Breaking: An apparent Jeffrey Epstein letter that names Larry Nassar, and includes references to Donald Trump, is now under legal review. I can confirm the document is in circulation among parties who handle high risk evidence. Its authenticity, date, and path of custody are not yet settled. That uncertainty matters. Yet the stakes are immediate, because the names involved touch two of the most painful abuse scandals in modern America.
What we know, and what we do not
Larry Nassar is serving effective life sentences for sexually abusing hundreds of girls and women. Epstein was a convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019. Many records tied to his network remain contested in court. The new document appears to be a letter attributed to Epstein. It mentions Nassar by name, and refers to Trump. That is where the facts end, for now.
- Verified today: the document exists, the parties named are public figures with deep legal histories.
- Unverified today: the letter’s author, the context, and whether the statements inside are accurate or complete.
No new criminal charge stems from this document at this time. No court has admitted it into evidence. Treat any sweeping claim with care.
Nothing in an unauthenticated letter proves wrongdoing by anyone named. Evidence must be tested in court.
How the law will test this
Courts begin with authentication. Under basic evidence rules, a party must show a document is what it is claimed to be. That often requires chain of custody, handwriting or metadata analysis, or a witness who can link the document to its author. Without that, it will not get far.
Even if authenticated, many statements in a letter are hearsay. Some hearsay can be allowed, for example a statement against interest by a now deceased person, but the fit is narrow. Judges also weigh probative value against unfair prejudice. If a document inflames more than it informs, a judge can keep it out.
News outlets face their own guardrails. The fair report privilege protects faithful reporting about official records. It does not protect speculation or private leaks that cause defamation. Publishing unverified allegations risks harm to survivors and to people who may be falsely accused. Responsible reporting tracks the record, not the rumor.
Survivor rights come first
Survivors in both scandals have carried the heaviest load. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act gives them rights to be heard, to be treated with fairness, and to be protected from harassment. Many states, including Michigan, also protect privacy, especially for minors, and limit disclosure of identifying details. Any release of new material must center safety and consent.
Nassar’s victims continue to pursue accountability beyond the criminal case. That includes oversight of Michigan State, USA Gymnastics, and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. Congress created the U.S. Center for SafeSport to police abuse in amateur sports. This moment will test whether those reforms have teeth, and whether institutions respond with transparency, not delay.
Sharing unvetted files online can expose survivors, taint witnesses, and damage valid investigations. If in doubt, do not post it.
Government and policy stakes
If the letter is authenticated, investigators can reexamine links, timelines, and prior statements. The Department of Justice can seek records, issue subpoenas, and, if needed, convene a grand jury. Courts can impose protective orders to prevent leaks that harm due process.
Transparency is also a public duty. Agencies can release records with proper redactions, rather than allow piecemeal leaks. Congress can press the FBI, SafeSport, and national sport bodies on compliance, funding conditions, and whistleblower safety. State attorneys general can coordinate with federal authorities to avoid gaps. The goal is simple. Find facts, protect victims, and hold institutions to their legal obligations.
What happens next
- Authentication. Forensics, provenance, and witness confirmation are essential.
- Relevance review. Investigators compare claims against existing evidence and timelines.
- Legal filtering. Prosecutors and courts apply evidence rules, privacy protections, and protective orders.
- Public accountability. If facts are confirmed, officials must explain actions taken and what reforms follow.
If you have credible information, contact law enforcement or a recognized victim advocate. Preserve originals. Do not alter files.
The bottom line
This is a sensitive moment. A new document names Larry Nassar and refers to Donald Trump. Its authenticity is not yet proven. The law has a process for this, and that process protects everyone’s rights. Survivors deserve care, not another wave of reckless claims. The public deserves facts that stand up in court. We will keep pressing for answers, and we will verify every step before drawing conclusions.
