BREAKING: Trump-related files missing from DOJ's Epstein file release

Can we begin with breaking news from MSNOW this hour about Trump related files missing from the DOJ's Epstein files release. Let's bring in MSNOW senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin, who broke this story. Also with us, our senior White House reporter, Von Hilliard, and MSNOW legal analyst, former Manhattan DA assistant, assistant DA, that is, Catherine Christian.

And Lisa, you got this reporting. Walk us through it.

Well, Ana, one of the things I can tell you is that based on documents that are available in the Epstein files, and we're just going to hold up to you, what allowed us to get to this reporting. This is an index of witness statements from people who were not expected to testify at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, but whose statements were nonetheless produced to her defense counsel in the run up to her 2021 trial.

We also have a smaller one with respect to those who were expected to testify. And based on those indices, as well as documents available in the file, MSNOW can report that there is at least one witness for whom three interviews with the FBI in rapid succession in 2019 are missing. You might say, well, what's the big deal about that? Well, the big deal about that is that we can also confirm that that woman is the same person

who in a 2025 FBI presentation is identified to have accused Donald Trump of a sexual assault when she was between 13 and 15 years old. We know that based on a human source who has confirmed to us that this woman is one in the same. So I want to make this very clear. There is a woman who, according to the FBI and documents compiled last summer, accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting and physically abusing her. One of the things in her accusation is that in addition to forcing

her to perform oral sex, he also hit her in that same episode. We have now connected that woman to someone who was interviewed by the FBI four times in 2019. Of those four interview memoranda, which are listed in this index that I'm holding up right here, only one of them can be seen. And in that interview, the accusations against Trump are not present.

At the most, she says that she had met Trump on one occasion without detailing it. And when asked how she understood that Epstein was a person who committed abuse against her, she showed FBI agents a picture that she had been sent by a friend.

It was a picture that she was reluctant to share with FBI agents because there was somebody else in the photograph. It turned out to be, according to this interview memo, a well-known photograph of Epstein and Trump together. She said that she was reluctant to show them the full image, lest she incriminate someone

that she feared could retaliate against her. That's all that we know from what's publicly available in the files. But we know that this woman had other accusations against Trump. Where they are listed or where they've been memorialized, we're not sure, but we can tell you and our viewers that there are three other interview memoranda

taken by the FBI that are not present anywhere in the Epstein files. And this is a problem that we expect may have recurred with dozens of other witnesses whose files may not have been produced in their totality. Again, this index gives a unique numerical identifier to more than 500 witnesses and

lists in numerical order the kinds of documents from which their statements were taken. Everything from FBI interview memos to Palm Beach police incident reports to handwritten notes and the like. Going through those methodically, you can see as a lay person or as a reporter what has been produced in the files and what hasn't. And it's our expectation and understanding that there are many other instances in which witnesses, many of whom

were alleged victims, don't have all of their statements produced. If these were important enough to give to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense, it's unclear to me what the rationale is for withholding them from the American public, particularly given the text of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. What's the rationale given by the DOJ? Have they given any reason for withholding these documents?

MSNOW has not yet obtained a statement from the Department of Justice. However, NPR, which was the first to report on this this morning, has obtained a statement from the White House in which they haven't defended the lack of transparency with respect to these three interview memoranda. Instead, they have fallen back on their defense that Donald Trump is the most transparent president

in history, that he has fully committed to producing documents in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That's a defense that rings hollow to many of us who have been through these files and have seen not only over-redaction

with respect to some suspects, under, I'm sorry, not suspects, over-redaction with respect to some individuals, under-redaction with respect to survivors, and now inexplicable withholding of documents. So, Catherine, does this appear to be a violation of the Epstein Transparency Act?

It is, if the purpose of withholding it was for reputational harm, meaning of the President of the United States, because that is an explicitly prohibited ground for withholding a document. Were these documents even produced?

