Alan Garten
Snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Alan Gary Garten |
| Profession | Attorney and corporate legal executive |
| Organization | The Trump Organization |
| Professional Position | Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, previously General Counsel |
| Trump Organization Employment | Since December 2006 |
| Epstein-Related Records | October 2009 attorney correspondence and public responses to 2016 civil allegations involving Trump and Epstein |
| Associated Figures | Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, Brad Edwards, and civil litigants |
| Principal Evidence | October 14, 2009 Goldberger email, congressional disclosure and reporting in 2026, 2016 civil filings, and contemporary reporting of Garten’s responses |
| Legal Status | The reviewed sources do not establish that Garten was charged with or convicted of participating in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking crimes. |
Alan Garten, a longtime attorney and senior legal executive for the Trump Organization, appears in records relevant to the history of Donald Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and subsequent litigation involving allegations against both men.
Two distinct documentary episodes make Garten important to Epstein research. The first concerns an October 2009 email written by Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger describing discussions with Trump’s attorney and an alternative to a deposition. The second concerns Garten’s public responses to civil allegations filed against Trump and Epstein in 2016.
These episodes took place years apart and involved different legal questions. They should not be combined into a single event or treated as evidence of a continuous legal strategy without supporting records.
The 2009 email became especially significant in 2026, when lawmakers examined a version that contained more information than the heavily redacted document released publicly. The newly discussed material raised questions about the circumstances under which Epstein stopped visiting Mar-a-Lago and about differing descriptions of Trump’s past relationship with Epstein.
Garten’s role in these records was as an attorney representing Trump or the Trump Organization. His legal representation and public statements do not establish that he participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse, knew about particular offenses, or assisted in trafficking.
Key Takeaways
- Alan Garten joined the Trump Organization’s legal department in December 2006 and later became its General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer.
- A 2009 email written by Jeffrey Epstein’s attorney Jack Goldberger identifies Garten as Trump’s attorney.
- The email reports that Garten arranged a telephone conference involving Trump and an attorney identified as Brad in place of a deposition.
- The publicly released version contained substantial redactions, and members of Congress reviewed additional text in 2026.
- In March 2026, Representative Dan Goldman publicized language suggesting that Epstein had not been asked to leave Mar-a-Lago.
- That account differs from later statements that Trump removed Epstein from the club. The precise membership and departure history remains a separate documentary question.
- In 2016, Garten publicly disputed civil allegations accusing Trump and Epstein of sexually abusing a minor.
- The 2016 litigation ended without an adjudication establishing whether the allegations were true.
- Nothing in the identified material establishes that Garten participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking crimes.
Professional Background
Education and legal career
Alan Gary Garten earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and a law degree from Hofstra University School of Law.
He practiced law at Bryan Cave LLP before joining the Trump Organization in December 2006.
A 2015 sworn deposition in a trademark proceeding documents his employment history and his responsibilities as the organization’s General Counsel.
His professional biography, reproduced in 2025 corporate filing materials, also identifies him as Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of the Trump Organization.
Responsibilities at the Trump Organization
Garten’s responsibilities have included commercial litigation, transactions, employment issues, regulatory matters, intellectual property, and legal strategy.
These responsibilities explain why he could appear in records involving Trump business interests, civil litigation, or requests for testimony.
Such representation does not make an attorney a participant in the underlying actions being investigated.
October 14, 2009: The Goldberger Email
A communication involving Epstein’s attorney
One of the most consequential records identifying Garten is an email dated October 14, 2009, written by attorney Jack Goldberger to Jeffrey Epstein.
The email carried the subject line “Trump.”
Goldberger described having spoken with Alan Garten, identifying him as Trump’s attorney.
According to the February 2026 ABC News examination of the released record, Goldberger stated that Garten arranged a 20-minute telephone conference involving Trump and a person identified as Brad as an alternative to a deposition.
The email was subsequently forwarded by Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell.
