Epstein Files: What They Reveal About Thorbjørn Jagland
 |
| Former Prime Minister named in Epstein Files rushed to hospital after 'suicide attempt' |
Former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has become one of the highest-profile European political figures caught up in the latest wave of disclosures from the Epstein files.
In Norway, the fallout has moved beyond headlines: prosecutors have opened a formal investigation, international immunity has been waived, and police have carried out searches connected to alleged benefits linked to Jeffrey Epstein. Jagland has also been hospitalised, according to his lawyer, amid what was described as intense strain related to the case.
Below is what the released material and official statements say — and what they do not prove.
Why Jagland appears in the Epstein files
The newest tranche of Epstein-related documents released in the United States has been described as enormous, prompting fresh scrutiny worldwide, including in Norway.
In Jagland’s case, reporting and investigative summaries indicate the files include emails and records suggesting a relationship that extended over years, overlapping with periods when he held influential international roles, including Secretary General of the Council of Europe and earlier leadership connected to Norway’s Nobel institutions.
What the files specifically allege about contacts, travel, and benefits
Norway’s economic crime authority Økokrim says its investigation is focused on whether gifts, travel, and loans may have been received in connection with Jagland’s positions.
Al Jazeera, citing Økokrim’s written assertions, reports “repeated instances” between 2011 and 2018 in which Jagland and/or family members allegedly used Epstein residences in Paris, New York, and Palm Beach, with at least one trip where travel for six adults appeared to have been covered by Epstein.
Norwegian outlet Aftenposten additionally reported that Epstein asked Jagland for help in a case involving Senegalese politician Karim Wade, including discussion framed around access to European legal avenues. Aftenposten also reported Epstein tried to use Jagland as a bridge to other high-level contacts — and claimed Epstein paid a medical bill for Jagland in 2012.
These elements matter because investigators are weighing whether any such benefits, if proven, could meet Norway’s threshold for “passive bribery” or related corruption offenses — even without evidence of direct policy “quid pro quo” in the documents themselves.
What’s official right now: the investigation, immunity waiver, and police searches
Økokrim (Feb 5, 2026): Norway opened an investigation into Jagland on suspicion of aggravated corruption, saying there were “reasonable grounds” to examine whether gifts, travel, or loans were received in connection with his roles.
Council of Europe (Feb 11, 2026): The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers waived Jagland’s immunity following Norway’s request. The organisation also described an internal administrative inquiry launched after revelations emerged in November 2025, and stated it would cooperate with Norwegian authorities as appropriate.
Police searches (reported Feb 12, 2026): Searches were carried out after the immunity waiver, as Norwegian investigators pursued evidence connected to the alleged benefits described above.
Jagland’s public stance: “poor judgment,” but disputing criminality
Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre publicly said Jagland showed “poor judgment” in his Epstein contacts, reflecting the political pressure for transparency even as investigations proceed.
Jagland, for his part, has acknowledged “poor judgment” in maintaining contact, while his lawyer has said he expects to cooperate and believes the facts will not support criminal liability.
Latest update: Jagland hospitalised amid “strain” from the case
Multiple outlets have reported Jagland was admitted to hospital, with his lawyer relaying that the admission was “due to the strain arising in the wake of this case.”
Some media and social posts circulated more serious claims about the cause of the hospitalisation. However, fact-check reporting notes that Jagland’s attorney confirmed hospitalisation but denied those claims, pointing instead to stress and pressure connected to the investigation and public attention.
What this does not establish
It’s important to separate being named in Epstein-related materials from proof of criminal conduct:
-
The documents and reporting described above point to contact, requests, travel, and possible benefits.
-
The core legal question is whether those benefits were improper because of Jagland’s official roles, and whether evidence supports the elements required for aggravated corruption under Norwegian law.
-
As of now, the most definitive facts in the public record are the opening of the Økokrim investigation, the immunity waiver, and the search activity — not a final finding of guilt.
