Which specific Epstein‑era FD‑302 forms have been cited in congressional oversight letters and court filings?

1. Congressional oversight: which FD‑302s lawmakers have cited

House Oversight and other lawmakers have explicitly demanded the production of FBI FD‑302 victim interview statements from the Epstein era, with congressional letters and the text of the Epstein Files Transparency Act framing those victim‑interview 302s as core records that the Department of Justice must provide; Democrats on the Oversight Committee have accused DOJ of withholding those 302s alongside a draft indictment and prosecution memorandum from the 2007 Florida investigation ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Individual members and public pressure for specific 302s

Individual lawmakers have named the FD‑302s in public calls for transparency: Representative Ro Khanna and other Democrats disputed DOJ compliance by saying the FBI 302 victim interview statements were among the items not released, and Representative Thomas Massie has publicly pushed to see the FD‑302 forms that he says would contain the names identified by survivors and other witnesses ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

3. Court filings and victims’ lawyers referencing FD‑302 materials

Victims’ attorneys and court filings have focused on the impact of the DOJ’s document production, objecting both to redaction failures and to the notion that key materials like FD‑302 interview reports were omitted or incompletely produced; lawyers representing more than 200 alleged victims asked judges to order takedown of the DOJ’s Epstein files website, citing redaction errors and asserting an “unfolding emergency” as the DOJ disclosure moved forward ^[5].

4. DOJ’s production and the dispute over which 302s were included

The Department of Justice states it published millions of responsive pages collected from multiple sources, including “Multiple FBI investigations,” under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but that release prompted bipartisan criticism for extensive redactions and disputes over whether specific items — chiefly the victim‑interview FD‑302s, a 2007 draft indictment and prosecution memo, and other investigative materials — were in fact produced in usable, unredacted form ^{[6] [7] [1]}.

5. What the public record actually identifies — and what it does not

Public statements, committee releases, news reports and the DOJ press materials consistently identify “FBI FD‑302 victim interview statements” from Epstein investigations as the specific FD‑302s at issue in oversight letters and filings, but the sources provided do not list individual FD‑302 form identifiers, Bates ranges, dates, agent names, or file numbers for specific 302s; available reporting frames the dispute at the categorical level (victim interview 302s) rather than enumerating discrete FD‑302 document IDs ^{[1] [8] [6]}.

6. Why the distinction matters and where reporting is weakest

Lawmakers and advocates say the FD‑302s matter because they purportedly record witness and victim accounts that could identify third parties and show prosecutorial decisions, which fuels demands for release and scrutiny, yet technical analyses and document‑forensics reporting show that even when PDFs are released in bulk the forensic claim that particular items were withheld or redacted incorrectly is difficult to assess without specific FD‑302 identifiers and searchable, properly redacted text — details not provided in the cited public materials ^{[9] [7] [2]}.

Conclusion

The documented, attributable claim across congressional letters, committee releases and court filings is explicit and consistent: the contested records are the FBI FD‑302 victim interview statements from Epstein‑era investigations (alongside a draft indictment and prosecution memorandum from the 2007 Florida case), but the public record assembled in these sources does not supply the granular FD‑302 document numbers, dates, or Bates ranges that would let third parties verify exactly which individual FD‑302 forms were produced or withheld ^{[1] [4] [6]}.