News in Progress has released a series of exhibits examining documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein that reference former President Donald Trump. The review was conducted by Tahyira Savanna, a researcher and former intern at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, who analyzed publicly available and court-linked files to establish whether patterns of long-standing political or financial overlap exist.
According to the research, several documents reviewed predate Trump’s presidency and intersect with individuals and timelines connected to the 2016 presidential election cycle. While the exhibits do not allege criminal liability, they raise questions about historical associations, political proximity, and whether previously disclosed material received adequate scrutiny during the election period.
The release comes amid renewed public interest in Epstein-related records and broader debates over transparency, political accountability, and the handling of elite networks connected to power.
Analysis: Should the 2016 Election Be Re-Investigated?
Rather than framing this as who should call for an investigation, the core issue is whether new, material evidence exists that meets the legal threshold for reopening federal election inquiries.
Key points to consider:
- Elections are not re-investigated based on associations alone. U.S. election law requires evidence that directly links misconduct to voter suppression, fraud, foreign interference, or unlawful coordination that altered outcomes.
- The 2016 election has already been extensively investigated, including by the Mueller investigation and bipartisan Senate intelligence reviews, which focused primarily on foreign interference rather than domestic elite networks.
- New evidence would need to be both novel and consequential — meaning it was unavailable at the time and could reasonably change prior conclusions.
- Public interest ≠ legal standard. Renewed public concern can justify journalistic inquiry or congressional oversight, but criminal or election challenges require prosecutorial standing and statutory grounds.
Major Past Investigations
- The Mueller Special Counsel Investigation: Special Counsel Robert Mueller conducted a nearly two-year investigation concluding in 2019. It found that Russia engaged in “sweeping and systematic” interference but did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
- Senate Intelligence Committee Report: This bipartisan investigation concluded in 2020 that Russia actively worked to help Trump win and that his campaign was vulnerable to foreign influence.
- The Durham Investigation: Special Counsel John Durham spent three years (concluding in 2023) investigating whether the FBI’s initial probe into Trump was justified. His report criticized the FBI for a “seriously flawed” investigation but led to no major criminal conspiracy charges against high-level officials.
Recent and Ongoing Activity (as of 2025–2026)
- New Grand Jury Probe: In August 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered a new grand jury investigation focused on the investigators themselves—specifically looking for potential federal crimes committed by Obama-era officials while they were looking into Russian interference.
- Intelligence Community Reviews: National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard has recently challenged previous assessments, alleging that some intelligence regarding Russian interference was manufactured or politicized by the previous administration.
- Strike Force: The Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly formed a strike force to investigate new evidence suggested by the current administration regarding the origins of the “Russia hoax”.
One exhibit explicitly references actions taken by then–FBI Director James Comey in the Clinton email investigation in the days leading up to the 2016 election, characterizing the decision to publicly re-announce investigative activity before Election Day as politically consequential. The exhibit further notes that the timing and amplification of the announcement coincided with Russian-backed information operations identified in subsequent U.S. intelligence assessments.
