What specific flight‑log documents in the Epstein files list Donald Trump and how were they authenticated?
Executive summary
The Department of Justice release and related reporting show that handwritten and digital flight‑log records tied to Jeffrey Epstein list "Donald Trump" on multiple trips in the 1990s, and an internal prosecutorial email dated Jan. 7, 2020 flagged at least eight such entries between 1993 and 1996 [1] [2]. Those records have circulated as part of DOJ disclosures and as exhibits from the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution, but public reporting and the DOJ itself emphasize limits on what the logs prove and note that some released material contains unverified or false items [2] [3].
1. Which flight‑log documents specifically name Donald Trump
The direct documentary source repeatedly cited in the new releases is a set of flight records and related exhibits posted by the Justice Department, including a handwritten flight log and a dataset PDF that contains an internal email summarizing what those logs show; that email states Trump is listed as a passenger on at least eight flights and names travel companions on particular pages [1] [4]. Earlier DOJ releases and trial exhibits from the Maxwell case likewise included flight logs that reporters and researchers have indexed and which contain the entries identified as referring to Donald Trump [2] [5].
2. The specific entries and dates reporters point to
News outlets reconstructing the logs cite multiple dated entries: examples include April 23, 1993; October 11 and October 17, 1993; May 15, 1994 (with two separate entries that some count as one flight); August 13, 1995 (a PBI to TEB routing that lists Donald Trump and his son Eric); and an entry listed in some compilations as January 5, 1997 — in total yielding seven or eight appearances depending on how layovers are counted [6] [4] [5]. Journalists also reported one flight in the records where only Epstein, Trump and a then‑20‑year‑old woman (redacted) appear, and that at least four of the flagged flights coincide with the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell [7] [2] [1].
3. How prosecutors and the DOJ authenticated these logs and established provenance
The chain of custody cited in reporting is that these flight records were among materials provided to the Southern District of New York and subsequently used as exhibits in prosecutions connected to Epstein and Maxwell, which is why a federal prosecutor referenced them in a 2020 internal email summarizing the office’s receipt and review of the records [1] [2]. The New York Times and Reuters note that the logs were part of court filings and trial exhibits in the Maxwell case, which bolsters their provenance as documents produced during criminal investigations [2] [7]. The DOJ’s public posting of the files — including the dataset PDF containing the prosecutor’s email — is the immediate source reporters cite [1].
4. Limits of authentication and the DOJ’s caveats about released material
Despite provenance from investigative files and trial exhibits, the Justice Department has warned that the public dump includes material that is unverified or false, and officials have pointed to at least one document in the release that the FBI determined was a fake, underscoring that release does not equal judicial finding of fact [3] [8]. Media coverage likewise stresses that names on flight logs do not by themselves indicate criminal conduct; multiple outlets explicitly report that appearances in the logs are descriptive but are not proof of illicit activity [5] [9].
5. Competing narratives and why prosecutors flagged the entries
Prosecutors who highlighted the Trump entries told colleagues they wanted defense teams and other offices to be aware of the records before any public or trial use, because several flights overlapped the period relevant to charges in the Maxwell case and included potential witnesses, which is a plainly prosecutorial, not accusatory, rationale for surfacing the material [1] [10]. Political actors and partisan media have seized on the logs to argue both for scandal and for exculpation; the DOJ’s precautionary statements and repeated journalistic caveats reflect an effort to separate documentary provenance from unproven allegations [3] [11].