Scarlett Johansson is in the Epstein files. Are we shocked?

Scarlett Johansson is often framed as a feminist figure in Hollywood: outspoken about autonomy, pay equity, and women’s agency. Yet alongside that image runs a quieter, consistent pattern, one in which Johansson repeatedly defends, minimizes, or reframes allegations against powerful men she is professionally aligned with. This isn’t about one controversial comment or a single lapse in judgment. It’s about a long-standing tendency to extend grace upward, toward men with cultural capital, while asking the public to accept “complexity” in situations involving abuse.

Woody Allen: “He Has My Support”

Johansson’s most widely cited defense came in relation to Woody Allen. Despite long-standing sexual abuse allegations from Dylan Farrow—allegations supported publicly by multiple family members and widely discussed for decades—Johansson has repeatedly stood by Allen.

In 2014, she stated plainly: “I believe him, and I would work with him anytime.” She later doubled down, framing the situation as a matter of differing opinions rather than harm, and emphasizing her personal experience over the testimony of the alleged victim.

While Johansson has since acknowledged that the topic is “complex,” she has never fully retracted her support or expressed solidarity with Farrow. The emphasis has consistently remained on Allen’s artistic legacy and her own comfort, rather than the broader implications of defending a man accused of abusing a child.

The Epstein Invitation: Proximity Without Accountability

Johansson’s pattern of alignment with powerful men becomes even more troubling when viewed through the lens of Jeffrey Epstein’s social network. According to publicly reported accounts and unsealed documents related to Epstein’s associates, Woody Allen—whom Johansson has repeatedly defended—was among those connected to Epstein’s elite social circle. Reports have indicated that Allen extended invitations to associates, including Johansson, to visit Epstein’s private island.

There is no evidence that Johansson ever went to the island, and it’s important to be precise about that. But the significance lies not in whether she attended, but in what the invitation itself represents: proximity to a known sexual predator’s inner circle, facilitated by a director she has consistently chosen to defend even amid credible allegations of abuse.

In the wake of Epstein’s crimes becoming public knowledge, many figures scrambled to distance themselves, acknowledge poor judgment, or express regret over past associations. Johansson did none of that. There was no reckoning, no reflection, no acknowledgment of how casually abuse networks were normalized among cultural elites. Instead, her public posture remained unchanged, continuing to frame criticism of men like Allen as unfair or overblown.

When combined with her history of defending Allen and Roman Polanski, the Epstein connection shows a consistent issue: Johansson has repeatedly failed to interrogate how power protects abusers, even when that power operates through social access, invitations, and elite insulation rather than courtroom verdicts.

This is not guilt by association. It is a critique of refusal to reckon with patterns, with proximity, and with how silence and loyalty help abusive systems persist.

Loyalty to Power, Not to Victims

Across these cases, Johansson’s logic follows a familiar arc: personal experience is treated as decisive evidence, allegations are reframed as unfortunate controversies, and accountability is positioned as an overreach. This approach centers the comfort of collaborators and the preservation of careers, not the safety or dignity of those who report harm.

What’s striking is not just Johansson’s defenses, but their consistency. Time and again, her instinct is to protect institutions, reputations, and artistic prestige rather than interrogate how power shields abusers.

Embed from Getty Images

Feminism With Limits

Johansson’s brand of feminism is not unique in Hollywood. It is a version that emphasizes choice, autonomy, and individual success—but struggles to contend with structural power and collective harm. In this framework, believing women becomes optional when believing them would disrupt professional alliances.

Criticism of Johansson isn’t about demanding purity or perfection. It’s about accountability. When influential women repeatedly excuse or soften abuse allegations involving powerful men, they help sustain a culture where harm is negotiable, and justice is secondary to legacy.

Why This Pattern Matters

Scarlett Johansson’s voice carries weight. When she speaks, it shapes public perception—not just of individual cases, but of what kinds of harm are taken seriously. Defending abusers, even indirectly, reinforces the idea that talent, genius, or personal charm can outweigh credible allegations.

Silence can be complicity. But so can loyalty.

And in Johansson’s case, the loyalty has been remarkably consistent—always pointing upward, always toward power.

Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images