Which Epstein accusers explicitly named Donald Trump in sworn affidavits or depositions?

1. What the newly released Epstein files actually contain — and what they do not

News organizations and the House Oversight release highlighted thousands of documents and emails from Epstein’s estate in mid-November 2025, including messages in which Epstein himself wrote that a victim “spent hours at my house with [Trump]” and that “that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” but those are Epstein’s emails and estate materials, not testimony from the alleged victims in the form of sworn affidavits or depositions ^{[2] [4] [1]}. Reporting emphasizes the trove of material may include investigative files, emails and possibly victim statements, but the immediate releases cited in the coverage are email correspondence and committee summaries, not deposition transcripts naming Trump from accusers ^{[3] [5]}.

2. Which accusers have been publicly prominent — and how they’ve spoken about Trump

Virginia Giuffre is repeatedly mentioned in reporting as the person Epstein may have referenced when he wrote that someone “spent hours” with Trump; outlets and the White House discussed that identification after Democrats released selected emails ^{[2] [4] [1]}. Other accusers such as Maria Farmer and Annie Farmer are noted in background pieces for accusing Epstein and Maxwell of assault, but the material cited in these sources frames those allegations as separate and does not document sworn affidavits or depositions in which they explicitly name Trump ^{[6] [7]}. In short, public accusations and press interviews exist, but the provided reporting does not show accusers filing sworn statements that specifically and explicitly name Trump in depositions or affidavits (not found in current reporting).

3. How media and political actors are treating Epstein’s emails mentioning Trump

Democrats on the Oversight Committee released emails from Epstein’s estate and framed them as raising questions about who knew what; Republicans pushed back and released larger document troves, accusing Democrats of cherry-picking ^{[2] [5]}. The White House called some reporting a “fake” narrative while not formally disputing that Trump’s name appeared in Epstein-related material, illustrating opposing political framings of the same documents ^{[3] [1]}. Major outlets stress the difference between an aggressor’s email claim (Epstein’s words) and formal legal accusations by victims; that distinction matters for understanding what the files actually prove ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Legal formality matters: affidavit and deposition versus other evidence

Affidavits and depositions are sworn statements used in litigation and criminal proceedings; the sources here describe emails, investigative files and public interviews, not sworn filings by victims that the reporting attributes to them explicitly naming Trump (not found in current reporting). Reuters, AP and congressional statements in these sources focus on the release of DOJ and estate materials and the political fight over publication, not on newly revealed sworn victim testimony that names Trump in depositions or affidavits ^{[5] [1] [2]}.

5. Competing views and limitations in the record

Some outlets and congressional Democrats interpret Epstein’s mentions as implicating Trump’s proximity to victims; the White House and some Republicans argue the documents are being used politically and that being named in a file is not proof of wrongdoing ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Reporters note the unreleased DOJ materials could contain more detailed records, but the law and redactions may limit what is made public — and within the sources provided there is no citation of accusers’ sworn affidavits or depositions that explicitly name Trump ^{[3] [5]}.

6. How to follow developments and what to watch for next

The Justice Department’s mandated 30-day release window (after the president’s action) could yield investigative materials or sworn statements; journalists and lawmakers say redactions and legal protections may still limit access, so future releases might change the public record ^{[8] [9]}. For the specific question of sworn affidavits or depositions naming Trump, readers should look for explicit mentions in DOJ releases or court filings; as of the reporting in these sources, such documents have not been cited or published (not found in current reporting) ^{[9] [8]}.