Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Hiltzik: What the Emails Actually Show
Fast facts about the Jeffrey Epstein – Matthew Hiltzik connection
Matthew Hiltzik is a New York–based lawyer and publicist, known for running the crisis-communications firm Hiltzik Strategies.
His name appears in a small number of Jeffrey Epstein–related emails released by the House Oversight Committee, dating from 2017–2018.
In 2017, Epstein forwarded a media inquiry about the Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell settlement to Hiltzik, suggesting he was at least consulted on press strategy.
That same year, Hiltzik sent Epstein a long questionnaire about his background, business partners, philanthropy, and “misrepresentations,” the kind of intake document often used in crisis PR work.
In December 2018, Hiltzik emailed journalist Michael Wolff with Epstein copied, suggesting language for an article by Ken Starr that would acknowledge Epstein had “done something wrong” and ask for a “second chance.”
Public databases of the Epstein files list only a handful of messages where Hiltzik appears as sender, recipient, or CC; there is no public evidence that he appears in Epstein’s flight logs or contact “black book.”
As of now, there is no public record that Hiltzik has been charged with any crime related to Epstein; his documented role is limited to media and reputation discussions in the email archive.
This article explains what the documents show about the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Hiltzik, and how to read those emails in a careful, non-accusatory way.
Who is Matthew Hiltzik?
Matthew Hiltzik is an American lawyer and publicist who built a career in politics, media, and entertainment. He has worked in party politics, served as a communications executive at Miramax, and later founded Hiltzik Strategies, a firm known for crisis communications and reputation management for high-profile clients.
His background matters here because it helps explain why his name appears in the Epstein email archive at all: not as a social acquaintance or alleged co-conspirator, but as someone involved in professional messaging around a deeply controversial client.
How Matthew Hiltzik appears in the Epstein files
Public “Epstein files” search tools and the House Oversight document releases show Matthew Hiltzik’s name in a small cluster of messages from 2017 and 2018. These messages fall into three main buckets:
A forwarded media inquiry about the Giuffre v. Maxwell settlement
A long list of “some questions” sent from Hiltzik to Epstein
A later email about draft language for a Ken Starr article defending Epstein
Taken together, they show Epstein in contact with a crisis-communications professional while he was trying to manage fallout from the earlier cases and shape future coverage.
There is no sign in these archives of earlier contact in the 1990s or 2000s, no references to social visits, and no indication that Hiltzik had anything to do with the abuse itself. The emails sit in the zone of media and legal spin, not the underlying crimes.
2017: Epstein forwards a media inquiry to Hiltzik
One of the clearest email threads in the released files is dated May 24, 2017. In it:
A producer at ABC News asks Epstein’s lawyer for a statement about the settlement of Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell.
The producer notes that Epstein had been deposed in the case, had invoked the Fifth Amendment, and asks if Epstein’s side wants to comment on the settlement or on Giuffre’s allegations.
Epstein then forwards that inquiry to Matthew Hiltzik with the subject line preserved, treating him as someone who might help decide how (or whether) to respond.
This message shows Epstein looping Hiltzik into a sensitive press question about a high-profile case. It strongly suggests Hiltzik was consulted, at least informally, on how to handle media interest in litigation tied to Epstein’s past conduct.
The released documents do not, however, show any reply from Hiltzik in this specific thread, nor do they show what advice he gave, if any.
2017: “Some questions…” and a crisis-PR style intake memo
Another message, dated June 2017, features a long set of questions sent from Matthew Hiltzik to Epstein and then forwarded around Epstein’s circle. The subject line reads “some questions…” and the body looks very much like a structured intake used in crisis communications.
Among the many prompts:
A request for a “brief overview” of Epstein’s professional background.
Questions about his mentors, key business partners, and “third-party validators” who could speak on his behalf.
Questions about philanthropic projects, research collaborations, and scientific work he wanted to highlight.
A request to list the “top 10–15 misrepresentations of what actually happened.”
Questions about how accusations had affected his career and personal life.
A prompt asking whether he had ever written an op-ed and whether he would consider writing one.
In plain language, this reads like a planning document for a reputational makeover: mapping out positive talking points, friendly voices, and the narrative Epstein wanted to push about his past.
The email does not itself state that Hiltzik was formally retained or on contract, but the nature of the questions is consistent with professional crisis-PR work. It also shows Epstein was actively exploring ways to reframe his story years after his conviction.
2018: Ken Starr, Michael Wolff, and a proposed “second chance”
The most widely reported message involving Matthew Hiltzik, Jeffrey Epstein, and the new document dumps dates from December 15, 2018. In this thread:
Hiltzik writes to journalist Michael Wolff about an article that former judge and lawyer Ken Starr was drafting in defense of Epstein.
Epstein is copied on the email, which means his address appears in the same header with Hiltzik’s and Wolff’s.
Hiltzik suggests that the article should include a clear line saying that Epstein “understands and recognizes he did something wrong,” and that the piece should emphasize the idea of a second chance.
The framing is classic crisis communications: acknowledge some wrongdoing in restrained terms, then pivot to “moving on” and closing a chapter.
