What official investigations, if any, have federal or local authorities opened in response to Sascha Riley’s testimony?

1. What the viral recordings claim and how they were released

The material circulating online consists of a series of phone interviews published on Substack by Lisa Noelle Voldeng that she says were recorded between July 19 and July 24, 2025, and in which a man identified as Sasha or Sascha Riley alleges extreme abuse and trafficking tied to the Jeffrey Epstein era, naming several high‑profile figures ^{[4] [5] [2]}.

2. Public record: no confirmed investigations disclosed by authorities

Despite broad dissemination of the tapes and claims that Riley is willing to testify or take a polygraph, reporting across multiple outlets finds that "no official investigation has publicly confirmed receiving or verifying these recordings" and that the allegations "have not been authenticated by any courts of law and law enforcement agencies" ^{[1] [3] [6]}; in short, there is no public record in these reports of federal or local law‑enforcement agencies opening an inquiry expressly because of the Substack audio.

3. Publishers and promoters say investigations are ongoing — but without named agencies or documents

Those who released the material or promoted it have asserted in public posts that additional evidence exists, that Riley has been offered relocation for safety, and that "investigations are ongoing," but the reporting notes these are claims by the publisher or interlocutors rather than confirmations from named investigative bodies such as the Department of Justice or specific local prosecutors ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

4. Mainstream outlets and fact checks emphasize absence of verification

Established news summaries and roundups repeatedly emphasize the lack of corroboration in court records or indictments for the individuals named in the recordings, and they report that mainstream media and law enforcement have not independently verified Riley’s assertions — a consistent caveat in coverage ^{[6] [3] [1]}.

5. Skeptical commentary and the risk of amplification without official probes

Independent commentators and writers have cautioned against accepting the material at face value, drawing parallels to past moral panics and urging conventional evidentiary standards; one lengthy Substack critique argues the story contains elements that invite skepticism and notes the appeal of unvetted narratives on new‑media platforms ^[7]. That skepticism has led many outlets to treat the recordings as unverified allegations rather than as events that have prompted disclosed official inquiries.

6. What the current reporting cannot show — unanswered procedural questions

The sources consulted do not provide evidence that any specific federal or state investigative office has publicly acknowledged an active probe triggered by Riley’s audio, nor do they produce documents (grand jury subpoenas, referrals, or press statements) tying law enforcement to the recordings; the absence of such public confirmation is explicitly noted in the coverage ^{[1] [2]}. If authorities have opened confidential preliminary inquiries (as law enforcement sometimes does), those would not necessarily be visible in public reporting; the existing sources do not confirm or deny that scenario.

7. What to watch next

Given the publisher’s claims that Riley is willing to cooperate and the sustained public interest, the next credible signals of an official response would be statements or filings from a named prosecutor’s office or the Department of Justice, referral letters to relevant agencies, or court records; until such documents or agency statements appear in reporting, the best characterization supported by available coverage is that no public federal or local investigations have been confirmed in response to Riley’s testimony ^{[4] [1] [2]}.