Savannah Guthrie is in the Epstein file
Executive summary
The short answer: Savannah Guthrie’s name does appear in material connected to the latest Department of Justice release of Jeffrey Epstein documents, but only in contexts that reflect her work as a journalist and a passing reference to her husband’s former firm — not as an accused participant in Epstein’s crimes; no credible reporting alleges she engaged in wrongdoing [1] [2] [3]. The documents released by the DOJ are vast and contain many peripheral mentions that have fed online speculation; careful reading of the reporting shows mention, not accusation [4] [5].
1. What the files actually show: journalistic links and a Glover Park mention
The newly released DOJ materials include references to media interviews and to a Glover Park address; reporters have noted that Guthrie is connected to those threads because she conducted televised interviews with Epstein accusers in 2019 and because her husband, Michael Feldman, founded the Glover Park Group, which is mentioned in an email exchange captured in the files [2] [6] [7]. Multiple outlets report that Guthrie’s Dateline/NBC interviews with Virginia Giuffre and other survivors are documented in the released records and that a screenshot of an email references a woman interviewed by Guthrie — a factual link to her reporting, not an allegation of criminality [1] [7] [2].
2. What reporters and outlets are emphasizing: context, not culpability
Mainstream news organizations that reviewed the DOJ release — including NPR and BBC summaries of the situation — treat these mentions as context within a sprawling set of files that list names, addresses, emails and third‑party recollections, and they caution that inclusion in the documents does not equal guilt [4] [5]. Coverage emphasizes the scale of the release (millions of pages) and the risk that peripheral or innocuous references will be misread as evidence; survivors and lawyers also criticized the DOJ for redaction failures that further muddled who is implicated versus who is merely referenced [4] [8].
3. The online reaction: speculation amplified by a few loose mentions
Social media and several secondary outlets quickly escalated the Glover Park mention into broader claims tying Guthrie and her husband to Epstein’s network, but reporting that deconstructs those claims finds only a passing reference to the firm and no substantiated communication or conduct linking Guthrie to Epstein’s crimes [6] [3]. Fact‑checking‑oriented pieces explicitly note that mentions of names, firms, or interviews often reflect normal professional or social proximity and warn against treating those mentions as evidence — an important corrective to viral implication narratives [3].
4. What is known about Guthrie’s role covering Epstein — and why that matters
Savannah Guthrie conducted on‑air interviews with Epstein accusers in 2019 for Dateline and NBC, a documented part of her journalistic record that logically appears in investigative materials compiled about Epstein; those interviews amplified survivor testimony and are properly part of the public record that investigators and litigants collected [2] [1]. That professional role explains most legitimate reasons her name or work would surface in related documents and underscores why mere appearance in the files should not be conflated with participation in wrongdoing [1] [2].
5. Limits of the reporting and the cautious conclusion
Available reporting does not support any claim that Savannah Guthrie or Michael Feldman engaged in criminal activity tied to Epstein; credible outlets consistently frame the references as incidental or professional, and they report no allegations against Guthrie herself [3] [7]. The documents’ breadth, partial redactions, and subsequent removal of thousands of items after victims complained about privacy breaches mean that public parsing of the files is ongoing and imperfect; absent new, verified evidence, the responsible conclusion is that Guthrie appears in the Epstein files as a journalist and via an associative firm reference — not as an implicated participant [5] [8].