Which celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio are mentioned in the unsealed Epstein documents?

1. How the claim arose—and why names circulate like wildfire

News outlets and social posts seized on the release of court records tied to the Epstein/Maxwell litigation, producing lists of famous people that were said to appear in the files. Some outlets explicitly list celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Cate Blanchett, Bruce Willis, Kevin Spacey, Naomi Campbell and others as being named in the newly unsealed documents, while noting that appearances were often limited to witness testimony or passing references rather than allegations of involvement ^{[4] [1] [5]}. These immediate summaries promoted viral lists; a later fact-check found that many names in a popular 166-person list did not actually appear in the recent release, demonstrating how quickly inaccurate compilations can become authoritative in public discourse ^[3].

2. What the documents actually show about celebrity mentions

Close readings of the files indicate mentions are frequently contextual and minimal—often witnesses denying contact or Epstein boasting of connections—rather than allegations of participation in crimes. Multiple outlets report that names like DiCaprio, Blanchett, Diaz and Willis show up in the record primarily during cross-examination or in Epstein’s own communications, where he sometimes claimed acquaintances with famous figures; those appearances do not equate to accusations or proof of wrongdoing ^{[2] [5] [1]}. Coverage stresses that the papers largely reiterate previously public information about Epstein’s social circle, rather than unveiling a verified roster of conspirators.

3. Where reporting diverges: lists, errors, and corrections

Reporting diverges sharply: some stories present long rosters including dozens of celebrities and public figures, while fact-checking work shows large portions of widely shared lists were not supported by the newly unsealed documents. One fact-check concluded that 129 of 166 names circulating online were not found in the recent release, underscoring the prevalence of recycled or misattributed lists that predate the new filings ^[3]. Other coverage that names DiCaprio and additional celebrities acknowledges representatives have denied associations or that the references were Epstein’s claims, illustrating a split between headline-driven lists and more cautious, source-by-source verification ^[1].

4. Wall Street and power players appear distinctly—and differently

Beyond celebrities, the unsealed material contains clearer documentary links to financial and institutional figures; reporting highlights emails and transactions involving Wall Street executives such as Jes Staley and associates like Leon Black, where business records and communications are more concrete than social-name drops ^[6]. These financial references are treated distinctly by reporters because they are supported by transactional records and emails cited in the filings—a different evidentiary category than celebrity name-drops in witness testimony or boasting emails ^{[6] [7]}. This difference matters: documentary financial traces are more specific than a casual mention in a deposition.

5. What reputable outlets and fact-checks agree on—and why it matters

Across the samples, reputable coverage converges on three points: ^[8] some celebrities’ names appear in the files; ^[9] appearance in a court document does not equal an accusation; and ^[10] many viral lists are inaccurate or outdated. Multiple pieces published in early January 2024 and later fact-checks in 2025 reaffirmed these conclusions, noting that Epstein’s social network was broad but the legal record does not automatically impute culpability to every named individual ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}. The distinction between mention and allegation is the central factual guardrail that reliable reporting repeatedly underscores.

6. The takeaway for readers seeking clarity amid conflicting lists

If you encounter a circulating roster claiming dozens or hundreds of “famous people” are named in the newly unsealed Epstein files, treat it skeptically: detailed verification shows many such lists are incorrect or misattributed, while the documents themselves contain a mix of boastful claims, witness testimony, and some documentary financial material ^{[3] [6]}. For accurate assessment, rely on line-by-line reporting from recognized outlets and fact-checks that specify where a name appears in the filings and what form that appearance takes—because the difference between a passing reference, an email, and a legal allegation is decisive for understanding what the record actually says ^{[5] [4]}.