Who is Sascha Riley, the Decorated Iraq War Veteran Whose Viral Audio Testimony Alleges Childhood Trafficking and Abuse in the Epstein Network?

Audio recordings attributed to Sasha or Sascha Riley have spread rapidly across social media platforms and independent publishing sites, triggering intense public debate and scrutiny. The recordings, described by their publisher as unedited testimony, contain graphic and serious allegations of childhood trafficking and abuse linked to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and a broader network that the testimony associates with powerful political figures.

The claims have not been verified by courts, law enforcement agencies, or mainstream news organizations, and no indictments or official findings have confirmed the accusations. What has fueled the virality is not institutional validation but the nature of the allegations themselves, the format of the recordings, and the assertion that the speaker is prepared to testify under oath.

Understanding why this content has gained traction requires separating what is being claimed from what is known, and placing the testimony in the broader context of online discourse surrounding Epstein-related conspiracies and survivor narratives.

Who Is Sascha Riley According to the Published Testimony

Based solely on the material circulating online, Sascha Riley is described as a decorated Iraq War veteran and an alleged survivor of extreme child trafficking. The publisher of the audio recordings, identified as Lisa Noelle Voldeng, states that she conducted phone interviews with Riley over several days in July 2025 and recorded his testimony with his consent. According to her account, the recordings remain in her possession, with copies allegedly shared with law enforcement and selected contacts described as trusted allies.

No public documentation has been released to independently confirm Riley’s military service record, adoption history, or the biographical details presented in the testimony. The narrative presented in the recordings and accompanying summaries describes Sascha Riley as having been adopted in 1977 and trafficked from early childhood. The testimony alleges that the trafficking began within his adoptive or extended family and later expanded into a wider network.

Between the ages of approximately nine and thirteen, Sascha Riley claims he was exploited within what the testimony characterizes as the Trump and Epstein criminal network. These descriptions are presented as personal recollections rather than corroborated findings, and they rely entirely on Riley’s account as shared through the recordings.

⛔️Decorated War Veteran & Survivor, Sascha Riley, Testifies Against Trump: “Donald Trump was the big boss… Then Epstein was like the manager…”⛔️

🎙️"Don't worry. Boys are hard to find." Part 1 o 2 | Trump/Epstein and Associated Criminal Enterprises: Victim Interviews: SR
🔗… pic.twitter.com/Gn7SIE7FjX

— E M M A ✨ K A T H E R I N E (@TheEmmapreneur) January 13, 2026

Supporters of the testimony emphasize Riley’s age, military background, and stated willingness to undergo a polygraph examination as indicators of credibility. Critics counter that none of these elements substitute for independent verification, and that claims of this magnitude require substantiation through documentary evidence, corroborating witnesses, or judicial proceedings. At present, Sascha Riley’s identity, background, and experiences remain known to the public only through secondary descriptions and audio attributed to him, rather than through independently verified records.

What the Viral Audio Recordings Claim and Why They Are Spreading

The recordings themselves, as summarized by the publisher and those sharing them online, include allegations of severe and criminal acts against children. The testimony claims that impoverished children under the age of thirteen were trafficked, subjected to repeated sexual abuse, and forced to participate in the production of child pornography. Among the most disturbing elements of the account are claims that children were tortured and murdered, including an allegation that a child was shot and killed during the filming of what is described as a snuff film. ‘

The testimony asserts that these acts occurred within a network connected to Jeffrey Epstein and individuals associated with him. The publisher states that the recordings were released in what she describes as the public interest, and that investigations are ongoing. However, no law enforcement agency has publicly confirmed the existence of such investigations, nor has any court acknowledged receiving testimony from Riley.

Read : Four Arrested After Images of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Projected Onto Windsor Castle During US State Visit

The lack of official confirmation has not slowed the spread of the content. Instead, the virality appears driven by several factors: the release of what are described as unedited audio files, the framing of the speaker as a survivor rather than an anonymous source, and the broader cultural context in which Epstein-related allegations continue to attract attention years after his death. Social media platforms such as Threads have amplified the reach of the recordings through reposts, commentary, and algorithmic visibility.

Substack newsletters have provided a longer-form venue for summarizing and contextualizing the claims, often with disclaimers noting that the allegations are unverified. The combination of audio testimony, narrative detail, and the suggestion of suppressed evidence has resonated with audiences already skeptical of institutional transparency. At the same time, journalists and legal analysts have cautioned that online virality does not equate to factual accuracy, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Alleged Links to Public Figures and the Question of Evidence

One of the most controversial aspects of the testimony is its naming of prominent public figures. According to summaries of the recordings, Riley claims he is willing to testify against individuals including former President Donald Trump, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. These names are presented within the testimony as alleged participants or beneficiaries of the abuse network described.

There are no court filings, indictments, or verified investigative reports that substantiate these specific allegations. The publisher of the recordings asserts that supporting evidence exists. This purported material includes pornographic films and videos, child protective services and FBI reports related to an individual identified as William Kyle Riley, who is alleged to have trafficked Sascha Riley, and a military report involving a court-martial linked to child pornography.

It is also claimed that additional documents could be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, and that some evidence has been suppressed. None of these materials have been publicly released in a form that allows independent verification, and no agency has confirmed their existence or relevance to the claims.

The debate surrounding the testimony reflects a broader tension in how survivor accounts are treated in the public sphere. Advocates argue that victim testimony should be considered a form of primary evidence and that dismissing such accounts risks perpetuating silence around abuse. Skeptics respond that while survivor voices are important, public accusations against named individuals require rigorous verification to avoid defamation and misinformation. In the absence of judicial findings or corroborated documentation, the allegations remain claims circulating online rather than established facts.

As of now, the viral spread of the Sasha or Sascha Riley recordings illustrates how digital platforms can propel unverified testimony into global discourse. The content continues to be shared, debated, and analyzed, with clear disclaimers from some publishers and less caution from others. What is certain is that the allegations have not been confirmed by courts, mainstream investigations, or law enforcement statements, and any assessment of their validity remains unresolved pending independent verification or formal legal action.