What official statements, if any, have the FBI or local police released regarding reported contacts or reports from Sascha/Sasha Riley?
Executive summary
The public record shows no independent, verifiable official statement from the FBI or any named local police department that confirms receiving, investigating, or otherwise validating the audio recordings attributed to Sasha/Sascha Riley; claims that the FBI contacted Riley come from the Substack publisher who released the tapes, not from law enforcement itself [1] [2] [3]. Major news summaries consistently report the material as viral but unverified and say no law enforcement agency has publicly confirmed or authenticated the recordings [4] [5].
1. What the Substack publisher and intermediaries claim about FBI or police contact
Lisa Noelle Voldeng, the Substack author who published the Riley recordings, asserts she shared files with “police and government officials” and writes that the FBI allegedly contacted Riley in the summer of 2025 and that he was moved out of the United States “to safety,” but those are claims made by Voldeng and her account, not direct law enforcement statements [1] [2] [6]. Multiple outlets that republished or summarized Voldeng’s account note she says she selectively notified allies, churches, police and government officials after interviewing Riley and that she has copies of the original audio [1] [6] [2], yet the reporting underscores that these are publisher assertions rather than confirmations from named agencies.
2. What the FBI and local police have publicly said — the absence of confirmation
Independent reporting collected by several outlets emphasizes that no official investigation has publicly confirmed receipt or verification of the Riley recordings; mainstream summaries explicitly state that courts, law enforcement agencies, and formal investigative bodies have not authenticated the material [3] [4]. The available coverage repeatedly frames the claims as unverified and notes a lack of court records or official probes linking the names Riley mentions to indictments or verified investigative findings [7] [4], which indicates an absence of publicly released police or FBI statements corroborating the tapes.
3. How reporting distinguishes publisher claims from law enforcement records
News outlets and fact-checking-minded pieces draw a clear line between the publisher’s narrative and law enforcement confirmation: they report Voldeng’s account that she notified officials and that Riley was allegedly contacted by the FBI, while also noting that no law enforcement agency has made a public statement to verify those events [1] [2] [3]. Several outlets explicitly caution the public that the allegations in the tapes remain unverified and that the recordings have not been authenticated by courts, police departments, or federal agencies—language that signals reporters could not find or cite any formal FBI or police press release or statement confirming involvement [4] [5].
4. What this record means for public claims and next steps for verification
Because the only attribution of FBI contact or police notification is to the Substack publisher and associated social posts—and because multiple journalistic summaries stress the lack of official confirmation—any assertion that the FBI or local police have officially acknowledged or verified Riley’s tapes is unsupported by the available reporting [1] [2] [3] [4]. The limitation in the public record is clear: absent a named FBI statement, police press release, or court filing cited by the outlets surveyed, the claim of official law enforcement contact rests on the publisher’s account and remains uncorroborated in independent reporting [6] [3]. Readers should look for future statements from the FBI or specified local departments or for court records if and when investigations are opened to move beyond publisher-provided assertions.