The email is significant because it documents a legal communication involving representatives of Epstein and Trump after Epstein’s Florida conviction.
What was the purpose of the conversation?
The wording indicates that the telephone conference was arranged in place of a deposition.
A deposition is a formal process for obtaining sworn testimony, usually as part of civil litigation.
Attorneys sometimes negotiate alternatives to a deposition, including informal interviews or telephone conferences, depending on the circumstances.
The reference to Brad has been widely understood as referring to attorney Brad Edwards, who represented Epstein survivors. However, the publicly quoted excerpt uses only the first name, so a complete identity determination should be supported by the underlying litigation records.
The existence of the call, as reported by Goldberger, does not itself establish that a deposition was legally waived, what everyone said, or whether any person was under oath.
The Redacted Email and the 2026 Disclosure Dispute
The public version
When the Department of Justice released the October 2009 email in 2026, much of its substantive content was concealed by redactions.
The publicly visible portion identified Garten and described the telephone conference.
However, the detailed discussion summarized by Goldberger was not initially available to ordinary readers of the released document.
In February 2026, ABC News reported that members of Congress had reviewed the unredacted material.
The disagreement over these redactions became part of a broader congressional debate about the completeness and transparency of the released Epstein records.
The government’s explanation
The Department of Justice defended redactions involving privileged material.
Attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.
Whether a particular passage is legally privileged depends on the participants, the purpose of the communication, confidentiality, and other circumstances.
The mere fact that attorneys are mentioned in an email does not automatically establish privilege over the entire document.
Congressional objections
Members of Congress questioned why portions of the email had been concealed.
During a June 2026 congressional hearing, Representative Madeleine Dean discussed the October 2009 email and challenged the explanation that the withheld contents were privileged.
Her objection was a position taken during congressional oversight, not a judicial finding that the redactions violated the law.
The August 11, 2026 CNN interview provides additional reporting about Dean’s review of the document.
March 2026: The Mar-a-Lago Dispute
The version presented by Representative Dan Goldman
On March 18, 2026, Representative Dan Goldman publicly displayed text from a less-redacted version of the October 2009 email.
According to WhoWhatWhy’s reporting on the disclosure, the email summarized an account that Epstein had not been a Mar-a-Lago member and had not been asked to leave.
Additional reporting described the account as inconsistent with later public statements that Trump had removed Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.
The distinction is historically important because the circumstances surrounding the end of Trump’s association with Epstein have been described differently over time.
What the email establishes
The document provides a contemporaneous account written by Epstein’s attorney of information reportedly discussed during a 2009 legal conversation.
It is not an official Mar-a-Lago membership record, an expulsion notice, or a sworn judicial finding about Epstein’s departure from the club.
Nor does it independently establish that every statement attributed to the participants was accurate.
The email is evidence of what Goldberger reported, and its contents should be compared with membership records, other testimony, and statements made by the people involved.
Why the distinction matters
Being formally expelled from a private club is different from being asked informally to stop visiting, ending a membership voluntarily, or ceasing contact with the club’s owner.
Those possibilities should not be treated as interchangeable.
The 2009 account creates an important point of comparison with Trump’s later explanation of how his relationship with Epstein ended.
However, discrepancies between historical accounts do not automatically establish a criminal offense or demonstrate that Garten knowingly made false representations.
The 2016 Civil Lawsuits Naming Trump and Epstein
The allegations
In 2016, civil complaints were filed alleging that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted a girl who was approximately 13 years old at the time of the alleged events.
The allegations were made under pseudonyms in a series of related filings.
The complaints described alleged events from the 1990s. They did not result in a trial establishing the truth of those allegations.
These cases are important to Garten’s profile because he publicly responded to the accusations while representing Trump’s interests.
Garten’s response
In July 2016, The Guardian reported Garten’s rejection of the allegations.
Garten described the lawsuit as fabricated and politically motivated.
He also challenged the circumstances surrounding the complaint and questioned the credibility of the allegations and people promoting them.
