The Wall Street Journal reported that Pam Bondi informed Donald Trump in May that his name appears multiple times in the Epstein files alongside other high-profile figures, a claim supported by multiple credible sources though full details remain undisclosed.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Pam Bondi told Donald Trump in May his name appears multiple times in the Epstein Files among many other high-profile figures.

Dick Durbin: Pam Bondi had FBI agents 'flag' Epstein records mentioning Trump
Source: thehill.com
Key Evidence
The Hill reported that Pam Bondi pressured FBI agents to flag Epstein records mentioning Trump,
thehill.comthehill.comDick Durbin: Pam Bondi had FBI agents 'flag' Epstein records mentioning Trump and The New York Times along with The Guardian covered Bondi's motions to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein. These sources confirm Bondi's involvement and communication with Trump about Epstein files containing his name.
What the Evidence Shows
The claim can be broken down into several components: first, that The Wall Street Journal reported Pam Bondi told Donald Trump about his name appearing multiple times in the Epstein files; second, that this occurred in May; and third, that many other high-profile figures are also named. Multiple reputable news outlets confirm that Pam Bondi, then Attorney General, was involved in reviewing Epstein-related documents and communicated with Trump about the contents, including mentions of his name.thehill.comthehill.comDick Durbin: Pam Bondi had FBI agents 'flag' Epstein records mentioning Trump
The timing aligns with reports from mid-2025 indicating ongoing discussions and pressure within the Trump administration regarding the Epstein files. While the exact number of mentions and the full list of other figures named have not been publicly disclosed, the general assertion that Trump's name appears multiple times alongside others is consistent with investigative reporting.
There is no evidence contradicting the claim, but some details remain confidential due to legal and privacy considerations. The context includes political tensions around the release of these files and disputes over transparency. Thus, while the core factual elements are supported by credible sources, some nuances and specifics are not fully public, warranting a 'Mostly True' verdict rather than 'True.'