Which news organizations and investigative projects are maintaining databases of names extracted from the Epstein files?
Executive summary
Multiple news organizations and investigative teams are actively trawling the Department of Justice’s newly published Epstein files and publishing name-driven reporting, and several outlets have built searchable write‑ups or trackers—while the DOJ itself hosts the primary repository of documents [1] [2]. Reporting shows BBC, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, The Guardian, The New York Times and NBC News among the outlets that have compiled lists or searchable coverage of names, but public, centralized “name databases” are largely newsroom projects built on the DOJ dump rather than independent official registries [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. Who holds the original files: the DOJ repository
The Department of Justice is the canonical source: it has published millions of pages, images and videos tied to the Epstein investigations and is the document hub reporters are mining (the DOJ’s Epstein library and press materials describe millions of responsive pages being posted) [1] [2] [9]. Any newsroom database or list of names must be understood as a secondary product—an interpretation or extraction—built on the DOJ’s corpus rather than an authoritative roster of wrongdoing [9].
2. Newsrooms that have produced lists or trackers
Several major outlets have produced searchable articles or list-style reporting that function as de facto name databases: the BBC ran “Who is in the Epstein files?” and flagged named individuals and images surfaced in the release (while explicitly noting that appearance in the files is not proof of wrongdoing) [3] [10]. CBS News deployed a team to examine the DOJ datasets and published ongoing highlights and data pulls from the repository, effectively serving as a newsroom database for notable appearances [4]. PBS NewsHour and NBC News likewise sifted the materials and published compilations of names and key connections unearthed in the files [5] [8]. The Guardian and The New York Times offered deep-dive guides and curated lists of notable names and documents, functions that readers use as searchable inventories of who appears where in the materials [6] [7].
3. Local and specialty outlets doing name-focused work
Regional and specialized outlets also contribute curated name catalogs and context: public‑radio and local investigative outlets such as OPB documented redaction inconsistencies and surfaced specific name appearances in their explanatory pieces, effectively creating smaller-scale databases or annotated lists from the DOJ dump [11]. Wikipedia and other public compilations have aggregated reporting and public records into syntheses labeled “Epstein files,” though these are encyclopedic summaries built off journalistic and official sources rather than primary searchable databases [12].
4. What exactly these “databases” are — and their limits
Across the reporting, what outlets call databases or trackers are newsroom-built, searchable presentations of the DOJ files and journalistic extractions; none of the cited sources presents an independent, legally authoritative roster that equates appearance in a document with criminality [3] [4]. Newsrooms repeatedly warn readers that the materials include names mentioned in passing, redacted or duplicated records, and that appearance in the files is not proof of misconduct—an important caveat the BBC and other outlets emphasize [3] [11]. The DOJ release itself contains duplicate threads, uneven redactions, and material not directly tied to prosecutions, which complicates any attempt to turn name mentions into a clean database of culpability [11] [9].
5. Practical takeaway and transparency tensions
For anyone seeking a consolidated “database of names,” the practical reality is that the DOJ repository is the original source and major newsrooms—BBC, CBS News, PBS, The Guardian, The New York Times, NBC and regional outlets like OPB—have produced searchable, name-focused reporting and trackers based on those documents; those newsroom products are the closest thing publicly available to curated name databases, but they are editorially driven and come with the limits and caveats described in the reporting [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [11]. Where the sources do not specify a single consolidated public database maintained independently of newsrooms and DOJ, reporting does not support asserting one exists beyond these journalistic projects and the government repository [1] [2].