These were statements made by Trump’s attorney in response to litigation. They should be reported as attributed denials rather than adopted as independently established findings.
The procedural outcome
The California complaint was dismissed after the court found defects in the legal claims asserted.
Related New York litigation was subsequently withdrawn.
As Courthouse News reported in November 2016, the later lawsuit ended without a trial.
The procedural outcomes are not equivalent to a court determination that the alleged abuse occurred.
They also do not establish that the allegations were false.
For survivor-centered reporting, this distinction is essential. Allegations, denials, procedural dismissals, and findings after an evidentiary hearing are different categories of information.
Are the 2009 and 2016 Matters Connected?
Both matters involve Garten acting in a legal capacity concerning Trump and Epstein-related questions.
However, they concern different proceedings and were separated by approximately seven years.
The October 2009 correspondence describes an arrangement involving a telephone conference as an alternative to a deposition in the context of Epstein-related litigation.
The 2016 matters concerned new civil allegations against Trump and Epstein.
No reviewed document establishes that Garten’s handling of the 2016 allegations was part of a legal arrangement that began in 2009.
The two episodes should therefore remain separate in the evidentiary chronology.
The common factor is Garten’s role as a legal representative, not proof of a single coordinated effort.
Garten’s Role Compared With Epstein’s Defense Attorneys
It is important to distinguish Garten from attorneys who represented Jeffrey Epstein directly.
Jack Goldberger was an attorney for Epstein and authored the October 2009 email.
Garten was identified in that correspondence as Trump’s attorney.
Those are different client relationships.
The email does not establish that Garten represented Epstein, joined Epstein’s criminal defense team, or advised Epstein about his Florida non-prosecution agreement.
Similarly, Garten’s response to the 2016 complaint concerned allegations against Trump in litigation also naming Epstein. It does not make Garten Epstein’s personal attorney.
Accurate identification of each lawyer’s client is necessary to avoid misrepresenting professional responsibilities.
Documented Timeline
| Date | Documented Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| December 2006 | Garten joins the Trump Organization. | Corporate biography |
| October 14, 2009 | Goldberger sends Epstein an email describing contact with Garten and a telephone conference arranged in place of a deposition. | ABC News |
| 2015 | Garten gives sworn testimony describing his Trump Organization legal responsibilities. | Deposition record |
| July 2016 | Garten publicly rejects allegations in civil litigation naming Trump and Epstein. | The Guardian |
| November 2016 | Related New York litigation ends by voluntary dismissal without a trial. | Courthouse News |
| February 2026 | ABC News reports on the redacted October 2009 email and congressional review. | ABC News |
| March 18, 2026 | Representative Goldman publicly presents additional text from the 2009 email. | WhoWhatWhy |
| June 2026 | Representative Dean questions the redactions during congressional oversight. | CNN follow-up |
Evidence Appearances
The principal Epstein-related documentary lead is the October 14, 2009 email. Its exact EFTA identifier should be confirmed against the original released page before assigning a number. The record is identified here by its date, author, recipient, and subject rather than an unverified document number.
| Record or ID | Date | What It Shows | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldberger email, subject “Trump” | October 14, 2009 | Reports that Garten arranged a telephone conference as an alternative to a deposition. Original EFTA number not independently established. | ABC News examination |
| Congressional disclosure of additional text | March 18, 2026 | Reveals portions of the 2009 email concerning Epstein and Mar-a-Lago, as presented by Representative Goldman. | Reporting |
| 2016 civil proceedings | 2016 | Public denials by Garten and later voluntary dismissal of related litigation. | Courthouse News |
Limitations and Unresolved Questions
Several issues require additional documentary examination before the scope of Garten’s Epstein-related involvement can be described as comprehensively established.
- What is the original EFTA identifier for the October 14, 2009 Goldberger email?
- What surrounding messages preceded and followed that correspondence?
- Does the complete record identify Brad as attorney Brad Edwards?
