#FactCheck-False Claim Links PM Modi to 320 Visits to Epstein Island
Executive Summary
A viral social media post claims that the recently released Epstein files reveal that Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Epstein Island more than 320 times. CyberPeace Research Wing research found that the claim is false. There is no evidence in the Epstein files suggesting that Prime Minister Modi visited Epstein Island over 320 times.
Claim:
An X user shared a viral graphic claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited Epstein Island more than 320 times. https://x.com/Ramesh18498367/status/206501995913534715 , https://ghostarchive.org/archive/2V12W

Fact Check:
We first examined credible international media reports related to the Epstein files, particularly those mentioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi. During this process, we found a report published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in February 2026. The report mentioned that the names of the Prime Ministers of India and Malaysia appeared in certain documents linked to the Epstein files. However, it clarified that references to Prime Minister Modi were limited to emails discussing his 2017 visit to Israel. The emails reportedly contained comments made by Jeffrey Epstein regarding the Prime Minister’s Israel visit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-04/leaders-of-malaysia-india-named-in-epstein-files/106298458

We also reviewed reports published by several other international media organizations. None of them contained any information supporting the viral claim that Prime Minister Modi visited Epstein Island more than 320 times. The Government of India also issued a clarification regarding references to Prime Minister Modi in the Epstein files. The clarification stated that, apart from references to his 2017 Israel visit, the files contain no other mention of the Prime Minister. The government further described subsequent claims and speculation on the matter as baseless.
https://x.com/MEAIndia/status/2017598414733840649?s=20

Conclusion:
The viral claim that the Epstein files reveal Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Epstein Island more than 320 times is false. Available records, international media reports, and the Indian government's clarification do not support the claim.
Related Blogs

Introduction
Recently, a Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services was published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The paper explores several OTT regulation-related challenges and solicits input from stakeholders on a suggested regulatory framework. We’ll summarise the paper’s main conclusions in this blog.
Structure of the Paper
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services and Selective Banning of OTT Services intends to solicit comments and recommendations from stakeholders about the regulation of OTT services in India. The paper is broken up into five chapters that cover the introduction and background, issues with regulatory mechanisms for OTT communication services, issues with the selective banning of OTT services, a summary of the issues for consultation, and an overview of international practices on the topic. Written comments from interested parties are requested and may be sent electronically to the Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licencing) at TRAI. These comments will also be posted on the TRAI website.
Overview of the Paper
- Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
- The first chapter of the essay introduces the subject of OTT communication services and argues why regulatory frameworks are necessary. The chapter also gives a general outline of the topics and the paper’s organisation that will be covered in the following chapters.
- Chapter 2: Examination of the Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanism for Over-The-Top Communication Services
- The second chapter of the essay looks at the problems with OTT communication service regulation. It talks about the many kinds of OTT services and how they affect the conventional telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the regulatory issues raised by OTT services and the various strategies used by various nations to address them.
- Chapter 3: Examination of the Issues Related to Selective Banning of OTT Services
- The final chapter of the essay looks at the problems of selectively outlawing OTT services. It analyses the justifications for government restrictions on OTT services as well as the possible effects of such restrictions on consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the legal and regulatory structures that determine how OTT services are prohibited in various nations.
- Chapter 4: International Practices
- An overview of global OTT communication service best practices is given in the paper’s fourth chapter. It talks about the various regulatory strategies used by nations throughout the world and how they affect consumers and the telecom sector. The chapter also looks at the difficulties regulators encounter when trying to create efficient regulatory frameworks for OTT services.
- Chapter 5: Issues for Consultation
- This chapter is the spirit of the consultation paper as it covers the points and questions for consultation. This chapter has been classified into two sub-sections – Issues Related to Regulatory Mechanisms for OTT Communication Services and Issues Related to the Selective Banning of OTT Services. The inputs will be entirely focused on these sub headers, and the scope, extent, and ambit of the consultation paper rests on these questions and necessary inputs.
Conclusion
An important publication that aims to address the regulatory issues raised by OTT services is the Consultation Paper on Regulatory Mechanisms for Over-The-Top Communication Services. The paper offers a thorough analysis of the problems with OTT service regulation and requests input from stakeholders on the suggested regulatory structure. In order to make sure that the regulatory framework is efficient and advantageous for everyone, it is crucial for all stakeholders to offer their opinion on the document.

