The FBI has confirmed in a federal court filing that it identified nine videos responsive to a request for training materials used during its review of Jeffrey Epstein-related records.
Two show personnel how to flag documents for supervisory review. The recordings remain withheld as the US Department of Justice asks a federal court to uphold the FBI's Freedom of Information Act decision.
The nine videos total one hour, 13 minutes and 14 seconds, according to a sworn declaration filed on 2 October by Shannon R. Hammer, acting section chief of the FBI's Record/Information Dissemination Section. Eight are screen recordings demonstrating parts of the review process, while one contains training slides.
The filing provides new detail about how Epstein records were processed internally. However, it does not establish one of the most politically sensitive allegations surrounding that review: that personnel were specifically instructed to flag records mentioning President Donald Trump.
DOJ Defends FBI's FOIA Withholding
The Justice Department moved for summary judgment on 2 October, asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to uphold the FBI's handling of MSW Media's FOIA request. The court has not yet ruled on whether the nine recordings must be disclosed.
The FBI says the recordings are protected by FOIA exemptions covering privileged information, personal privacy and law enforcement techniques.
The bureau says Video 7 reflects legal advice provided by Justice Department attorneys to FBI personnel and is therefore protected by attorney-client privilege. The recording was created to train personnel reviewing Epstein records on complying with legal obligations under DOJ instructions.
The FBI also invoked privacy protections covering identifying information belonging to employees, third parties and victims. Other exemptions cover internal email addresses, non-public web addresses and telephone numbers, along with sensitive databases and search results that the bureau says could expose law enforcement systems or investigative techniques.
Some material shown in Video 7 is already public. The FBI says segregable, non-exempt training slides appearing in the recording have been released through the FBI Vault and DOJ's Epstein Library. The video itself remains withheld.
The bureau maintains that further redacting the recordings would not produce meaningful releasable material. Hammer's declaration says additional segregation would leave 'disjointed words, phrases, sentences, or visual images' with minimal or no informational content. MSW Media is challenging the government's withholding position.
Two Videos Show a Supervisory Flagging Process
The FBI's descriptions provide official evidence of how some documents moved through the internal review process.
Videos 5 and 6 are described as screen recordings showing Information Management Division personnel how to flag a document on FBI SharePoint 'for further review by a supervisor'. Neither description identifies what information was supposed to trigger that review.
Other recordings demonstrate how personnel assigned work for final review, began reviewing that work, accessed investigative files and used a DOJ list containing victims' names. They also cover importing or exporting redacted investigative files. Another recording contains final-review guidance.
Video 7 is the only recording described as containing training slides. According to the FBI, it was created to train personnel reviewing Epstein records on complying with legal obligations under DOJ instructions.
The recordings therefore concern the review process itself, rather than simply another collection of Epstein documents.
Trump Flagging Allegation Remains Unverified
Journalist and MSW Media founder Allison Gill reported in July 2025 that confidential sources involved in the review said personnel were instructed to record instances in which Trump's name appeared.
Gill reported that reviewers logged Trump mentions by document and page number in spreadsheets that were later combined into a master list. Those claims rely on confidential-source reporting and are not independently established by the FBI's newly filed descriptions of the nine videos.
Senator Dick Durbin made a related allegation on 18 July 2025. In letters to the Justice Department and FBI officials, Durbin said his office had received information that personnel were instructed to 'flag' records in which Trump was mentioned.
The October FBI declaration establishes that a supervisory flagging mechanism existed. It does not say Trump's name was a trigger.
That distinction is crucial. Flagging a document for supervisory review does not itself mean the document was redacted, suppressed or excluded from release. Nor does a person's appearance in an Epstein-related record establish wrongdoing.
DOJ Says Nearly 3.5 Million Pages Were Released
The FOIA dispute is unfolding against a much larger public disclosure of Epstein-related material.
On 30 January 2026, DOJ said it published more than 3 million additional pages under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Combined with earlier releases, the department said its production totalled nearly 3.5 million pages and included more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.
DOJ said material not produced included duplicate documents, privileged records, material covered by statutory exceptions and items unrelated to the Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell cases. The department also said reviewers were instructed to protect victims and their families, while notable individuals and politicians were not redacted because of their identities.
The nine recordings at issue in MSW Media's separate FOIA litigation remain withheld.
Why the Videos Matter
The recordings matter because they document instructions given to personnel reviewing Epstein-related records.
If released, they could provide additional context about when documents were escalated, how reviewers were instructed to apply redactions and what role supervisors played in the process.
But the available evidence has limits. The FBI has confirmed that nine responsive recordings exist and that two demonstrate how to flag documents for supervisory review. The bureau has not confirmed through these descriptions that reviewers were instructed to flag Trump's name.
That remains an allegation supported by Gill's confidential-source reporting and Durbin's account of information provided to his office.
Unless the recordings are released, examined by the court or described in greater detail, a central factual question remains unresolved: what information were reviewers instructed to flag for supervisors, and on what basis?
