EFTA02858495 FBI FD-302: Fourth Interview of a Protected Witness (October 16, 2019)
Snapshot
This two page FBI interview summary records an October 16, 2019 conversation with a protected witness in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Its reference to Donald Trump recounts an earlier allegation; it is not a finding that the alleged conduct occurred.
Document: FD-302, case 31E-NY-3027571, Serial 312. Interview: October 16, 2019. Drafted: October 21, 2019. Entered: October 22, 2019. Pages: EFTA02858495 and EFTA02858496. The continuation identifies this as Interview #4, meaning the fourth interview, not a fourth witness. Read the two page source.
Overview
The FBI FD-302 interview dated October 16, 2019 documents a fourth interview conducted with a protected witness during the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The interview was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and focused on abuse the witness alleged she experienced at the hands of Epstein and individuals connected to him.
During the interview, investigators discussed the scope and goals of the ongoing investigation and sought additional information regarding individuals associated with Epstein. The agents recorded that the witness had previously alleged sexual contact with Donald Trump while she was a minor, facilitated through her association with Epstein. They asked whether she felt comfortable providing further detail. These pages do not record a new detailed account of those alleged contacts.
The document is part of the U.S. Department of Justice Epstein Files collection, which contains investigative records gathered during federal inquiries into Epstein’s trafficking network.
Source document: FBI FD-302 Interview Report, October 16, 2019.
Context
An FD-302 is the standard form used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to summarize witness interviews conducted during criminal investigations. These reports record statements made by witnesses and investigative observations but are not sworn testimony.
The report says that, while scheduling this interview, the witness told an agent by telephone that she had recently begun working with attorneys and had a pending civil case. The redacted report does not identify that case. She told investigators she wanted to be transparent about the legal matter in case it created a conflict of interest during the interview process.
The witness said she was not comfortable having the interview audio recorded at that time. The report also states that she did not seek advice of counsel during the interview and no counsel was present. Source: page 1, EFTA02858495.
Discussion of Statutes of Limitation
During the interview, the witness expressed concern that the alleged abuse had occurred many years earlier and questioned whether any legal action could still be taken.
She asked investigators what the purpose of the interview was given that statutes of limitation for potential federal crimes might have expired. Investigators explained that the goal of the interview was to give victims of crime the opportunity to tell their story and to document their experiences as part of the ongoing investigation.
The agents also explained that they intended to keep the discussion focused on abuse the witness reported experiencing at the hands of individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The concern about limitation periods was the witness’s concern, not a legal determination recorded by the FBI or a court. Source: page 1, EFTA02858495.
Allegations Involving Donald Trump
The interview record notes that the witness had previously stated she had sexual contact with Donald Trump while she was a minor and that the contact was facilitated through her association with Jeffrey Epstein.
During the October 2019 interview, investigators asked whether she felt comfortable providing additional details regarding those interactions. The witness again questioned whether discussing the information would have any practical outcome given the possibility that criminal statutes of limitation had already passed.
These statements are allegations summarized by agents, not sworn testimony or adjudicated facts. The two pages provide no corroborating exhibits or finding on the truth of the allegation. Source: page 1 and page 2, EFTA02858496.
Outcome of the Interview
The agents asked the witness to go home and take as much time as she needed to consider speaking with them further.
The witness agreed, and the interview ended. This report does not establish whether a later interview occurred. Source: page 2, EFTA02858496.
What the Record Establishes and Does Not Establish
The report documents the agents’ account of a limited interview, including questions about recording, the purpose of continuing, and an earlier allegation. The form expressly states that it contains neither FBI recommendations nor conclusions. It is not a verbatim transcript, a sworn deposition, a criminal charge or a judicial finding. The record does not establish guilt, exoneration, the viability of a prosecution, or the contents of any underlying handwritten notes.
The witness’s identity and other details are redacted. This article preserves that protection and does not infer identities or connections from the redactions. The older page stamps are EFTA_00057767 and EFTA_00057768; both pages also carry identifier 3501.045-007. These are document references, not additional interviews.
Later Disclosure Proceedings
The report later became relevant to a dispute over access to underlying FBI notes. On September 16, 2026, in Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417-EGS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia directed submission of notes underlying this report and three others for private judicial review, in both redacted and unredacted versions. Memorandum opinion and order, document 43, pages 12, 13 and 19.
On October 9, 2026, the court said the defendant had not provided the underlying handwritten notes for EFTA02858495 but had supplied adequate documentation explaining why. It discharged the earlier show cause order as to those notes. The public order does not disclose that explanation. Its separate direction to submit redacted notes for three other reports should not be mistaken for an order to submit notes for EFTA02858495. Order, document 57, pages 2 through 4.
These are disclosure rulings, not findings about the truth of the interview allegation. The orders cited here do not establish that the notes were destroyed, that they never existed, or that they were publicly released. This section describes those dated orders rather than claiming to resolve the status of the entire litigation.
Sources
- FBI FD-302 site copy, EFTA02858495 and EFTA02858496. Both pages reviewed. Official source route: DOJ Data Set 12.
- Phang v. Blanche, document 43, September 16, 2026. Official GovInfo court copy, pages 12, 13 and 19.
- Phang v. Blanche, document 57, October 9, 2026. Court order reproduced by PlainSite, pages 2 through 4.