Email Between Britney Spears' Conservators and Epstein Claims To Clone Singer Debunked As Conversation Mentions Singer's Custody of Children
Britney Spears was not cloned and no evidence suggests the practice being done on the popstar in the email cited by users on social media

Following the latest release of files related to the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, speculation has emerged regarding certain figures whose names appeared in the documents. Among them is Britney Spears, whom an unsubstantiated theory claims was cloned, according to the files.
A post on X by an account named Truth Seeker circulated on the platform, sharing a screenshot of what appeared to be an email conversation between Epstein and a man named Mark Tramo. The account claimed that Spears was cloned, as per the email. In the messages, Tramo emailed Epstein about getting funding for a project supposedly related to Spears. 'My new pal at Universal Music has offered to send Britney Spears the Neonatal ICU Project I sent the Florida Science Foundation in '09,' Tramo said in the email, with a highlighted portion reading: '(There's a custody issue surrounding her kids) as he is her publisher but time has been prohibiting me from pursuing it.'
Brittney Spears was CLONED according to the Epstein files 👀 pic.twitter.com/YypZ4eVMA0
— Truth Seeker (@_TruthZone_) February 6, 2026
No Evidence of Connection
There has been no evidence to suggest that Spears had any involvement or engagement with Epstein in the files. There has also been no evidence that Spears was cloned, as the purported project does not explicitly state that such a practice would be enforced. In a post by user That Surprise Witness, JD, the email exchange between Tramo and Epstein occurred while Spears was under conservatorship.
The post noted that Tramo works at the UCLA Geffen Medical School. Spears was also sent to the UCLA Resnick Psychiatric Hospital and was not allowed to leave. Netizens questioned certain details about the time Spears was under conservatorship, pointing out the purpose of sending Spears to neonatal care when she had already given birth to her children. Others suggested the possibility that she was being made to abort another pregnancy, whilst some noted that Spears had an IUD or intrauterine device.
'I always had an idea of Britney purposely making herself unattractive by shaving off her hair so fat, ugly, wealthy people would stop abusing her,' said one commenter, referring to the time Spears was seen in public with a shaved head. Another commenter stated: 'I have always thought she was trafficked. She is clearly suffering while men make money off of her.' A third added: 'I know Britney acts weird on her social media at times but I felt she went through so much. Now it looks like she went through much worse than we thought.'
Britney Spears Epstein files alert.
— That Surprise Witness, J.D. (@SurpriseWitnes) January 31, 2026
While she was in a conservatorship, Jeffrey Epstein and mark tramo sent emails about Mark about getting funding to do a “project” relating to Britney.
Britney’s child custody woes were a topic of discussion as well. Why??
Mark works at… pic.twitter.com/cgkuCSvVtB
DOJ Acknowledges Redaction Errors
The Justice Department released the latest batch of files in compliance with the Epstein Files act that was previously passed by Congress. However, lawmakers and victims have criticised the redactions made by the agency, whilst figures mentioned in the files have come under scrutiny.
In a letter to federal judges on Thursday in the US District Court in the Southern District of New York, the DOJ said its personnel were 'working around the clock to run additional searches for documents that may require additional redaction'. The department noted that it acknowledged 'victims and victim counsel have identified new victims and new identifiers', referring to the nicknames, email addresses, and surnames of other victims. The attempt to correct the redaction errors also comes as victims who have spoken out criticised how the DOJ unintentionally identified them due to errors in redaction.
© Copyright IBTimes 2025. All rights reserved.




















