Have law enforcement or prosecutors reopened investigations into Katie Johnson's claims after 2016?

1. What happened in 2016 — the file, the refiling, and the drop

The sequence now cited across multiple outlets: an anonymous plaintiff using the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” (also described as “Jane Doe”) filed a civil suit in mid‑2016 alleging sexual assault by Trump and Jeffrey Epstein dating to 1994; the suit was refiled in October and then dropped or dismissed in November 2016 when the plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of dismissal ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Newsweek and PBS both describe the filing, reported threats to the plaintiff and her attorneys’ decision to withdraw, and the ultimate dismissal in November 2016 ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Did prosecutors or police reopen the case after 2016? — What the record shows

Available mainstream reporting in the provided documents does not identify any federal or local prosecutor formally reopening a criminal investigation specifically tied to the Katie Johnson civil complaint after it was dismissed in 2016. Newsweek’s 2025 coverage foregrounds the resurfacing of documents and public interest tied to Epstein files but does not report an official reopening of the Katie Johnson matter by law enforcement ^[3]. PBS’s 2019 recap likewise recounts the filing and dismissal without indicating subsequent criminal action tied to that civil claim ^[2].

3. Where the question about a “reopening” tends to come from

Renewed attention to Epstein-related documents in 2025 prompted media outlets to reexamine prior claims and filings connected to Epstein’s network, which brought the Katie Johnson complaint back into public view; those stories often note the original filing, the refile and withdrawal in 2016, and later releases of Epstein materials—but they stop short of documenting an official reopened criminal probe of the 2016 civil case ^{[3] [4]}. Some commentary pieces and opinion threads referenced in the search results speculate about renewed scrutiny generally surrounding Epstein files, but such pieces are not the same as reporting an active prosecutorial reopening ^[5].

4. Sources disagree or leave gaps — what is and isn’t reported

None of the provided sources claim that prosecutors have refiled charges or have an open criminal investigation explicitly based on the Katie Johnson filing; instead, they recount the civil suit’s history and discuss how new releases of Epstein-related materials have prompted fresh attention ^{[3] [4] [2]}. The sources do include differing emphases: investigative or opinion pieces (for example in 2025) emphasize ongoing questions about Epstein documents and potential undisclosed victims, while encyclopedic or recap pieces (Wikipedia, PBS) focus on the 2016 civil litigation timeline without asserting later law‑enforcement action ^{[1] [2]}.

5. What investigators and some attorneys say publicly about credibility

At least one 2025 interview piece quotes a lawyer who said he believed Katie Johnson had told the truth and describes investigative efforts by her counsel, but such accounts are statements about credibility and investigation by private lawyers rather than announcements of criminal probes by prosecutors ^[6]. This distinction matters: private‑party litigation and investigators can generate evidence or publicity, but they do not equate to prosecutors formally reopening a criminal investigation ^[6].

6. Bottom line and reporting limitations

Based on the supplied reporting, there is no documented reopening of the Katie Johnson civil claim into a separate criminal prosecution by law enforcement or prosecutors in the materials you provided; the record shows the 2016 suit was dismissed and later media attention around Epstein files revived public interest but not, in these sources, a formal prosecutorial reopening ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Available sources do not mention any other specific prosecutions or active grand jury actions tied directly to the Katie Johnson filing ^{[3] [4]}. If you want confirmation beyond these articles—such as prosecutor statements, filings, or charging documents—you will need sources that explicitly report such actions; those are not present in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).