Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there other witnesses who corroborated or contradicted Johanna Sjoberg's claims about Trump?
Executive summary
Johanna Sjoberg’s unsealed deposition recounts several encounters tied to Jeffrey Epstein — including a 2001 flight diverted to Atlantic City where Epstein suggested visiting a Trump casino — and she explicitly testified she was never asked to give Donald Trump a massage [1] [2]. Available sources do not say other witnesses directly corroborated Sjoberg’s specific statements about Trump being mentioned on that trip, though multiple outlets reporting the unsealed files cite the same Sjoberg testimony and note no new implicating evidence of criminal conduct by Trump in those documents [3] [2].
1. What Sjoberg actually said about Trump — clear denial of contact
Sjoberg’s 2016 deposition, made public in batches of unsealed files, contains her account that during a 2001 flight Epstein suggested diverting to Atlantic City and “we’ll call up Trump and we’ll go to” a casino; she also was twice asked and said she never massaged Donald Trump or was asked to give him sexual favors [1] [2]. News outlets from TIME to Newsweek and the Times of Israel repeat that point: Sjoberg named Trump in the sense of reporting Epstein’s remark and a potential casino visit, but she denied any massage or sexual contact with him [3] [1] [2].
2. Corroboration and contradiction in the released record — what reporters found
Reporting on the unsealed documents shows agreement that Sjoberg’s testimony mentions Epstein name‑dropping prominent figures and describing the Atlantic City diversion; however, major outlets reporting the filings also emphasize the filings “do not implicate new people” or present evidence of wrongdoing by Trump in those depositions [2] [3]. In short, other publicly released testimony and reporting do not provide an independent witness who confirmed Sjoberg gave Trump a massage or engaged sexually with him — rather, Sjoberg herself denied that [2] [1].
3. How outlets framed the evidence — naming vs. accusing
TIME, The Times of Israel, Newsweek and others stressed that being named in Epstein‑era documents is not identical to being accused of crimes; Sjoberg’s testimony primarily illustrates Epstein’s pattern of name‑dropping and social connections [3] [2] [1]. Several outlets noted the documents added “little new information” about actions taken by those outside Epstein’s inner circle and that inclusion in files does not, by itself, establish culpability [3] [2].
4. Contradictory claims and how they circulated
A fringe site (The People’s Voice) and tabloid pieces recycled snippets and sometimes presented Sjoberg’s testimony in ways that implied stronger links to Trump; those summaries are inconsistent with mainstream outlets’ emphasis that Sjoberg denied massaging Trump and that the documents did not reveal new criminal allegations [4] [5] [3]. Mainstream reporting instead highlights Sjoberg’s broader depictions of Epstein’s network — name‑dropping Clinton, Prince Andrew and others — while noting a lack of corroborative witness testimony directly tying Trump to sexual misconduct in these filings [3] [6] [7].
5. What the record does corroborate — Epstein’s name‑dropping and social ties
Multiple sources converge on Sjoberg’s portrayal of Epstein as someone who boasted about contacts with prominent figures (she quoted Epstein saying “Clinton likes them young,” and recalled being told Epstein could “call up Trump”) and described trips and dinners where well‑known people were present [3] [7] [6]. That pattern is corroborated across outlets: the documents repeatedly show Epstein invoking or socializing with powerful people, even when the files stop short of proving those people committed crimes related to Epstein [3] [6] [7].
6. Limits of the available reporting — gaps and what’s not said
Available sources do not mention any other witness who directly corroborated Sjoberg’s specific claim that Epstein suggested visiting a Trump casino on that diverted flight, nor do they show another witness contradicting her denial of contact with Trump; mainstream coverage highlights the absence of new incriminating evidence in the files regarding Trump [2] [3]. If you seek testimony from other passengers, flight logs or contemporaneous eyewitnesses that either confirm or refute the Atlantic City anecdote or any contact with Trump, those documents are not cited in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next — documents and context that would matter
Journalists and researchers point to flight logs, contemporaneous guest lists, and other witnesses’ depositions as the pieces that would move a named reference toward corroboration or contradiction; the unsealed batch centered on victim depositions like Sjoberg’s but did not, according to reporting, produce independent evidence tying Trump to sexual misconduct [3] [2]. Future unsealing of grand jury testimony or additional documents could change that picture, but available sources do not report such corroboration as of the files these outlets reviewed [8] [7].