Epstein files show an FBI email ordering a derogatory review on Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew and others, raising fresh scrutiny as new documents are released.
Epstein files show an FBI email ordering a derogatory review [Photo: X]
A newly released tranche of the Jeffrey Epstein files has set off fresh controversy by revealing an internal FBI email directing agents to compile derogatory information on a list of influential individuals, including former President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew. The documents were made public as part of a major disclosure ordered by Congress under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the US Department of Justice to publish unclassified material related to Epstein’s case.
The email, dated July 24, 2025, instructs investigators to assemble a spreadsheet with “all the derog”, shorthand for derogatory information, on Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, and others. It also tells agents to interview Epstein’s cellmate about a jail incident in July 2019 that has long been a subject of speculation.
As millions of pages of Epstein-related records continue to roll out, this newly uncovered directive has renewed debate about what the files contain, how they were reviewed, and why certain tasks were mentioned together in the same message.
The Epstein files are a massive collection of emails, photos, videos and other documents tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in a federal jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. The files were released after Congress passed a law compelling the Department of Justice to make unclassified material publicly accessible.
This release marks one of the most expansive disclosures in modern US legal history, involving more than 3.5 million pages of material from Epstein’s communications and related investigations. While many items are heavily redacted or unverified, the huge volume and the names referenced have drawn intense public and political interest.
The FBI email at the centre of recent attention directed agents to collect “derogatory” information on multiple high-profile individuals who have documented links — personal, financial or social — to Epstein. The list reportedly included:
The email also referenced investigative tasks tied to an unresolved 2019 jail incident involving Epstein and his cellmate. Prosecutors have previously described the event as an apparent suicide attempt that could not be conclusively classified as assault or self-harm, adding historical weight to why investigators would revisit that episode.
Numerous references to Donald Trump appear throughout the newly released Epstein files, with reports indicating hundreds of mentions in emails, memos and investigative logs. While many of these mentions are routine or related to social encounters, at least one document reportedly contains unverified allegations about Trump that authorities have not corroborated.
The Department of Justice has warned that some material in the files may include false or sensationalist claims, and officials have stressed that inclusion in the archive does not equal proof of wrongdoing.
Prince Andrew continues to face scrutiny related to his past association with Epstein. Recent police inquiries in the U.K. have assessed allegations that he may have shared sensitive documents with Epstein during diplomatic roles — claims that have reignited interest in his actions and firm denials of wrongdoing.
Other emails in the files, unrelated to the FBI’s “derogatory” list, have also shed light on his interactions with Epstein, including invitations to Buckingham Palace and discussions about introductions to foreign contacts.
The release of the Epstein files has sparked a bipartisan debate over transparency, redactions and public access. Democrats in Congress have called for an urgent review of unredacted materials to ensure compliance with the law’s requirements, arguing that redactions should protect only legally sensitive content rather than hide politically embarrassing information.
Officials have acknowledged that only a fraction of the total material has been made public so far, with critics questioning the pace and curation of the releases. Millions of files remain inaccessible or heavily redacted, fueling frustration among journalists, lawmakers and the public.
While none of the newly released files has yet led to criminal charges tied to Epstein’s associates, the presence of high-profile names and investigative directives like the FBI email has reignited scrutiny of elite connections with Epstein’s network. Legal experts caution that the public should distinguish between unverified claims, routine investigative practice and proven misconduct.
The ongoing drip of documents ensures that Epstein’s legacy — and the reputations of those associated with him — could remain a topic of public interest and debate for years to come.
