What celebrities and business leaders flew on Epstein's plane according to manifests?

1. What the manifests are — and what they are not

The records commonly called “flight logs” or “manifests” are handwritten pilot logs, photocopies and compiled passenger lists introduced in litigation and released by governmental bodies; DocumentCloud and archive copies contain dozens to hundreds of pages of such logs ^{[4] [6]}. Those records record names, initials, dates and routing information — useful for mapping who boarded an Epstein plane — but courts and news outlets repeatedly caution that a name on a list is association data, not proof of criminal activity or knowledge of crimes ^{[1] [7]}.

2. Which high‑profile names appear most often in reporting

Reporting and the released batches cite recurring high‑profile names. Bill Clinton appears in multiple flight logs and has acknowledged flying on Epstein’s plane on humanitarian trips ^{[2] [1]}. Donald Trump is also recorded as flying on Epstein’s planes in logs and media summaries ^{[3] [8]}. Prince Andrew is specifically cited in flight records and was shown in trial evidence to have flown with Epstein ^{[9] [10]}. Other celebrities and business leaders cited across releases and reporting include Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and prominent financiers such as Les Wexner and Leon Black — all appearing in various flight logs or contact lists ^{[11] [12] [13]}.

3. Recent congressional and DOJ releases changed the record, but did not create a tidy “client list”

House Oversight Committee document dumps in 2025 added thousands of pages — calendars, emails and additional manifests — and media organizations reported new or reiterated appearances of public figures in those documents ^{[14] [5]}. Analysts warn, however, that the idea of one definitive “client list” is a myth; forensic examinations of the trove underscore the fragmented, overlapping nature of the sources and the redactions that complicate interpretation ^[14].

4. How journalists and courts have treated the manifests

Flight logs were entered into evidence at trials (for example in the Maxwell proceedings) and used by journalists to trace travel patterns; DocumentCloud hosts public copies that reporters rely on for independent checks ^{[4] [7]}. News outlets uniformly note that passengers on a flight could be traveling for many reasons, and some entries are initials or shorthand that require corroboration; multiple outlets encourage caution before drawing conclusions from a name alone ^{[4] [1]}.

5. Disputes, denials and context from named individuals

When flight records surfaced naming public figures, several people or their representatives publicly denied wrongdoing or said travel was for professional or philanthropic reasons; for example, Clinton has described some flights as linked to humanitarian work ^[2]. At the same time, reporting from outlets such as The Guardian and the Washington Post highlights emails and images in the larger files that complicate public statements and have prompted renewed scrutiny of associative ties ^{[10] [15]}.

6. Limitations, redactions and gaps you should know about

Large portions of released material remain redacted or partial; many passenger lists have names blacked out or reduced to initials, and archives are assembled from separate legal cases and estate records rather than a single master log ^{[14] [6]}. Available sources do not mention a definitive master “client list” that establishes participation in crimes by everyone listed; indeed, the DOJ has said it found no single list proving such claims in some releases ^[16].

7. How to follow this story responsibly

To assess any claim about an individual on Epstein’s planes, consult primary documents where possible (DocumentCloud, archived flight log PDFs) and multiple reputable reports that show context — dates, co‑passengers, and corroborating evidence — rather than relying on a name pulled from a summary ^{[4] [6]}. Watch for official statements, court filings and the House Oversight Committee’s releases for further clarifications, and treat manifest appearances as a piece of evidence that requires corroboration, not as definitive proof of wrongdoing ^{[1] [14]}.