Epstein Files Stalemate Deepens as DOJ Admits Less Than 1% Released Amid Bipartisan Outrage
Washington, DC — More than three weeks after a congressionally mandated deadline, the US Department of Justice has released less than 1% of the vast trove of documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, prompting renewed accusations of institutional obstruction and fueling long-standing public skepticism.
In a five-page court filing submitted on 6 January to US District Judge Paul Engelmayer in New York, Attorney General Pam Bondi detailed that only 12,285 documents—totaling 125,575 pages—have been made public to date. This represents a fraction of the estimated millions of records held by federal agencies, including the FBI’s electronic case management system, which encompasses investigative materials from probes spanning decades in Florida and New York.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed with near-unanimous bipartisan support in November 2025 and signed into law by President Donald Trump, required the “vast majority” of unclassified records to be disclosed by 19 December. The legislation emerged from intense pressure by survivors, advocates, and lawmakers across the political spectrum, who argued that full transparency was essential to confront the scale of Epstein’s sex-trafficking network and any potential complicity by powerful figures.
Yet the department’s update conceded that more than 2 million documents remain under review, with hundreds of attorneys and 100 FBI analysts assigned to the task. Officials emphasized the priority of protecting victim identities, citing the need for extensive redactions and vetting. Bondi described an “all-hands-on-deck” effort, including holiday work by staff, but critics dismissed the explanation as inadequate.
Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California and Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky, co-sponsors of the Act, have called the delays a “flagrant violation” and urged Judge Engelmayer to appoint an independent monitor. In a joint letter, they questioned the accuracy of the DOJ’s figures and accused the department of excessive redactions that obscure rather than safeguard sensitive information.
The slow pace has revived conspiracy theories that have swirled since Epstein’s 2019 death in custody, officially ruled a suicide. During his 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised swift releases to expose what he described as elite corruption. However, since taking office, his administration has faced criticism from both sides for the piecemeal approach. Some supporters now accuse the Justice Department of shielding influential names, while others point to the absence of a so-called “client list”—a document long speculated to exist but never confirmed by officials.
The saga is further shadowed by the death of Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers, who died by suicide in April 2025 at her home in Western Australia at age 41. Giuffre, who alleged she was trafficked as a teenager and sued Prince Andrew (settling out of court in 2022), had become a vocal advocate for survivors through her organization Victims Refuse Silence. Her posthumous memoir, Nobody’s Girl, published in October 2025, detailed the lasting trauma of her experiences and renewed calls for accountability. Family statements described her as a “fierce warrior” whose life was profoundly impacted by abuse, while authorities deemed the death non-suspicious pending coroner review.
Giuffre’s passing has intensified scrutiny of the release process. Advocates argue that survivors’ voices—already diminished by redactions—risk being further silenced if disclosures remain stalled. Recent tranches have included court records, photographs from Epstein’s properties, and previously public materials, but little new evidence implicating previously unknown high-profile associates has emerged.
The DOJ maintains that the review is necessary to comply with privacy laws and avoid re-traumatizing victims. Yet bipartisan frustration is mounting ahead of the 2026 midterms, with some lawmakers threatening further oversight. The episode underscores broader tensions in US transparency debates: the balance between victim protection and public right to know, especially when historical failures in handling Epstein’s cases have already eroded trust.
As the clock ticks, the Epstein files remain a litmus test for institutional accountability. With millions of pages still under lock, the question persists: when—if ever—will the full truth emerge?
Leave a Reply