to the CASBS director role at the time, later sent Epstein's assistant an itinerary for a tour of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and a lunch on campus. In a separate 2011 email, Kosslyn described Epstein as 'one of the most curious, intellectual, and creative people.'
- On August 6, 2012, Epstein emailed investor Richard Merkin about 'forming a behavior engineering institute' and lining up a meeting with Kosslyn.
- On August 7, 2012, Kosslyn sent Epstein's assistant an itinerary for a tour of CASBS and a lunch on the Stanford campus.
- In 2011, Kosslyn described Epstein as 'one of the most curious, intellectual, and creative people' in an email.
The players
Jeffrey Epstein
A convicted sex offender who discussed forming a 'behavior engineering institute' at Stanford with then-CASBS director Stephen Kosslyn.
Stephen Kosslyn
The former director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford, who corresponded with Epstein about the proposed institute.
Richard Merkin
An investor who received an email from Epstein about the 'behavior engineering institute' proposal.
Lesley Groff
Epstein's assistant, who received the itinerary for the meeting with Kosslyn.
What they’re saying
“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”
— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident
“Fifty years is such an accomplishment in San Francisco, especially with the way the city has changed over the years.”
— Gordon Edgar, grocery employee
What’s next
Reporters and academics will be watching to see whether Stanford officials address the newly surfaced correspondence and what else might surface as more people dig through the DOJ's sprawling Epstein library.
The takeaway
The revelations about Epstein's overtures to Stanford raise concerns about the influence wealthy donors can wield over academic institutions and the research they support. It also serves as a reminder for universities to carefully vet their relationships with controversial figures, even those who may have been celebrated benefactors in the past.





