Which celebrities have been publicly named by Epstein victims in court filings or testimonies?

1. What “named” means in these documents — contact, witness, or accused?

The released court papers and email troves are a mix: some people appear because victims described interactions (for example, court filings include testimony alleging Prince Andrew’s conduct), while many celebrities and public figures appear as names or contact entries in Epstein’s address books and emails without allegations of wrongdoing; outlets explicitly note that being mentioned does not equate to culpability ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. High‑profile people repeatedly cited in reporting

Reporting and the unsealed court records have repeatedly highlighted a set of prominent figures. Prince Andrew is a central name tied to specific allegations in filings ^[1]. Former U.S. presidents and presidents’ associates — including Donald Trump and Bill Clinton — are referenced in various documents and emails; the context and implications differ across items and are debated in coverage ^{[6] [2]}. Journalists also flag many celebrities — such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Campbell, Cate Blanchett, Kevin Spacey and others — who appear in contact lists or emails, but most outlets stress these mentions are not allegations of participation in crimes ^{[2] [7]}.

3. Victims’ public naming and the “own list” movement

Survivors and advocates have sought fuller disclosure of who Epstein associated with and whom victims have named in legal filings and testimony; a group of survivors pushed for the Epstein Files Transparency Act and staged press events to press Congress and the DOJ for release of records and names they consider relevant ^{[3] [8]}. At a Capitol press conference some victims said they were compiling their own list of Epstein’s associates, a development covered in live reporting ^[9].

4. What documents released so far do — and do not — show

Phase‑one and subsequent document dumps (emails, contact books, some court papers) reveal patterns of contact and occasional allegations but are heavily redacted and annotated; editors and reporters repeatedly caution that the materials “say little about actions taken by individuals outside of Epstein” in many cases ^{[2] [5]}. Congressional releases in 2025 added thousands of pages of emails and threads, but analysts note that many threads are sparse or consist of routine exchanges ^{[10] [11]}.

5. Partisan interpretations and competing narratives

Political actors disagree over the import of the files. Democrats used certain emails to press for more scrutiny; Republicans have accused Democrats of politicizing the material to attack President Trump, and both sides have used selective excerpts to advance competing narratives about who was implicated or merely mentioned ^{[4] [11]}. Major outlets covering the files caution readers to distinguish contact listings and email references from verified allegations ^{[4] [7]}.

6. Survivors’ concerns and safety issues

Victims who’ve gone public warn that the release process can retraumatize survivors and expose them to threats; a coalition of survivors has said they received death threats and have urged sensitivity and proper redactions as more records are released ^[12]. Advocates also stress the records’ release should prioritize victims’ privacy and safety even as the public seeks transparency ^[13].

7. How to interpret a name if you see it in the files

Journalistic best practice applied in reporting on the files has been: (a) check whether the mention is an allegation in a sworn declaration or merely a contact/email entry, (b) look for corroborating evidence or independent reporting, and (c) note when sources explicitly say a person is not accused of wrongdoing. Multiple outlets reiterate that many celebrities appearing in the files were never alleged to have participated in crimes ^{[2] [7] [5]}.

8. Limitations of current reporting and next steps

Available sources document large releases but also heavy redactions and ongoing legal disputes about grand‑jury material; the Justice Department and courts are still deciding what gets unsealed, and Congress passed legislation pressuring fuller disclosure — meaning more material and clarifying context may yet appear ^{[14] [15]}. For specific, verifiable allegations tied to named individuals, consult the primary court filings or the documentary excerpts cited in major outlets referenced above ^{[1] [2]}.

If you want, I can compile a short list of specific individuals whose names appear in filings or emails in these sources and note, for each, whether they are listed as an accuser, alleged participant, or only a contact/email mention according to the cited reporting.