What flight logs or travel records link Bill Clinton to Epstein's properties?
Executive summary
Flight logs and travel records unsealed from Jeffrey Epstein’s files and reported by multiple outlets show former President Bill Clinton was a listed passenger on Epstein-owned aircraft during the early 2000s—principally in 2002–2003—but the same records do not show Clinton traveling to Epstein’s private Caribbean island and often do not specify the purpose of trips; Clinton’s team says those flights were for foundation work and that he cut ties years earlier [1] [2] [3].
1. What the flight logs actually say about Clinton's presence on Epstein's planes
Documents made public in litigation and media reporting show Clinton’s name appears repeatedly in Epstein pilot logs covering flights between roughly 2001 and 2003, with contemporary reporting counting trips variously as 17 flights tied to foundation-related tours or as higher tallies when counting individual legs—reports cite figures such as 17 and 26–27 depending on how stops are counted [1] [4] [2] [3].
2. Where those flights went — and crucially where they did not
The unsealed logs and subsequent media analyses place Clinton on Epstein jets to a variety of international destinations across several trips in 2002–2003 (including Africa and Asia in contemporaneous accounts), but multiple reputable fact-checks and news outlets report that none of the flight logs list Clinton as a passenger on flights bound for Epstein’s Virgin Islands island, and the Secret Service has said there is no evidence he visited Little Saint James [4] [2] [3].
3. Secret Service presence and ambiguity in the records
Clinton’s spokespersons have long maintained that the trips took place with staff and Secret Service protection and were related to Clinton Foundation work; the logs themselves sometimes omit explicit Secret Service notation—reports note at least some 2002 Asia-leg entries lacked agents on the manifest, which leaves open questions about record completeness and context but does not by itself prove wrongdoing [2] [4].
4. How many flights — disputes over tallying and interpretation
Different outlets and political actors cite different counts—some reporting “more than two dozen” or “27 times” and others citing 17 or 26 flights—because counts vary depending on whether each takeoff/landing leg is tallied separately and on which log versions reporters consult; this variance is part of why investigators and opponents point to the logs while Clinton’s team emphasizes the limited, noncriminal context they assert [5] [6] [4] [2].
5. Photographs and other travel-related material released by government files
Beyond pilot logs, batches of documents and images released under the Epstein Files transparency efforts include photographs showing Epstein and Clinton traveling together or in social settings, material now used by Congressional investigators and media to establish association though the images do not prove participation in crimes nor that Clinton visited Epstein’s island [7] [8].
6. Political theater, investigations, and competing narratives
Republican investigators have used flight logs and White House visitor assertions to press for depositions and sometimes accuse the Clintons of withholding information—claims such as Epstein visiting the White House “17 times” while Clinton was president are part of GOP lines in oversight fights—while Clinton’s camp counters that the trips were limited, documented, and unrelated to Epstein’s crimes, framing committee demands as partisan [6] [7] [9].
7. Limits of available records and what remains unresolved
The public record—unsealed pilot logs, photographs, and court filings—establishes Clinton’s documented presence on Epstein aircraft during specific 2002–2003 trips, but the logs do not state reasons for travel, cannot by themselves confirm who else was onboard at each leg, and (by multiple fact-checks and media reports) show no logged Virgin Islands flights for Clinton; therefore the available travel records link Clinton to Epstein’s planes but not to visits to Epstein’s private island or to criminal acts, and further clarification would require fuller primary-source release or sworn testimony [1] [3] [4].