DOJ Releases Epstein Files: Unsubstantiated Trump Allegation Surfaces
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has published a series of previously classified investigative documents that detail specific, harrowing allegations of sexual assault involving Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The document, an official FD-302 interview summary, records a witness account of a 13-to-14-year-old girl who was allegedly forced to perform oral sex on the president in New Jersey approximately 35 years ago.FBI Interview Report Details Historic Misconduct AllegationThe United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has published a series of documents that include specific, previously suppressed FBI interview notes regarding the conduct of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Among the most discussed files is document EFTA01660679, which forms part of 'DataSet 10', a collection of investigative materials released to the public on Jan. 30, 2026. The report details an interview with a redacted individual who provided a second-hand account of a sexual assault that allegedly occurred approximately 35 years ago in New Jersey.
According to the document, the witness's friend claimed she was 'approximately 13-14 years old' at the time of the incident. This file has gained significant traction due to the visceral nature of the claims, which describe a physical altercation following a sexual act involving the president. While the document is an official government record, it is categorised by investigators as an 'unsubstantiated tip,' a distinction that means the FBI recorded the statement but did not necessarily find the corroborating evidence required to pursue criminal charges at the time.
The 'New Jersey' Encounter: A Forensic BreakdownThe text of EFTA01660679 describes a harrowing sequence of events involving an unidentified female victim and Donald Trump. The witness reported that the victim was forced to perform oral sex on Trump and that during the act, the victim 'allegedly bit President Trump'. The report further states that the victim was then 'hit in the face' after she laughed about the biting incident.The interview notes also explicitly link the victim to Jeffrey Epstein, stating that she told the witness she was 'also abused by Epstein'. This suggests a shared pool of victims between the two men, a central theme of the DOJ's racketeering investigation into Epstein's international sex trafficking ring.
DOJ review of Epstein emails finds no evidence of criminal conduct or victim contact by President Trump, releasing 3M records and thousands of media files.
DOJ/Epstein Files
It's important to note, however, that the New Jersey setting is significant, as it aligns with the timeline of Trump's ownership of various Atlantic City properties during the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, because the primary victim's name remains redacted and the source of the information is a third party, the document serves as a record of an investigative lead rather than a proven historical fact. The FBI's decision to preserve this report for decades within the 'Epstein Library' indicates it was considered relevant to the broader intelligence gathering on Epstein's associates.Transparency Mandates and the Search for CorroborationThe release of EFTA01660679 was made mandatory by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law following a bipartisan push for full disclosure of the DOJ's investigative holdings. This act required the Attorney General to make all files, regardless of whether they led to a conviction, searchable and downloadable for the public. The result has been a flood of raw investigative data that provides a window into what the FBI knew and when they knew it.
DOJ review of Epstein emails finds no evidence of criminal conduct or victim contact by President Trump, releasing 3M records and thousands of media files.
DOJ/Epstein Files
Critics of the release argue that publishing unsubstantiated tips can lead to the spread of misinformation, while proponents argue that the public has a right to see how the government handled allegations against powerful figures. In the case of the New Jersey allegation, there is no record in the currently released files of a follow-up interview with the 'unidentified friend'. This lack of a secondary interview suggests that the lead may have gone cold or that the victim was unwilling to come forward to federal agents.
The DOJ has stated that the release of 'DataSet 10' completes its legal obligation under the 2025 Act, though some lawmakers continue to call for fewer redactions. For now, the report stands as a permanent part of the federal archive, a testament to a tip that was serious enough to be recorded by the FBI but remained buried for decades.The document does not provide a verdict, but it ensures that the allegation of a 13-year-old victim in New Jersey will never be erased from the history of the Epstein investigation.
