Other celebrities named by Epstein victims besides Trump

1. Who appears on the lists — celebrities and the “big names” everyone cites

Contemporary reporting and analyses of the unsealed materials identify a broad roster of public figures who show up in Epstein-related records or were named in victim testimony. The names most frequently flagged across sources include Hollywood actors such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kevin Spacey, Cameron Diaz and Bruce Willis, fashion figures like Naomi Campbell, and prominent public figures including Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Media summaries of unsealed documents published as recently as February 2025 catalog many of these names but make clear that the lists mix different kinds of references — contact entries, meeting notes, calendar entries and witness statements — rather than formal criminal accusations ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the records actually show — different document types, different meanings

The available material consists of distinct document categories: unsealed court filings, victim testimony, Epstein’s calendars and contact books, and private emails. Each category conveys different weight: witness testimony can name people by memory or hearsay, calendars may show proximity without conduct, and contact books record contact information rather than activities. Major outlets and legal summaries note repeatedly that appearing in a contact book or being mentioned in an email does not constitute proof of participation in trafficking or abuse. The legal caveat is central to how sources frame the names: many reports explicitly state that names were “linked” or “mentioned” rather than charged ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

3. Denials, defenses and reputational responses — what named individuals say

Several individuals named in the materials have publicly denied wrongdoing or any association with Epstein beyond limited social contact or mistaken inclusion. Representatives and public statements from some celebrities and public figures emphasize denials and point to lack of evidence; in other cases, high-profile figures denied even knowing Epstein intimately and disputed social-media assertions. Media coverage has pointed out how social-media amplification led to unfounded allegations in some instances, prompting celebrities to issue clarifications or legal defenses. The record reflects a persistent tension between documenting names and distinguishing between reputational implication and legal culpability ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Why names appear — calendars, “black books,” emails and witness memory

Investigative summaries and document dumps show that Epstein’s materials included meeting calendars, “little black books” of contacts and extensive email correspondence that reference many people. These internal records explain why a wide range of prominent names surface in reporting: Epstein’s social and business networks were broad, his calendars recorded planned or suggested meetings, and some witness testimony recounts braggadocio about who Epstein associated with. Analysts caution that calendars can show scheduled attendance or mere planning, contact books can include casual acquaintances, and emails can contain hearsay; therefore, contextual analysis is required before inferring involvement in criminal activity ^{[5] [4] [6]}.

5. The disputed edges — differing source emphases and open questions

Sources vary in emphasis: some outlets compiled long lists from unsealed documents and presented them as “names linked to Epstein,” while others repeatedly underscore the legal distinction that being named is not evidence of guilt and highlight explicit denials. The public record remains uneven because victims’ testimony, contemporaneous records and third‑party documents do not uniformly corroborate allegations against every name that appears. Critical open questions include whether independent corroboration exists for specific allegations, whether documents reflect planning versus action, and how reporting norms should balance transparency with the risk of reputational harm ^{[3] [2] [7]}.

6. Bottom line for readers — what to take away and next steps for verification

The consolidated record shows many prominent names appear in Epstein-related materials, but rigorous reading of those materials shows major limits on what that presence proves. Responsible evaluation requires examining the document type, any contemporaneous corroboration, public denials and subsequent legal findings. Readers seeking further verification should consult the original unsealed filings, contemporaneous testimony and later legal outcomes to determine which specific names were the subject of credible, corroborated allegations versus those whose appearance reflects social proximity or hearsay ^{[2] [3] [4]}.