Did any witnesses or victims testify about interactions between Trump and Epstein in court or depositions?

1. What the recent coverage emphasizes — records, not a new trial

The news cycle this week has been dominated by Congress passing and President Trump signing a law compelling the Justice Department to release its Epstein investigation files within 30 days, and by public statements from survivors pressing for disclosure; the coverage stresses documents and sealed materials — not new courtroom testimony — as the immediate development ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. What “the Epstein files” are said to include

Multiple outlets describe the files as investigative case records: transcripts of interviews with victims and witnesses, material seized in searches, and other investigative documents that have in the past been subject to court sealing or redactions to protect victims — not an account that a fresh round of courtroom depositions naming interactions has been produced in the current stories ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

3. Survivors and advocates pushed the release — but news reports don’t map that to courtroom testimony

Reporting documents survivors speaking at the Capitol in favor of the bill and survivor advocates demanding a public reckoning, and it cites names of survivors who have been visible in public campaigning; the articles do not, however, present contemporaneous court testimony by those survivors in which they recount interactions between Trump and Epstein in judicial proceedings tied to this new legislative action ^{[5] [3] [2]}.

4. Past transcripts and sealed materials are specifically in scope — but with caveats

News organizations note that previously withheld materials include sealed transcripts and images and that courts earlier rejected some unsealing requests ^{[3] [4]}. That means some of the documents the law targets may contain interviews or deposition transcripts that reference various figures; current reporting emphasizes potential redactions and court-ordered secrecy rather than summarizing newly released witness statements ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Claims about Trump and Epstein — how coverage frames them

Coverage highlights that Trump had a past personal friendship with Epstein and that the release is politically charged, with Trump both criticizing Democrats and framing the bill as transparency ^{[6] [7] [8]}. At the same time, outlets note the files might be withheld when they contain victim-identifying materials or items ordered sealed by a court, signaling both political motive and legal constraints shaping what becomes public ^{[3] [6]}.

6. What the reporting does explicitly say about investigations and probes

Some pieces report that the Justice Department was asked to look into figures mentioned in Epstein-related materials — including, per reporting, inquiries into people across the political spectrum — but those articles also quote prior DOJ and FBI assessments that said there was no evidence to predicate new probes of uncharged third parties; the present stories discuss potential new probes and their political context rather than laying out courtroom testimony about interactions ^{[9] [4]}.

7. Why your question remains open in public reporting

The materials and articles in the current sample focus on the mechanics of forcing the DOJ to release records and on the political theater around that release; they do not transcribe or summarize specific courtroom or deposition testimony alleging direct interactions between Trump and Epstein. Therefore, based on these items, it is not possible to confirm that witnesses or victims testified under oath in court or depositions specifically about interactions between Trump and Epstein — the available sources do not mention such testimony ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

8. How to follow up if you want specifics

The reporting signals those documents (transcripts of interviews and witness statements) may become publicly available once the DOJ complies; when they are released, look for direct sources: the DOJ production itself, unsealed court filings, or contemporaneous coverage from outlets that will likely excerpt or summarize any sworn statements about interactions between named individuals ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

Limitations: This summary relies solely on the supplied news items, which center on the law’s passage and the prospect of document release; they do not include the contents of the files themselves or a catalog of prior deposition transcripts. If you want a definitive accounting of any sworn testimony mentioning interactions between Trump and Epstein, those answers would require examination of the files once released or searching earlier court records and reporting beyond this set (available sources do not mention whether such sworn testimony exists) ^{[3] [1]}.