Here at the Freakshow, like everyone else, we sift through the millions of pages in the Epstein files with an eye for the elusive Trump connection, some proof behind the long-circulating rumors about his participation in the frolics Epstein arranged for himself and his coterie of wealthy ogres.

Earlier this week, journalist Roger Sollenberger published a piece examining evidence the FBI appears to have concealed involving Trump. It centers on a July 2019 interview with a woman who claimed to the FBI that she met Epstein in South Carolina in 1983 or 1984, when she was 13 years old. According to her account, Epstein tricked her into showing up at his vacation rental by claiming to need a babysitter. There were, in fact, no children. Instead, she says, he drugged her, took nude pictures, and raped her.

So far, another revolting Epstein story.

But this one scales up.

The redacted victim in that interview has biographical details that closely match those of another redacted-name woman. In separate documents within the Epstein files and in a court filing, that woman alleged that Epstein took her to New York and exposed her to “wealthy older men” as “fresh meat.” She further claimed that he introduced her to a man – Trump – who sexually assaulted and “punched her in the head.”

The Epstein files are full of outrageous allegations that can be dismissed for lack of corroboration: the FBI fielded and recorded wild claims of murder, child sacrifice, and even stories of Trump on a yacht in Lake Michigan tossing a baby overboard. The existence of large victim compensation funds from the Epstein estate to accusers and their attorneys naturally attracts con artists and grifters. It is a magnet for the fantasies and lies of untold numbers of celebrity-seekers and other lunatics. We can see the Satanic panic conspiracy of the Pizzagate era rising again in some of the Epstein DIY research and commentary.

This particular accusation, however, invites a closer look from members of Congress who have access to the unredacted Epstein material.

Here’s why:

1. It appears that the FBI interviewed this woman four times over a period of a few weeks in the summer of 2019. But only one of the four interviews is in the released files.
2. The agents clearly believed the woman had something to fear. Her name is always redacted but followed by the words in all caps: PROTECT SOURCE. This designation is nowhere else in the Epstein files. An FBI source we spoke with told us it is typically used for high-risk informants such as mafia rats.
3. In the single interview included in the release, the woman showed FBI agents a photo of Epstein and Trump on her phone. She then asked if she could crop out the second person. When agents asked about the second man, her lawyer intervened, stating that “[REDACTED] was concerned about implicating additional individuals, and specifically any that were well known, due to fear of retaliation.”

4. In an October 2019 call between the FBI and her attorney, also logged by the FBI, the attorney referenced “information regarding any investigation into a recent suspicious incident that occurred at [redacted] place of employment.” (Mentions of “suspicious incidents” confronting Trump accusers at work remind us of Stormy Daniels’ account of the creepy thug who threatened her and her baby daughter in a Vegas parking lot when she was preparing to go public about her tryst with Donald).
5. The DOJ appears to have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that they removed pages of interaction with the woman. The released Epstein files use a secondary numbering system that appears sequential, but in this case conceals significant gaps in the primary record. The woman’s first interview with the FBI, labeled “Interview One,” begins at serial -001. In the released files, the documents then jump to -008, -009, and -010 for a series of photos that include one of Epstein and Trump, with Trump cropped out, followed by images of the accuser as a teenager with friends. Three numbered records then appear relating to her initial FBI phone interview and two contacts with the Bloom firm. The six missing items of evidence could be images or text. If they are text, they could amount to many more pages in total, as the first interview runs nine pages long.
6. In one undated document that appears to be what the FBI calls a case index, there are four PROTECT SOURCE interviews listed, clearly with the same woman. We only have one of them. Where are serials 252, 264 and 312 – corresponding to Interviews 2,3, and 4?

7. There is another tell. The one interview we have is titled “Interview One.” The standard FBI practice throughout the Epstein files is to title interviews “Interview of [person]” — unless there are multiple interviews, in which case they are numbered.

8. We know this woman’s report concerned the DOJ because in July 2025, as the Department was facing calls to release the files, an internal email placed Trump at the top of a list of accused individuals on a PowerPoint presentation. His name was highlighted in yellow for “salacious” accusations, alongside Leon Black, Les Wexner, and others.
9. Because of that email and an FBI powerpoint also in the files, we know that a search for Donald Trump’s name in July 2025 returned “a positive case hit” in FBI lingo. This email implies it was documented in an attached spreadsheet which is not in the files now.

The details in the internal FBI email and PowerPoint closely align with the allegations made by a South Carolina woman represented as Jane Doe 4 by attorney Arick Fudali of the Lisa Bloom firm, which currently represents 11 Epstein accusers.

From the FBI Power Point:

[Redacted] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which is subsequently bite [sic]. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out.

From the Bloom firm lawsuit:

Epstein’s sexual abuse of Jane Doe 4 continued across state lines. On information and belief, Epstein flew Jane Doe 4 to New York, New York on approximately three of four occasions. During these trips, Epstein brought Jane Doe 4 to intimate gatherings with other prominent, wealthy men. It was later made clear to Jane Doe 4 that Epstein brought her to these parties to essentially offer her up as “fresh meat” to these other men. Jane Doe 4 was brutally and forcibly battered, assaulted, and raped by these other men she met through Epstein. On one occasion, one of these prominent men forcibly slapped Jane Doe 4 in the face after she was forced to perform oral sex on him. This same man forcibly raped her, penetrating her both vaginally and anally.

Jane Doe 4 settled with the Epstein estate and was paid, according to her attorney, though the Victims Compensation Fund reportedly rejected her claim. Lisa Bloom, in an email to us Sunday night, declined to comment. Bloom also briefly involved herself in the media rollout of the pre-2016 Trump “rape” accusation by the pseudonymous Katie Johnson, which fell apart before the press conference and was never been corroborated nor litigated.

Experienced Epstein researchers, including Thomas Volscho, have stated good reasons why this allegation should be treated with caution.

At the Freakshow, we assume the DOJ aggressively sanitized the Epstein files of anything Trump during the frenzied order from Kash Patel (K$H) and Pam Bondi last March, which put a legion of FBI officers on 24-hour shifts to find mentions of Don. Victims have stated that some of their FBI interviews and naming of names are not in the released files. We also know the release itself has been chaotic, the whole operation carried out in a state of panic, and that mistakes have been made.

To recap: we have an FBI email and an FBI powerpoint both referencing the Trump allegation, but we do not have the records or interviews to which the email and powerpoint refer. We have a victim who asked that Trump be cropped out of a photo with Epstein on her phone. We have missing and renumbered documents.

This could be nothing more than a coincidence due to sloppy panicked document dumping.

Or it could be something else.

The woman stopped cooperating with the FBI, never filed a civil case, and never publicly mentioned Trump. This chilling note suggests one reason FBI thought PROTECT SOURCE was needed:

We respectfully suggest that our elected officials in DC take a closer look, especially the Congresswoman from South Carolina, Rep. Nancy Mace.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow