Which named individuals in Epstein’s flight logs have faced legal scrutiny or been cleared, and what do the logs actually show?
Executive summary
The flight logs linked to Jeffrey Epstein list many well‑known names and have prompted public and legal scrutiny of several passengers — most prominently Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew — while court evidence and expert analysis stress that a name on a manifest proves presence, not criminal conduct [1] [2] [3]. Ghislaine Maxwell, who appears in logs and other exhibits, was convicted for recruiting minors in Epstein’s network, and prosecutors used the flight records as part of the evidentiary mosaic in her trial, but the logs themselves remain logistical documents with heavy redactions in recent DOJ releases [4] [5] [6].
1. Donald Trump: repeated entries, no charge in logs themselves
A January 2020 prosecutor email made public in DOJ releases notes Donald Trump is listed as a passenger on Epstein’s plane at least eight times between 1993 and 1996 and that Maxwell was present on several of those flights, including a 1993 sortie listing only Epstein and Trump as passengers [4] [7] [8]. News organizations reporting on the newly released tranche emphasized the email flagged these entries for “situational awareness,” not as evidence of a crime; the DOJ also warned some documents “contain untrue and sensationalist claims” about Trump in the December 2025 release [6] [7]. Legal analysts caution that manifest entries are logistical and, without corroborating victim testimony or evidence of intent, do not prove a passenger knew of or participated in sex trafficking [3].
2. Bill Clinton and other high‑profile repeat passengers
Flight logs and prior releases show former President Bill Clinton among repeat passengers on Epstein’s aircraft, a fact widely reported and referenced in trial exhibits for Maxwell; Clinton and his team deny knowledge of Epstein’s crimes [1] [2]. Coverage and DOJ materials indicate the logs place many powerful people on the same flights over years, but the public record — including court exhibits at Maxwell’s trial — treats these logs as one stream of evidence to be weighed alongside witness statements and other documents [1] [5].
3. Prince Andrew and prolonged public scrutiny
British royal associations named in flight logs have driven intense scrutiny of Prince Andrew, who has faced legal and reputational consequences connected to his relationship with Epstein; British and global reporting placed the logs alongside other evidence in that scrutiny [2]. The flight manifests were part of a broader evidentiary record that prosecutors and civil litigants have used to probe where and when people traveled with Epstein and potential victims, although each appearance requires independent corroboration to support criminal charges [5] [3].
4. Alan Dershowitz and contested interpretations
Alan Dershowitz appears in public discussions around the files because of his prior role in Epstein’s 2006 non‑prosecution deal and his public statements about suppressed names; he has resisted aspects of the releases and cast doubt on some reporting, pointing to judicial confidentiality and sealed records [9]. That dispute underscores a recurring theme in the files’ public life: named presence on logs fuels allegation and defense narratives alike, and legal advisers emphasize procedural limits on disclosure and evidentiary weight [9] [10].
5. Ghislaine Maxwell: from logs to conviction
Maxwell’s presence on flight records and her broader role in Epstein’s network were central to her prosecution; flight logs were introduced in the Maxwell trial as exhibits and helped situate her movements and contacts during the years prosecutors examined [4] [5]. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 for conspiring to recruit and abuse minors, and the newly released DOJ files explicitly connect some passenger lists and travel patterns to the period prosecutors said was relevant to Maxwell’s crimes [4].
6. What the logs actually show — limits and legal context
The pilots’ manifests document who was aboard aircraft on particular dates and thus can place named individuals in time and place, but do not record behavior, consent, age of accompanying people where redacted, or a passenger’s knowledge of criminal conduct; legal experts warn that presence alone is insufficient to prove guilt without corroboration [3] [5]. Recent DOJ releases are heavily redacted to protect victims and contain contextual emails and clippings that sometimes conflate reportage with documentary evidence, a mix that has been weaponized politically even as officials say full releases remain incomplete [6] [2].