Trump Allegedly Tracked Journalist Investigating Epstein In 2019 – Guilty?

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has come under intense scrutiny after travel records belonging to a prominent journalist who helped expose Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes were found within a massive cache of case files recently made public.

Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown discovered that details of her flight on 6 July 2019 were embedded in documents released by the DOJ under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, raising urgent questions about how and why her personal information became part of federal investigative material.

Brown, whose reporting played a key role in re-energising federal interest in Epstein's network and led to his re-arrest, publicly highlighted the issue on X, noting that her American Airlines itinerary, under her maiden name, appeared in records attached to a grand jury subpoena tied to the sprawling investigation.

DOJ File Release Under New Transparency Law

In November 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, which President Donald Trump then signed into law on 19 November 2025. The Act requires the DOJ to make all unclassified records related to the Epstein investigation publicly available within 30 days.

The legislative text specifies that the Attorney General must release investigative materials, including flight logs and travel records, as well as internal communications and documents naming individuals connected to Epstein's criminal activities.

By 19 December 2025, the DOJ published an initial tranche of hundreds of thousands of files in partial compliance with the statute. However, officials acknowledged that millions of pages remain under review and redaction, primarily to protect sensitive victim information.

The initial release of documents included a mixture of investigative records, photographs, grand-jury materials, and other files; critics noted that numerous files were heavily redacted or incomplete, which undermined transparency objectives.

Broader Context of Epstein Files and Public Release

The controversy over Brown's records emerges against a larger backdrop of public debate over the release of the Epstein files.

The troves of documents disclosed in December 2025 contain myriad references to public figures, including multiple mentions of Donald Trump, such as an internal email suggesting Trump flew on Epstein's private jet at least eight times in the 1990s, though the DOJ has clarified that such mentions do not equate to evidence of criminal conduct.

The DOJ also flagged that some materials in the released files include false or unverified claims, emphasising that inclusion in the document cache does not confirm their validity. The release included items like a letter purportedly from Epstein referencing Trump, which the FBI determined to be inauthentic.

Members of Congress, including Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), have criticised the DOJ for missing legal deadlines and for the manner in which the disclosures have been executed, threatening legal action against Attorney General Pam Bondi over compliance failures.

Questions Remain Unanswered

The DOJ's rationale for retaining and releasing Brown's travel information remains opaque. It's important to note that the mere presence of a journalist's data in government files is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing; however, it undeniably raises significant procedural and civil liberties concerns.

The presence of her personal travel log in government files, at a time when sources say Epstein was under intense federal investigation, has sparked criticism from lawmakers and press freedom advocates alike.

It remains to be seen whether congressional oversight, judicial review, or further DOJ disclosures will clarify whether the agency acted within legal boundaries when it archived the flight data now in the public record.

The digital footprint of a journalist probing one of the most notorious criminal cases of the 21st century has inadvertently become the latest focal point in an unfolding saga over government transparency and accountability.