What official responses, if any, have the FBI or DOJ issued regarding the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings?
Executive summary
No public, on-the-record statement from the Department of Justice or the FBI confirming, corroborating, or detailing an investigation tied specifically to the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings has been reported; multiple outlets that covered the viral tapes note the absence of any official verification from law‑enforcement agencies [1] [2] [3]. Claims circulating that the FBI contacted Riley or moved him “to safety” come from the Substack publisher and allied reporting but have not been confirmed by the DOJ or the FBI, leaving a gap between the online narrative and any documented federal response [4] [5] [6].
1. What the recordings allege and why they drew attention
The audio clips attributed to Sasha or Sascha Riley purport to recount childhood trafficking and abuse tied to the Jeffrey Epstein network and name several high‑profile figures; those recordings were published via a Substack account and rapidly spread across social platforms, prompting intense public interest [7] [3]. Publishers and some reporters emphasize that the material contains grave allegations and that the tapes’ release coincided with public scrutiny of previously released “Epstein files,” which amplified attention to the claims [8] [3].
2. What the FBI and DOJ have officially said — the record (or lack of one)
Reporting collected across multiple outlets finds no record of an on‑the‑record DOJ or FBI announcement confirming receipt, authentication, or an investigative action specifically tied to the Riley recordings; several articles explicitly state that no official investigation has publicly confirmed receiving or verifying the audio [1] [2] [3]. While the DOJ and FBI have previously released and described a first phase of declassified Epstein documents, none of the cited coverage ties that public document release to an acknowledgment of the Riley tapes by federal authorities [8] [3].
3. Contradictory claims: publisher’s account that the FBI contacted Riley, and why it matters
Lisa Noelle Voldeng, the Substack user who published the recordings, writes that she shared copies with police and “trusted allies,” and that the FBI allegedly contacted Riley in the summer of 2025, after which he was reportedly moved out of the United States “to safety” — claims repeated in profiles of the publisher but not independently verified by official agencies [5] [6] [4]. Several outlets flag those assertions as unconfirmed and underscore that the stated contacts with law enforcement come from the publisher or secondary reporting rather than a DOJ or FBI press release or public statement [1] [2].
4. The DOJ’s earlier Epstein disclosures and the redactions debate as backdrop
The DOJ’s prior public actions in this broader story include releasing a tranche of declassified Epstein files described by officials as a “first phase,” a move that also prompted debate about extensive redactions; some reporting notes that the redactions themselves have produced questions that intersect with the viral Riley material even though the DOJ has not linked the two publicly [3] [9] [8]. Congressional and public scrutiny over redactions in the Epstein files is documented in coverage, which observers say increases pressure on DOJ to explain what material exists and what remains redacted — but that scrutiny is separate from any confirmed response to the Riley recordings [9].
5. Verification, reporting caution, and competing narratives
News organizations covering the tapes repeatedly emphasize that the recordings and the claims within remain unverified and unauthenticated by courts or law enforcement, and they caution that unvetted audio can shape public perception before official processes play out; mainstream outlets indicate they have not found evidence that DOJ or FBI have publicly validated the content [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, the Substack publisher and sympathetic outlets present material and witness claims that suggest outreach to authorities, creating a contested public record in which the presence or absence of an official federal response is itself disputed [5] [6] [4].
6. What to watch next and the limits of current reporting
Given the current reporting, the most verifiable claim is that there has been no public, on‑the‑record DOJ or FBI confirmation about the Riley recordings; readers should watch for any formal DOJ/FBI press release, public case filing, or congressional inquiry that explicitly references the recordings or related evidence, because the present coverage documents assertions from publishers and online actors rather than documented agency action [1] [2] [3]. If federal agencies decide to comment or open a publicly traceable investigation, major outlets will likely report an on‑the‑record confirmation; until then, the gap between viral allegation and verified official response remains the defining fact [1] [2].