Have any state attorneys general or federal prosecutors publicly commented on or opened probes tied to the allegations made in the Sascha Riley audio recordings?

1. What the public record actually shows: silence from prosecutors

Every mainstream account available notes a conspicuous absence of official prosecutorial confirmation: reporting repeatedly states that neither the DOJ nor courts have authenticated Riley’s recordings or confirmed his involvement in previously unsealed Epstein-related documents, and no public charging or probe announcements tied to the tapes have appeared in those records ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Multiple outlets emphasize that the allegations are circulating online as unverified audio recordings and that there is no public docket, indictment, or prosecutor statement linking the recordings to an open federal or state investigation ^{[2] [7]}.

2. Claims that investigators were told — sourced to the Substack publisher, not prosecutors

The narrative pushing the idea of an active inquiry comes primarily from Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack and allied posts, which assert that copies of the audio were shared with “police” and “trusted allies” in several countries and that the FBI allegedly contacted Riley in the summer of 2025 ^{[3] [4]}. Those are publisher claims about contacts with law enforcement; reporting flags them as uncorroborated and does not treat them as equivalent to an official prosecutorial statement or opened case file ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Why independent verification matters and what outlets are saying

News outlets explicitly caution that the recordings are “viral” but unverified, and that names Riley mentions in the tapes do not appear in indictments, court records, or verified probes tied to Epstein, which underlines why prosecutors’ public confirmation would be the key indicator of a bona fide investigation rather than online rumor ^{[5] [8] [6]}. Several pieces reiterate that Riley and the Substack publisher have asked for access to unredacted Epstein files and that Riley claims potential corroborating evidence—but reporters uniformly note the lack of independent verification to date ^{[1] [7]}.

4. Alternative explanations and possible motives behind the reporting

There are competing narratives in play: one asserts the recordings expose fresh victims and a suppressed trail of evidence; another emphasizes the epidemiology of viral claims and the risk of false or uncorroborated accusations gaining traction online. That tension is visible in the sources, which both publish the claims and simultaneously flag their unverified status, suggesting an implicit agenda from the publisher to spur public pressure for investigations while mainstream outlets prioritize confirmation from official prosecutors ^{[3] [7]}.

5. What remains unknown and where official confirmation would come from

Current reporting cannot confirm whether any state attorney general’s office or U.S. attorney has even received the recordings as evidence, let alone opened a probe; the available stories explicitly state that no federal or court verification exists as of January 2026 ^{[1] [2]}. A public announcement from a specific state AG or a U.S. attorney’s office—via press release, court filing, or indictment—would be the decisive proof of an official probe, and none of those markers is present in the cited coverage ^{[1] [5]}.

6. Bottom line

Based on the reporting compiled, there is no authenticated record of state attorneys general or federal prosecutors publicly commenting on or initiating formal investigations tied to the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio recordings; assertions that law enforcement has been contacted originate with the Substack publisher and Riley’s supporters and remain uncorroborated by prosecutorial offices or DOJ statements ^{[3] [1] [4]}.