Are Biden and Obama in the Epstein files
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting shows no evidence that Presidents Barack Obama or Joe Biden “created” or were responsible for the investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein; the two main federal investigations occurred in 2006–08 and in 2019, during the George W. Bush and Donald Trump eras [1] [2]. Claims that Obama or Biden “made up” the files are disputed in contemporaneous fact‑checks and news coverage and rest largely on political rhetoric rather than released DOJ records [3] [1].
1. What the timeline of federal probes actually says
The FBI’s documented federal investigations of Epstein took place primarily around 2006–2008 and again in 2019; those windows fall under the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations rather than during Obama’s or Biden’s presidencies, a timeline established in reporting and fact checks [1] [2]. James Comey was not FBI director when the first probe began (he was in the private sector until 2013), which undercuts claims that he “made up” the files at that time [1].
2. Political claims vs. document reality
Former President Trump has asserted publicly that the files were “made up” by Comey, Obama and Biden; multiple outlets — including Poynter and PBS — analyzed the timeline and concluded the claim does not align with the record of when investigations occurred [1] [2]. PolitiFact similarly concluded presidents Obama and Biden did not invent the documents, noting the investigations’ timing and available court records [3].
3. Why some documents were withheld during Biden’s term
Journalists and investigators have explained that material remained sealed or unreleased during the Biden administration for legal reasons, including ongoing grand‑jury processes and appeals tied to related prosecutions, not necessarily executive concealment [4] [5]. Reporter Julie K. Brown and other commentators pointed to open grand juries and active investigations as routine constraints on disclosure [4].
4. What has been released and what remains sensitive
A mix of materials has already entered the public record through litigation, congressional releases and estate disclosures — for example, House committees released thousands of images and messages from Epstein’s estate — while the Justice Department also faces legislative and judicial pressure to unseal grand‑jury transcripts and other files by a mandated deadline [6] [7]. Coverage notes the DOJ had produced tens of thousands of pages to congressional committees even as judges weigh additional unsealing motions [8] [7].
5. How partisan framing has shaped public perception
The dispute over the files has been highly politicized: Republican and conservative figures have demanded release and suggested partisan coverups, while Democrats have put out material from the estate and emphasized oversight; both sides frame the revelations to score political points [9] [6]. Reporting by PBS and Variety records Trump’s public narrative blaming political opponents, while outlets and fact‑checkers point to factual mismatches in that narrative [2] [10].
6. Limits of current reporting and open questions
Available sources do not provide a publicly released, complete, unredacted list of every person named in the DOJ’s investigative files as of this writing; courts and Congress are still processing motions and statutory deadlines related to those records [7] [8]. Important context — such as exactly which names appear in sealed grand‑jury materials versus estate documents — remains unsettled in the public record [11] [8].
7. Bottom line for readers
Contemporary fact‑checking and timeline analysis conclude Obama and Biden did not “make up” Epstein’s investigative files; the most credible accounts place the central federal investigations outside their administrations and attribute enduring secrecy largely to legal processes and pending disclosures, not presidential fabrication [1] [3]. Readers should distinguish between politically charged assertions in public statements and the documented sequence of investigations and court proceedings [2] [4].