Which specific flight logs in the Epstein files list Donald Trump and what dates and routes do they show?
Executive summary
The documents released by the U.S. Justice Department include an internal prosecutor email saying Donald Trump appears as a passenger on Epstein flight logs "at least eight times" between 1993 and 1996, but the publicly reported material contains only a handful of specific, legible entries — the clearest being a 13 August 1995 flight from Palm Beach International (PBI) to Teterboro (TEB) that lists Donald Trump and his son Eric (as reported by the BBC and visible in the DOJ release) [1] [2]. Journalists and official summaries repeatedly emphasize the count and general time window rather than a full, authoritative list of dates and routings in the released pages [3] [4].
1. The prosecutor’s email: a headline number, a narrow time window
An assistant U.S. attorney’s January 7, 2020 email, included in the DOJ’s public tranche, states that flight records received by prosecutors showed Trump was listed on Epstein’s private jet "at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996," and that at least four of those flights also included Ghislaine Maxwell; the memo framed the finding as situational awareness for prosecutors rather than as an allegation of criminal conduct [2] [3] [4].
2. The one clear, cited route: PBI to TEB on 13 August 1995
Among the materials highlighted by multiple outlets and reproduced from the release, one flight manifests that is cited explicitly by the BBC lists Donald Trump — and his son Eric — on a 13 August 1995 trip from Palm Beach International Airport (PBI) to Teterboro Airport (TEB) in New Jersey; that entry is the most specific date-and-route reported in the published coverage referencing the DOJ files [1].
3. Other specific entries reported: a 1993 two-passenger flight and a three-passenger flight with a redacted 20‑year‑old
News organizations that combed the release identified other notable but less fully specified entries: one 1993 flight where the flight log ostensibly lists only Epstein and Trump as passengers, and another flight where the only three listed passengers were Epstein, Trump and a then-20-year-old whose name was redacted — these entries are cited in reporting but full log images, legibility problems, or redactions limit confirmation of precise dates and routings in the public set [4] [5] [6].
4. Why a complete roster of dates and routes is not presented in the public reporting
Multiple outlets note that the DOJ release is voluminous, that many flight-log pages are handwritten and difficult to read, and that the prosecutor’s email summarized findings rather than publishing a clean, itemized itinerary listing every date and airport pairing for Trump [1] [2] [3]. The department also warned that some released documents contained unverified or false material and that not everything in the tranche should be treated as established fact [7].
5. What can and cannot be concluded from the publicly released files
From the released materials as reported, the defensible conclusions are limited: the prosecutor’s contemporaneous note documents names appearing on flight records and asserts at least eight entries for Trump between 1993–1996, and at least one specific leg — PBI to TEB on 13 August 1995 — has been cited explicitly [2] [1]. Beyond that, the public coverage and posted exhibits highlight several suggestive entries (a 1993 two‑passenger flight; the three‑passenger flight with a redacted 20‑year‑old) but do not provide an unambiguous, fully transcribed, date-by-date itinerary that would allow an independent, exhaustive list of every date and route [4] [5].
6. Competing narratives and the limits of the available evidence
Media and political actors parse the same sources differently: some coverage stresses the prosecutor’s surprise and the potential significance of repeated appearances on the logs, while other outlets and the DOJ caution that raw inclusions on a manifest are not itself proof of wrongdoing and that the release contains unverified or sensational items [3] [7] [8]. Reporting therefore responsibly centers on the documented count and the few explicitly cited entries, and it leaves open what fuller or clearer logs — if published and legible — might show [2] [1].