Which specific individuals named in the Epstein files have acknowledged or denied the new allegations?
Executive summary
The Justice Department’s latest tranche of Epstein files named dozens of high-profile people; across the reporting, several individuals and their spokespeople issued denials or qualified responses while others have so far offered no substantive reply — and the DOJ itself warned the release may contain falsified or misattributed material [1] [2]. This analysis catalogs who has publicly acknowledged or denied the new allegations in the files, summarizes the form of those responses, and flags major caveats in interpreting them [1] [3].
1. Denials framed as absolute or categorical
Multiple prominent figures have issued categorical denials or their representatives have done so on their behalf: Bill Gates’s spokesperson called lurid allegations — including an unverified claim about an STD — “absolutely absurd and completely false” [4]; the broad reporting notes that “all” of the powerful men named in the release have denied involvement in Epstein’s sexual abuse of girls and young women [2]. Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and, when asked about the latest tranche, the White House and DOJ pointed to caveats the agency raised about the material [1] [4]. These denials are public and unequivocal in the outlets reviewed [4] [2].
2. Qualified denials and context-setting responses
Some figures offered narrower rebuttals that contest specific insinuations or provide context rather than blanket refutations: Sir Peter Mandelson said he “cannot place the location or the woman and I cannot think what the circumstances were” when confronted with an image in the files [1]. Virgin Group’s statement about Richard Branson explained a cited phrase — “harem” — referred to three adult women on Epstein’s team and said Branson used the term in an email chain rather than to describe sexual exploitation, adding that Branson declined a donation and stopped contact after his team uncovered allegations [5] [2]. Elon Musk said correspondence “could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name” while pressing for prosecutions of those who committed crimes with Epstein [4] [6]. These replies attempt to reframe the documents rather than engage with every allegation in the files [5] [6].
3. Responses emphasizing absence of evidence or reputational defense
A number of people named in the files pushed back by noting lack of evidence connecting them to criminal conduct: CBS contributor Peter Attia, whose name appeared repeatedly in the release, wrote that the DOJ’s purpose in publishing was “to identify individuals who participated in criminal activity, enabled it, or witnessed it” and asserted he “is not in any of those categories, and there is no evidence to the contrary” [7]. Lawrence Summers, per CNN reporting, said he had no knowledge of being included in an early version of Epstein’s will and denied involvement in Epstein’s financial affairs while expressing remorse for continued communications with Epstein [5]. These answers mix denial with efforts to explain prior association [5] [7].
4. High-profile names with contested or no substantive responses in the files
Several heavily scrutinized individuals — including Prince Andrew (Mountbatten‑Windsor) and others whose names appear repeatedly — have long denied wrongdoing, but the new files renewed scrutiny rather than producing new admissions; reporting stresses that association in Epstein’s files is not proof of criminality and that many named have not been charged [8] [2]. The DOJ’s release prompted public statements broadly denying wrongdoing by many named parties, even as some alleged connections remain unexplained in public records [2].
5. Important caveats: redactions, duplicates, unverified material, and victims’ outrage
Interpreting who “acknowledged” or “denied” requires caution: the DOJ itself warned the dump “may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos” [1], reviewers applied inconsistent redactions and left duplicates with different information visible [9], and survivors’ attorneys called the handling of the release “outrageous,” arguing perpetrators remain shielded while victims were exposed [3]. Reporters and outlets repeatedly note that being named or pictured in the files is not, by itself, evidence of criminal conduct and that many responses are defensive or explanatory rather than admissions [2] [3].
Conclusion
In the immediate aftermath of the DOJ release, responses clustered into three camps: categorical denials (e.g., Gates’s spokesperson, public denials summarized by news outlets), qualified/contextual denials (Mandelson, Branson’s team, Musk), and reputational defenses emphasizing lack of evidence (Attia, Summers), with many other named individuals issuing no substantive public admission or leaving matters ambiguous; every assertion in this summary is taken from the contemporaneous reporting and must be read alongside the DOJ’s caution that some material may be false or misleading [1] [5] [7] [4] [2] [3] [6].