- Was the 2009 telephone conference recorded or summarized in other contemporaneous notes?
- What original membership or club records clarify the circumstances of Epstein’s departure from Mar-a-Lago?
- Were the disputed 2009 redactions consistent with applicable legal requirements?
- Do any additional filings document Garten’s direct involvement in the 2016 proceedings beyond public statements?
- Do released records establish any separate communications between Garten and Epstein outside the identified legal matters?
None of these unresolved questions should be interpreted as proof of undisclosed criminal conduct.
Conclusion
Alan Garten’s documented role in the Epstein-related record is primarily legal rather than social.
The October 2009 Goldberger email connects Garten to discussions about obtaining information from Donald Trump in litigation involving Epstein. The email became a focus of renewed scrutiny in 2026 because of its extensive redactions and the differing accounts of Epstein’s departure from Mar-a-Lago.
The 2016 civil litigation provides a separate example of Garten acting as Trump’s attorney, publicly disputing allegations involving Trump and Epstein.
These records are relevant to understanding the legal responses surrounding Trump’s historical association with Epstein, the gathering of witness information, and the later disputes over public access to released evidence.
They do not establish that Garten represented Epstein as a client, participated in trafficking, or committed any offense connected with Epstein’s sexual abuse.
The essential research priority is recovering the complete contemporaneous record, verifying the legal context, and keeping statements made by attorneys separate from independently established facts.
Questions and Answers
Who is Alan Garten?
Alan Gary Garten is an American attorney who has worked for the Trump Organization since December 2006 and subsequently served as its General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer.
Did Garten represent Jeffrey Epstein?
The identified records describe Garten as Donald Trump’s attorney, not Epstein’s attorney. Jack Goldberger represented Epstein in the October 2009 correspondence.
Why does Garten appear in the Epstein files?
An October 14, 2009 email written by Epstein’s attorney reports that Garten arranged a telephone conference involving Trump and another attorney in place of a deposition.
What was discussed during the 2009 call?
The publicly released email initially concealed much of the discussion. Additional text later presented by members of Congress concerned Trump’s knowledge of Epstein and the circumstances of Epstein’s association with Mar-a-Lago. The complete original record should be consulted for precise wording and attribution.
Did Garten say Epstein was never expelled from Mar-a-Lago?
Text publicized by Representative Dan Goldman in March 2026 attributes an account to the 2009 correspondence indicating that Epstein was not a member and had not been asked to leave. This remains an account preserved in an attorney’s email, not a judicial finding concerning club membership.
What was Garten’s involvement in the 2016 Jane Doe lawsuit?
He publicly denied allegations made against Donald Trump in civil litigation that also named Jeffrey Epstein. The related New York lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without a trial.
Did a court find the 2016 allegations false?
No merits determination resolving whether the alleged abuse occurred was established by the identified dismissals. Procedural dismissal and voluntary withdrawal should not be confused with a factual trial verdict.
Was Garten accused of participating in Epstein’s trafficking operation?
The reviewed sources do not establish a criminal charge or conviction against Garten for participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking crimes.
Why is the 2009 email important?
It supplies contemporaneous evidence of legal contact involving the attorneys for Epstein and Trump, and it has become important to evaluating different accounts of Trump’s historical relationship with Epstein.
Sources
- ABC News, February 2026, investigation of the October 2009 Goldberger email and its redactions.
- WhoWhatWhy, March 2026, reporting on Representative Goldman’s presentation of additional email text.
- CNN, August 11, 2026, interview addressing congressional review of the 2009 email.
- The Guardian, July 7, 2016, reporting on civil allegations and Garten’s response.
- Courthouse News Service, November 2016, reporting on dismissal of the New York lawsuit.
- EpsteinWiki, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records.
- 2015 sworn testimony of Alan Garten concerning Trump Organization employment and responsibilities.
- 2025 corporate filing biography of Alan Garten.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein records disclosure collections.