Are there any public DOJ or FBI statements addressing the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings?
Executive summary
There are no publicly available, on-the-record statements from the Department of Justice or the FBI addressing the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings in the reporting provided; mainstream and regional outlets instead report that the tapes are circulating online, are unverified, and that claims about law‑enforcement contact come from the publisher and related parties rather than DOJ/FBI press releases [1] [2] [3].
1. What the viral recordings are and how they spread
Multiple outlets describe a set of audio recordings published on Substack and shared widely on social media in which a man identified as Sasha or Sascha Riley recounts alleged childhood trafficking and names powerful figures tied to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal; the recordings were presented as unedited interviews and drew swift public attention [4] [5] [2].
2. What the reporting says about official law‑enforcement involvement
News organizations emphasize that the audio’s authenticity has not been independently verified and note the absence of confirmation tying the people named in the recordings to criminal charges, court rulings, or verified investigative findings—reporting that underscores a gap between the allegations and documented legal action [1] [2].
3. Claims that the FBI or DOJ contacted Riley — and their provenance
Several pieces relay claims made by the Substack publisher, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, that the FBI allegedly contacted Riley in the summer of 2025 and that Riley was relocated “to safety” following that contact; those assertions appear in the publisher’s account rather than as DOJ or FBI public statements [3] [6] [7].
4. Absence of public DOJ/FBI statements in the reporting provided
None of the sourced articles include a press release, public statement, or on‑the‑record confirmation from the Department of Justice or the FBI explicitly addressing the Riley audio recordings; instead, outlets quote the publisher’s claims about law‑enforcement contact and repeatedly caution that the recordings and their allegations remain unverified by official sources [1] [2] [3].
5. Why the distinction between publisher claims and official statements matters
Journalists and fact‑checkers cited in the reporting flag that uncorroborated testimony can rapidly reshape public discussion and that claims of FBI contact—if only reported by the publisher—cannot substitute for agency confirmation or case filings; those outlets stress the need for independent verification before treating the recordings as evidence of an active DOJ/FBI investigation [2] [1].
6. Alternative viewpoints and limits of available reporting
The available coverage includes advocates and individuals who say Riley reported the incidents to U.S. authorities and an online commentator demanding DOJ action, which demonstrates public pressure and belief in the testimony, yet these are not replacements for official DOJ/FBI communications; the reporting does not show any DOJ or FBI press release or spokesperson quote about the recordings, and the sources do not claim to have seen such a statement [7] [8] [1].
7. What can be concluded, and what remains unknown
Based solely on the supplied reporting, the conclusion is clear: no public DOJ or FBI statement addressing the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings appears in these articles, and claims that the FBI contacted Riley derive from the Substack publisher and related secondary accounts rather than confirmed agency announcements [3] [6] [1]. What the reporting cannot establish is whether internal or private communications occurred between investigators and the parties involved; those possibilities are not disproven here because the sources do not include DOJ/FBI records or on‑the‑record agency comments [1] [2].