What exactly did Reid Hoffman and other dinner hosts say publicly about Epstein after the files were released?

1. Reid Hoffman’s core public statements: regret, revision, and calls for files

Hoffman posted that interacting with Epstein after his conviction was “something I deeply regret,” framing his interactions as tied to fundraising for MIT and promising to push for full disclosure of the documents so victims could get answers and accountability ^{[5] [2]}. After the DOJ tranche prompted scrutiny, Hoffman revised his prior timeline publicly, saying he had been mistaken about the end date of meetings with Epstein and that calendar entries showed “additional fundraising meetings in 2016 and 2018,” a correction he announced on X (formerly Twitter) ^[1]. He also explicitly urged the release of all files and prosecution of abusers, asking political leaders — including President Trump in one post — to help ensure victims received the information they sought ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Factual corrections and the limits of Hoffman’s public account

Reporting shows Hoffman moved from an earlier statement that his last meeting was in 2015 to acknowledging more meetings after reviewing calendar entries, describing some interactions as fundraising-related and even noting a Skype call in March 2018; journalists cite his posts and calendar evidence as the basis for that recalibration ^[1]. Sources also record his 2019 Axios apology acknowledging he “helped to repair [Epstein’s] reputation” and saying he was “deeply regretful,” which Hoffman reiterated in subsequent comments tied to the files release ^[2]. Public record reporting does not, however, establish additional detailed context for every meeting beyond Hoffman’s own revised admissions and the document excerpts released by the DOJ ^{[6] [7]}.

3. The public clash with Elon Musk and other hosts’ framing

The files’ release ignited a high-profile social-media feud in which Elon Musk posted that Epstein had tried to recruit him — and accused Hoffman of having gone to Epstein’s island, sharing an email screenshot to that effect — while Hoffman countered by accusing Musk of trying to attend Epstein’s “wildest parties” and called some of Musk’s accusations “disgusting” ^{[4] [8] [9]}. That public back-and-forth became a central part of media coverage, with outlets reporting both sides’ claims but also noting neither has been implicated by prosecutors in criminal wrongdoing related to Epstein ^{[4] [9]}.

4. What other named “dinner hosts” or invitees publicly said (and what remains unreported)

Coverage of the DOJ release names many tech leaders who appeared on invite lists or in emails — for example Ed Boyden’s dinner invite list included several well-known figures — but public comment from most of those named has been limited or not highlighted in the documents; reporting emphasizes that some, like Mark Zuckerberg or others, appear in records but have not issued the same kind of public, sustained statements as Hoffman or Musk in this cycle ^{[6] [2]}. Major outlets noted that some named figures issued standard denials or did not respond, and that files contain redactions and gaps that limit what can be publicly verified about attendees and the substance of dinners ^{[6] [7]}.

5. How media framed these statements and implicit agendas to watch

News organizations framed Hoffman’s messaging as a mix of apology, correction, and pressure for transparency while also spotlighting the spectacle of billionaire feuding — coverage that can shift focus from victims and prosecutorial questions to personality conflict between tech titans ^{[2] [4]}. Critics and partisan outlets seized on Hoffman's revisions as evidence of concealment, while some of Hoffman’s allies pushed his calls to “release all the files” as a genuine victims-first stance; readers should note the competing incentives: reputational defense, political positioning, and media-driven outrage all shape how these public statements were constructed and amplified ^{[3] [5] [2]}.