Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which other high-profile figures are named in the unsealed Epstein documents?
Executive Summary
The newly unsealed documents in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell litigation name a mixture of well‑known public figures and lesser‑known associates, but repeated fact checks show many viral “166‑name” lists are inaccurate and include dozens of people not present in the filings. The records that were released in early 2024 and supplemented by larger document transfers in 2025 specifically mention individuals such as Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz, David Copperfield and others, while emphasizing that appearance in paperwork is not proof of criminal conduct [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Multiple independent reporting projects and government statements stress the difference between names appearing as witnesses, social contacts, or in flight logs and proven involvement in Epstein’s crimes, and investigators continue to review tens of thousands of pages provided to Congress and prosecutors in 2025 [7] [3].
1. Who actually appears in the court records — separating headlines from documents
The court filings unsealed in January 2024 and the subsequent production of large volumes of material in 2025 list a range of public figures and private associates who interacted with Jeffrey Epstein or were referenced in witness statements, travel logs, deposition transcripts, or civil claims; prominent names repeatedly noted across credible summaries include Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz, David Copperfield, Jean‑Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Glenn Dubin and others [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and document‑by‑document reviews make clear that many entries are descriptive or contextual — e.g., travel or social encounters — rather than allegations of sexual abuse, and numerous fact‑checks have shown that numerous viral lists wildly overstate who is named or implicated, with some lists containing dozens of names not present in the released materials [1] [7].
2. Where the misinformation came from — the viral “166‑name” list explained
A widely circulated “166‑name” roster that proliferated on social media claimed many high‑profile individuals were directly implicated by Epstein’s victims; fact‑checkers reviewed the newly unsealed documents and found that 129 of the 166 names on that viral list do not appear in the records, and several celebrity names promoted online — including Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and former presidents sometimes included in speculation — are not present in the newly released filings [1]. Journalistic reviews and official commentary underscore that conflating presence on a guest list, an email, or a flight manifest with criminal conduct drove much of the public confusion; the Department of Justice and investigative reporters caution against drawing legal conclusions solely from a name appearing in civil filings or ancillary documents [1] [8].
3. What major news outlets and compilations found when they read the papers
Comprehensive compilations by mainstream outlets and specialty investigations assembled the highest‑profile names that consistently show up across the unsealed materials, and these lists include former heads of state, business leaders, lawyers, entertainers and persons tied to Epstein’s social or business networks; Time magazine and other outlets published synopses of “the biggest names” found in the releases, noting context ranging from travel logs to allegations in lawsuits [6]. These media projects also emphasized that documentary mention is not equivalent to indictment and that many named individuals have publicly denied wrongdoing or said contacts were casual or social; reporting through early 2025 reflects both the expanding document set and continuing legal review [6] [7].
4. What official statements add — prosecutors, Congress and the Justice Department views
Government actors reviewing the material have stressed caution: congressional offices and prosecutors received hundreds of thousands of pages in 2025 for review and potential declassification, and the Justice Department has publicly stated it found no credible evidence that Epstein’s alleged blackmail operation systematically ensnared powerful public figures, even as investigators continue to examine allegations and evidence produced in civil litigation [7] [8]. These official positions underscore a bifurcation between public curiosity and prosecutorial standards: documentary references can prompt inquiry but do not replace evidentiary thresholds required for criminal charges, and multiple reviews have flagged that much of the unsealed material requires corroboration before factual or legal conclusions can be drawn [7] [8].
5. Why context matters — how to read names in sprawling litigation records
The released files are heterogeneous: they contain deposition excerpts, third‑party statements, flight logs, financial records, and allegations from civil plaintiffs. As a result, a name may appear as a witness, a social acquaintance, a business contact, or as part of a plaintiff’s broader recollection; legal commentators and reporters repeatedly caution that inclusion in these records is not proof of criminal conduct [2] [5]. Responsible reading requires matching each mention to its source document and corroborative material; independent fact checks completed after the January 2024 unsealing and during the 2025 document transfer show large discrepancies between sensational lists posted online and what the filings actually record [1] [7].
6. Bottom line: verified names, remaining unknowns, and what to watch next
Verified, repeatedly reported names in the unsealed materials include high‑profile figures like Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz and several entertainers and financiers, but the evidence attached to each name varies widely and does not uniformly amount to criminal allegations [2] [6] [4]. Fact‑checking work in 2024 and document productions in 2025 reduced earlier confusion, revealing that many viral rosters were false; ongoing congressional reviews and potential declassification of additional pages in 2025 may surface more context, but future disclosures must still be read against legal standards and corroboration before inferring wrongdoing [1] [7] [6].