This email is important for understanding how the Epstein image-rehabilitation effort was being shaped behind the scenes. It shows a professional publicist giving advice on the tone and content of a legal figure’s defense of a convicted sex offender.
Again, what it does not show is any direct role in the underlying crimes. The document is about narrative strategy, not about trafficking or abuse.
What is not in the record: flights, social invitations, or earlier ties
When looking at the Epstein email dumps and other document releases, it is important to note not only what appears but also what does not appear.
For Matthew Hiltzik:
Public tools that index the Epstein files count only three documents where he appears in email address fields (from/to/cc).
His name does not appear in publicly available flight logs as a passenger on Epstein’s planes.
There is no public evidence that he is listed as a guest in Epstein’s contact books or “black book.”
The available documents cluster in 2017–2018, not in the earlier period when Epstein’s abuse was most active.
In other words, the current record shows a limited, late, and professional contact focused on communications strategy, not a long-standing social or business partnership.
How to read this kind of connection in the Epstein files
The presence of a name like Matthew Hiltzik in the Epstein document dumps raises understandable questions. But responsible Epstein files research methodology calls for several layers of caution:
Emails show contact, not guilt
An email header proves that two people were in touch. It does not, on its own, show that they endorsed each other’s actions, knew the full scope of Epstein’s crimes, or participated in them.Context matters more than a single line
In Hiltzik’s case, the context is crisis communications: media questions, reputational “misrepresentations,” and op-ed language about second chances. That context points to a PR role, not to trafficking or exploitation.Single-mention names can be misleading
Many names appear only once or twice across thousands of pages. Some are journalists asking questions; some are lawyers, producers, or staff copied on a chain. The mere fact that a name can be searched in the Epstein email archive does not tell you much without reading the specific document.Separate professional services from personal ties
Lawyers, PR professionals, and consultants often work with controversial clients. Documenting that relationship is part of understanding how powerful people manage scandals. But doing so should not blur the line between providing a service and sharing guilt for the underlying conduct.Avoid turning research into accusation
When discussing names found in Epstein document dumps, it is important to stick to what can be seen on the page: who wrote, who received, what they said, and when they said it. Anything beyond that should be framed as inference or left unsaid.
For readers trying to understand how to read Epstein document dumps, the Hiltzik emails are a good example of why a careful, document-based approach is essential.
Summary: the documented Epstein–Hiltzik relationship
Putting all of this together, the documented relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Hiltzik looks like this:
Hiltzik is a crisis-communications professional whose name appears in a handful of Epstein-related emails from 2017 and 2018.
Epstein forwarded a media inquiry about the Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell settlement to Hiltzik, indicating that he was at least a sounding board on press strategy.
Hiltzik sent Epstein a detailed questionnaire about his background, partners, philanthropy, and perceived “misrepresentations,” consistent with early-stage work on a reputational campaign.
In late 2018, Hiltzik emailed Michael Wolff, with Epstein on copy, suggesting language for a Ken Starr article that would acknowledge wrongdoing while nudging readers toward giving Epstein “a second chance.”
There is no public evidence that Hiltzik appears in flight logs or contact books, nor that he has been charged with any Epstein-related crime. The available documents show him operating in a narrow window as a PR adviser, not as a participant in Epstein’s abuse.
As more Epstein emails and estate documents become searchable, the picture may gain additional detail. But based on what is now public, the connection between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Hiltzik is best described as a late-stage, crisis-communications relationship centered on media strategy and damage control—not a long-running personal or business alliance.
Matthew Hiltzik
This research page compiles publicly available information about Matthew Hiltzik and their place in the broader Jeffrey Epstein connection graph. People may appear here either because they are mentioned in one or more evidence items (such as flight logs, emails, legal records or credible public reporting), or because reliable public sources document relationships or affiliations that link them to others in this network.
Some profiles therefore track individuals who may be several steps removed — sometimes up to six degrees of separation — from Jeffrey Epstein himself. They are included so researchers can see whether those names later recur in other documents, networks, or investigations. Listing Matthew Hiltzik here is not, by itself, a statement of guilt or innocence.
Use the network graph, shortest-path view, and evidence links below to explore how this person connects to others in the dataset and to Jeffrey Epstein.
Wikipedia Information 
Matthew Hiltzik is an American lawyer and publicist. He is the founder of Hiltzik Strategies, which represents high-profile organizations and individuals such as various politicians and Hollywood figures. He has also occasionally been an executive producer on documentaries and written for magazines.
- Matthew Hiltzik
- Jeffrey Epstein
Closest Connections
- Jeffrey Epstein — Epstein Email — Weak
Click a name to highlight 1° / 2° / 3° rings. Edge thickness indicates connection strength. Use Tab to focus and arrow keys to navigate.
The presence of Matthew Hiltzik in this dataset should be understood in a research and mapping context only. The project traces publicly documented relationships and degrees of separation — sometimes several steps removed — to see whether particular names recur across different evidence sets over time.
A person may therefore appear here because they are directly mentioned in documents, because they have a publicly reported relationship or affiliation with others in the network, or because they sit several links away in a chain of acquaintances. Inclusion alone does not imply criminal conduct, moral judgment, or endorsement.