Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which high-profile individuals are confirmed to have visited Jeffrey Epstein's island?
Executive summary
Reporting and document releases show a mix of confirmed visitors to Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Saint James and numerous high-profile names whose presence is alleged but not substantiated in available public records; data-leak analysis identified device pings and coordinates tied to “as many as 166” U.S. locations connected to island visitors while court filings and media lists name individuals such as Prince Andrew and Marvin Minsky as tied to island visits or related allegations [1] [2]. At the same time, Epstein himself and several records have explicitly denied some high-profile presences—Jeffrey Epstein wrote in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton “never” visited the island—and formal flight/Secret Service logs and public reporting do not uniformly corroborate every widely-circulated claim [3] [4].
1. Confirmed visitors identified by data and reporting
Investigative reporting that used leaked location-data tracked thousands of coordinates showing consistent traffic to Little Saint James, and that analysis inferred many unique devices and “visitors” to the island over multiple years—WIRED’s reporting documents device-level traces and maps of common locations tied to island visitors, establishing a technical basis that the island had many non-Epstein visitors [1]. TIME and unsealed court documents also reference specific names in depositions or filings that tie certain individuals to Epstein’s properties or alleged island visits; TIME cites that Marvin Minsky was mentioned in documents where a survivor said she was asked to have sex with him when he went to Epstein’s island [2].
2. High-profile names that repeatedly appear in public records and reporting
Public and journalistic lists compiled from court filings, media reports and unsealed documents commonly include names such as Prince Andrew (also referred to as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor), Marvin Minsky, and others; TIME’s review of unsealed documents notes Prince Andrew and former presidents among the names that have been mentioned in filings and prior reporting [2]. These mentions vary in evidentiary weight—some come from survivor testimony or depositions, others from flight logs, emails, or secondary reporting—and the reporting makes clear not every mention equates to a court-adjudicated finding of presence or criminal conduct [2].
3. Prominent denials and gaps in the record—Bill Clinton as a case study
Jeffrey Epstein himself wrote in a 2011 email, released by Congress, stating that Bill Clinton “never” visited his private island; multiple outlets have noted there is no flight-log or Secret Service evidence publicly placing Clinton on the island, and some reporting emphasizes Clinton’s denials [3] [4]. The New Republic and other outlets have highlighted these denials and the space between survivor allegations, third‑party claims, and documentary proof—showing that for at least some high-profile figures there is explicit dispute and missing corroborating documentation [5] [4].
4. The methodological difference between “visitor” lists and verified presence
Different sources use different standards: WIRED’s technical tracing of device coordinates produces a dataset of device-level visits (inferring visitors) that can implicate locations and associated residences or workplaces, while court documents and depositions record allegations or testimony naming people; media lists like TimesNow compile both categories but sometimes emphasize names without uniform sourcing [1] [4]. That distinction matters: a device ping or a name in a deposition is not the same as an independently verified contemporaneous record placing a named person on the island.
5. Political and institutional reactions shape what is released and emphasized
Government releases and congressional action—such as the unsealing of certain documents and the passage of transparency measures noted in recent coverage—have altered the available public record, but advocates and officials disagree on what those records prove; for example, the White House and congressional actors have publicly clashed over the meaning of released emails and lists, and some institutional statements explicitly deny the existence of an Epstein “client list” or that evidence supports investigations of uncharged third parties [6] [7]. These competing agendas affect which names are amplified in public discourse and which remain disputed.
6. What current sources do not settle and where to look next
Available sources do not present a comprehensive, court-verified roster of every individual who definitively visited Little Saint James; instead they provide a combination of technical device traces, survivor testimony, depositions, emails (including denials), and compiled media lists that vary in evidentiary strength [1] [2] [3]. For clearer, document-based confirmation, current reporting points readers to unsealed court filings, the WIRED data analyses, and the specific released emails referenced by congressional releases; following those primary materials is necessary to parse which names rest on testimony versus corroborated logs [1] [2] [3].
Bottom line: reporting and leaked data establish that many non-Epstein visitors went to Little Saint James and that specific high-profile names appear repeatedly in documents and survivor testimony (e.g., Prince Andrew, Marvin Minsky), but significant disputes and explicit denials (notably Epstein’s 2011 email denying Clinton visited) mean the public record is uneven and requires careful, source-by-source scrutiny [1] [2] [3].