Have any federal agencies (FBI or DOJ) publicly acknowledged receiving the Sasha Riley recordings or related evidence?
Executive summary
No federal agency has publicly acknowledged receiving the Sasha (Sascha) Riley audio recordings or the related evidence as of the reporting collected here; multiple news outlets explicitly note the recordings remain unverified and that neither courts nor law enforcement have authenticated them [1] [2]. Some publishers and commentators say copies were shared with police or that the FBI made contact, but those claims are reported as unconfirmed and there is no documented public statement from the Department of Justice or the FBI accepting or confirming receipt [3] [4].
1. What the mainstream reporting says: no DOJ/FBI confirmation
Major summaries and fact-focused pieces uniformly flag the absence of official authentication: Hindustan Times and other recaps state the claims in the Riley recordings “have not been verified or authenticated by courts of law, or by law enforcement agencies,” a shorthand reporters use to indicate no DOJ or FBI confirmation has been published [1] [2]. News24 likewise cautions it has “not independently verified the authenticity” of the audio, and frames the material as outside the bounds of legally confirmed evidence—again implying no public DOJ/FBI acknowledgment [5].
2. Claims that someone shared material with authorities — reported, but unverified
The Substack publisher who released the audio, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, is reported to have said she shared copies with “police and trusted contacts,” and reporting relays that claim; Times Now notes the publisher asserts she provided originals and shared them with law enforcement contacts [3]. That reported chain—publisher to local police or contacts—is not the same as a public DOJ or FBI statement, and the outlets that carry the claim present it as the publisher’s assertion rather than a confirmed federal acknowledgment [3].
3. Reports of FBI contact with Riley exist, but lack official corroboration
Some commentaries and online reports state the FBI “allegedly contacted Sasha in the summer of 2025” and that Riley was moved for safety, but those accounts are flagged as unconfirmed within the reporting; Newsinterpretation explicitly notes those statements “have not been confirmed by any official agency” [4]. In short: secondary reporting cites alleged FBI outreach, yet none of the sources produce an FBI or DOJ press release, statement, or public filing to substantiate that outreach [4].
4. How reporters and analysts treat the gap — caution and skepticism
Multiple outlets emphasize journalistic caution: the recordings circulate widely on Substack and social media, but “not a single one of the claims has been authenticated by any courts of law and law enforcement agencies or reputable news organizations” [2]. News24 and Hindustan Times both reiterate that mainstream verification is absent, indicating the consensus among these sources is to treat assertions of official involvement as unproven until the DOJ or FBI makes a public acknowledgement or releases corroborating documentation [5] [1].
5. Limits of the current reporting and what would constitute an acknowledgment
The available sources document publisher claims and third‑party reports of contact, but none provide a DOJ or FBI public statement, press release, or court filing confirming receipt or chain of custody for the Riley recordings; therefore, based on these sources, there is no public federal acknowledgment [3] [4]. If the DOJ or FBI were to confirm receipt, the change would typically appear as an official statement, a public filing, or reporting based on those statements; that absence is salient across these pieces [1] [5].
6. Bottom line and open questions
The bottom line in the assembled reporting is clear: outlets repeatedly flag the lack of authentication and note that claims about sharing with police or FBI contact come from the publisher or secondary sources and remain unconfirmed by the DOJ or FBI, so there is no documented public acknowledgment from those federal agencies in the material reviewed here [1] [3] [4].