Were they taken out by someone in the FBI or DOJ? You know, we know that hundreds of AUSAs and other members of DOJ were looking at these files and redacting. Were they even given those documents? So it's very suspicious. And it goes back to the Florida prosecution, which was being considered very corrupt, where

there was a non-prosecution agreement given to Mr. Epstein by the then United States Attorney in the sub-Missouca, Florida. I'm assuming these alleged acts occurred in Florida. So it's very problematic.

But if this was part of a 2019 document or some kind of report that happened as recently as 2019 do we have any idea where

this report went? We don't. I will say that this particular where it comes to the Trump accuser who's at the center of our documenting these missing documents. She was interviewed by the FBI in 2019. The alleged abuse by Epstein didn't occur in either Florida or New York. It was somewhere else entirely. But we don't know where these went. And I want to say something about how we know the pages are missing and who might have seen them.

Because based on NPR's reporting, many of these documents, and I think some of our viewers are familiar with this, they have a number at the very bottom that starts with EFTA for Epstein Files Transparency Act and then has a number. That number has a meaning. It's basically a consecutive numbering of pages of a production so that each page has

its own unique identifier. NPR basically looked then at the index, compared it to what was produced for this particular witness and her statements and has by comparing those page numbers has counted 50 plus pages that they believe are missing that correspond to these three interview memoranda. We have not independently done that ourselves, but I trust that if we were to go through that exercise, they're probably not far off the mark that there are 50 pages that you

would expect to be produced in consecutive order that are missing from this. We can tell you that this particular victim witness had 15 documents that are supposedly reflective of her statements. We as well as NPR, as well as another independent journalist, have all looked for each of those 15 documents, and all of us collectively have found only seven of those 15. Again, all 15 of them are reflective of statements that she made either to federal law enforcement,

to state police via email, but they are all supposed to be reflective of her accounting of events in one way or another. And yet more than half of the documents that are supposedly attributable to this person are missing, including three memoranda prepared by the FBI reflecting interviews that they conducted with her in fall and winter of I'm sorry, in the fall and summer of 2019. So what I think is also very important to underscore here is that not all of her interview

files are missing. It's just some of the interview files, right?

Well, most. It's in most, because we know that this woman gave four interviews to the FBI, at least according to this index. Only one of those interview memoranda has been shared with the public. That interview doesn't contain any of her apparent allegations against Donald Trump, and yet we know that she has made them.

How do we know that? Because the FBI's own internal correspondence and a presentation that they put together in the summer of 2025 reflects that this woman is also the same person who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her. Where she said that, to whom she said that, we still don't know because three of her interview memoranda are missing from the public production of the files. Let me go to Vaughn because we are just hours away now from the president delivering his

State of the Union address. Vaughn and several Epstein survivors and their families will be in that audience.

Will he acknowledge them or even the release of the files more generally?

There is no reason to believe that he will. And none of the preview that has come out of this White House of his State of the Union address has indicated any desire to address the Epstein survivors or the Epstein files. And let's be very clear. Number one, there has not been a single time in which President Trump has expressed sympathy

or regret on behalf of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Number two, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is no longer in Congress, she will not be there tonight, largely in part to Donald Trump calling her a traitor, because she was key to that discharge petition that led to the release of these very files. And Marjorie Taylor Greene has explicitly said that Donald Trump, the sitting president,

tried to pressure her to not have these files released to the public, saying in part, according to Greene, that they would hurt some of his friends. Number three, when it pertains to this new reporting here from Lisa, I think it's very important that we go back

to just three weeks ago, when these initial files were released by the Department of Justice, that the DOJ, at an official press release, stated the following, some of the documentation documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.

That was the official statement of this Department of Justice. And now Lisa has gone through these documents, but I think it is important in our reporting that there is, based off of the documents that are available, and those that are clearly have not been released to the public, there has been no indication—and I'll let Lisa have not been released to the public, there has been no indication—and I'll let Lisa correct me—that this particular witness was ever deemed by the FBI or the Department