DOJ Briefly Removed Epstein File Showing Maxwell Has Trump Accuser Interviews, Report Says
A Justice Department record tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation was briefly removed from the public Epstein files repository and then restored after investigative reporter Roger Sollenberger flagged its disappearance — a move that raises new questions about transparency and access to sensitive material.
The deletion and restoration of a DOJ record matter because, according to Sollenberger, the document appears to show that the FBI conducted four interviews with a woman who told authorities Donald Trump sexually assaulted her as a child, but only one of those interviews is available in the publicly released Epstein files.
Sollenberger’s report says the restored document is effectively an evidence catalogue from the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell showing those interviews were provided to Maxwell’s defense team as part of pre-trial discovery in 2021.
Related: YouGov Poll Finds 50% Believe Trump Was Involved in Epstein Crimes
The reason the record was briefly deleted — and why it was put back online — is not explained by the Department of Justice. There is no independent confirmation of the content of the unreleased interviews beyond what the record implies. The DOJ has not publicly addressed whether the additional interviews were withheld for victim privacy, legal restrictions, or other reasons.
“It’s unclear why the DOJ deleted the document in the first place …” Sollenberger wrote, noting that the relevant information appears the same after restoration.
If the additional interviews contain material of public interest, critics argue that the public should have access under the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed into law in 2025, which requires DOJ to make Epstein-related documents available in a searchable format.
Related: DOJ Scrubs FBI Interview Record Tied to Underage Trump Accuser in Epstein Files
The incident has sparked debate about what remains undisclosed in the massive Epstein archive and how the Justice Department balances victim privacy against transparency. The missing interviews’ contents could answer whether the document truly holds material of consequence or whether administrative error explains the brief removal.
In the coming days, watchdog groups and lawmakers may press for clarity on why the document was taken down and whether the remaining interviews should be released to the public, promising further scrutiny of the government’s handling of Epstein-related evidence.
Related: Massie Blasts Trump as “Epstein Administration” in Fiery ABC Interview