What do the flight logs and pilot testimony in the Epstein files actually show about who flew on Epstein’s plane and when?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The flight logs introduced in court and released under the Epstein Transparency Act show passenger names, dates and destinations for Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft—documents signed or kept by Epstein’s pilots and covering many flights between the 1990s and mid-2000s—but they are redacted, partial, and do not by themselves establish criminal conduct. Pilots who testified at Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial corroborated that those logs (and their own personal notebooks) list numerous celebrities, politicians and staff who flew with Epstein and Maxwell at specific times, while also admitting limits in precision and context. [1] [2] [3]
1. What the flight logs are and how complete they are
The primary flight records admitted as evidence and later posted online are handwritten logs documenting flights from roughly 1991 through early 2006, some maintained by Epstein’s chief pilots and some generated as official passenger manifests; many pages carry pilots’ signatures and were entered at Maxwell’s trial as contemporaneous records (David Rodgers’ personal log in particular was highlighted) [2] [4] [5]. Those releases, and later large DOJ batches, were heavily redacted to protect victims’ names and because parts derive from grand jury or investigative files, so the public corpus is fragmentary and does not represent Epstein’s full travel history [6].
2. Who is shown flying and on what occasions
The logs and pilots’ notebooks list a mix of Epstein’s inner circle (associates, staff, masseuses), celebrities, academics and politicians on specific flights—examples cited in reporting include Bill Clinton (numerous trips in the 1990s and to international destinations), Donald Trump (a prosecutor’s email in released files said Trump flew on Epstein’s jet multiple times in the 1990s), Prince Andrew, and other entertainers and professionals whose names appear in passenger columns [7] [8] [9]. Reporting from the Maxwell trial and DocumentCloud releases shows many entries are specific—dates, destinations and passenger names or initials—while other pages use shorthand, nicknames or redactions that complicate straightforward identification [4] [2].
3. What pilot testimony adds—and its corroborating power
Two former Epstein pilots, including David Rodgers and earlier Lawrence “Larry” Visoski, testified that they flew Epstein thousands of times and that Rodgers kept a meticulous personal flight log that matches many manifest entries; Rodgers said Maxwell often traveled with Epstein and that his notes include passengers who later became witnesses or high-profile figures, supplying context that printouts alone lacked [3] [5] [2]. Prosecutors introduced these signed logs in open court to authenticate the records, and Rodgers’ testimony backed victim accounts that certain women were transported on flights with Maxwell present, but defense lawyers repeatedly sought to contest motives and context during trial questioning [5] [10].
4. What the logs show—and crucially, what they do not
The records reliably show who was listed on particular flights and sometimes the destination, time and pilot signature, which is powerful documentary evidence of presence; however, presence on a manifest does not prove knowledge of or participation in crimes, and several people named have publicly denied wrongdoing or said trips were social or professional [2] [9]. Investigative releases and reporting emphasize that absence of Secret Service entries on some manifests led to disputes about whether particular high-profile figures—most notably presidents and heads of state—visited Epstein’s private island, a claim the Secret Service has rejected when applicable [7].
5. Why disputes persist: redactions, emails and competing narratives
The DOJ’s staggered, redacted releases and an internal prosecutor email citing additional flights that “many more times” increased public attention while also fueling disputes over incomplete context and reputation damage [6] [8]. Media outlets and document repositories made names searchable, prompting both renewed scrutiny and denials from those listed; at the same time, courts shielded grand jury material and victims’ identities, so public dossiers remain uneven and contested—meaning flight logs are a crucial piece of the puzzle but not the full evidentiary story. [6] [4]