THREE CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
India’s Finance Minister, Mrs. Nirmala Sitharaman, with a vision of ‘Make AI for India’ and ‘Make AI work for India, ’ announced during the presentation of Union Budget 2023 that the Indian Government is planning to set up three ‘Centre of Excellence’ for Artificial Intelligence in top Educational Institutions to revolutionise fields such as health, agriculture, etc.
Under the ‘Amirt Kaal,’ i.e., the budget of 2023 is a stepping stone by the government to have a technology-driven knowledge-based economy and the seven priorities that have been set up by the government called ‘Saptarishi’ such as inclusive development, reaching the last mile, infrastructure investment, unleashing potential, green growth, youth power, and financial sector will guide the nation in this endeavor along with leading industry players that will partner in conducting interdisciplinary research, developing cutting edge applications and scalable problem solutions in such areas.
The government has already formed the roadmap for AI in the nation through MeitY, NASSCOM, and DRDO, indicating that the government has already started this AI revolution. For AI-related research and development, the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) has already been formed, and biometric identification, facial recognition, criminal investigation, crowd and traffic management, agriculture, healthcare, education, and other applications of AI are currently being used.
Even a task force on artificial intelligence (AI) was established on August 24, 2017. The government had promised to set up Centers of Excellence (CoEs) for research, education, and skill development in robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), digital manufacturing, big data analytics, quantum communication, and the Internet of Things (IoT) and by announcing the same in the current Union budget has planned to fulfill the same.
The government has also announced the development of 100 labs in engineering institutions for developing applications using 5G services that will collaborate with various authorities, regulators, banks, and other businesses.
Developing such labs aims to create new business models and employment opportunities. Among others, it will also create smart classrooms, precision farming, intelligent transport systems, and healthcare applications, as well as new pedagogy, curriculum, continual professional development dipstick survey, and ICT implementation will be introduced for training the teachers.
POSSIBLE ROLES OF AI:
The use of AI in top educational institutions will help students to learn at their own pace, using AI algorithms providing customised feedback and recommendations based on their performance, as it can also help students identify their strengths and weaknesses, allowing them to focus their study efforts more effectively and efficiently and will help train students in AI and make the country future-ready.
The main area of AI in healthcare, agriculture, and sustainable cities would be researching and developing practical AI applications in these sectors. In healthcare, AI can be effective by helping medical professionals diagnose diseases faster and more accurately by analysing medical images and patient data. It can also be used to identify the most effective treatments for specific patients based on their genetic and medical history.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionise the agriculture industry by improving yields, reducing costs, and increasing efficiency. AI algorithms can collect and analyse data on soil moisture, crop health, and weather patterns to optimise crop management practices, improve yields and the health and well-being of livestock, predict potential health issues, and increase productivity. These algorithms can identify and target weeds and pests, reducing the need for harmful chemicals and increasing sustainability.
ROLE OF AI IN CYBERSPACE:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a crucial role in cyberspace. AI technology can enhance security in cyberspace, prevent cyber-attacks, detect and respond to security threats, and improve overall cybersecurity. Some of the specific applications of AI in cyberspace include:
- Intrusion Detection: AI-powered systems can analyse large amounts of data and detect signs of potential cyber-attacks.
- Threat Analysis: AI algorithms can help identify patterns of behaviour that may indicate a potential threat and then take appropriate action.
- Fraud Detection: AI can identify and prevent fraudulent activities, such as identity theft and phishing, by analysing large amounts of data and detecting unusual behaviour patterns.
- Network Security: AI can monitor and secure networks against potential cyber-attacks by detecting and blocking malicious traffic.
- Data Security: AI can be used to protect sensitive data and ensure that it is only accessible to authorised personnel.
CONCLUSION:
Introducing AI in top educational institutions and partnering it with leading industries will prove to be a stepping stone to revolutionise the development of the country, as Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to play a significant role in the development of a country by improving various sectors and addressing societal challenges. Overall, we hope to see an increase in efficiency and productivity across various industries, leading to increased economic growth and job creation, improved delivery of healthcare services by increasing access to care and, improving patient outcomes, making education more accessible and effective as AI has the potential to improve various sectors of a country and contribute to its overall development and progress. However, it’s important to ensure that AI is developed and used ethically, considering its potential consequences and impact on society.
References:

Introduction:
This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.
What is Cyber espionage?
Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments.
Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.
Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.
The US Perspective
In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality.
Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.
Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.
Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.
The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage
According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.
China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage
China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.
China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.
China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.
Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.
Conclusion
In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.