Are there verified video or print interviews of Katie Johnson between 2016 and 2025?

1. What the core sources agree on: a 2016 civil filing and legal publicity efforts

Major accounts trace the public origin of “Katie Johnson” to a 2016 civil complaint alleging sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, and they describe legal maneuvers and publicity plans — notably that Lisa Bloom at one point represented or planned to represent the plaintiff and scheduled a press appearance in October 2016 — facts reported in post‑2019 and 2025 coverage ^{[1] [2]}.

2. On‑camera appearance claims: reported, but thinly sourced and contested

Some outlets and later commentary assert that the woman using the pseudonym appeared on camera in a wig to make allegations, and that a still frame or short video clip has circulated online; however, those claims in the provided reporting are either from opinion pieces or social posts and are not presented with a clear chain of custody or a primary news organization’s authenticated video clip in the materials supplied here ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Print interviews and transcripts: absence of a clear, verifiable trail in these sources

The corpus reviewed does not include a contemporaneous, verified print interview — such as a published magazine Q&A or newsroom feature quoting the plaintiff at length — between 2016 and 2025; court filings and summaries of allegations exist and are cited by multiple outlets, but those are legal documents rather than media interviews attributed to the claimant in her own voice in a verifiable published interview ^{[1] [2]}.

4. The murky zone: social media, still frames, and later reawakening of interest

By 2025, renewed interest and assorted outlets reexamining the case point to a still frame and viral posts that claim video testimony exists, but the reporting available here notes that such material is circulating online rather than being authenticated by major newsrooms — a distinction that matters for verification ^[3]. A 2025 podcast and investigative pieces revisit the controversy and cite interviews with attorneys and researchers, but those sources generally interview lawyers, journalists, or commentators rather than publishing a verified, on‑the‑record interview with the person using the Katie Johnson pseudonym ^{[4] [2]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and potential agendas in the record

Coverage of Katie Johnson has been heavily politicized: some pieces treat the claimant as a real, named plaintiff whose allegations merit scrutiny and journalistic follow‑up, while other commentators frame the episode as potentially fabricated or manipulated for political ends; opinion and local commentary sometimes conflate social posts, court filings and unverified video stills, which creates incentives for sensational claims that outpace verification ^{[3] [2]}. Reporting that leans on conjecture or amplifies viral clips without newsroom authentication should be read as possibly serving partisan narratives rather than resolving the empirical question of whether verifiable interviews exist.

6. Bottom line and limits of this review

Based on the set of sources provided, there is no conclusive, independently authenticated record in mainstream reporting of a verified, on‑camera or print interview by Katie Johnson between 2016 and 2025; the available items instead document the lawsuit, counsel announcements and later circulation of imagery and claims that have not been uniformly authenticated by primary news outlets in these excerpts ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If additional primary materials (e.g., a dated newsroom video archive, a signed on‑the‑record print Q&A, or authenticated deposition footage) are available elsewhere, they were not included in the supplied reporting and therefore could not be verified here.