More than a month after a congressionally mandated deadline, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) has failed to release the vast majority of its investigative files on the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The delay has provoked fury from survivors' advocates and bipartisan lawmakers, who are now seeking judicial intervention to force transparency.
A Legal Obligation Ignored
Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law, the DoJ was legally required to disclose all relevant documents by 19 December 2025. The Act allowed for only rare exceptions. However, in a court filing on 5 January, justice department attorneys revealed they had so far posted only approximately 12,285 documents (around 125,575 pages) to a public website.
Critically, the same filing admitted that officials had identified "more than 2 million documents" potentially covered by the law that were still under review. This means the DoJ has, to date, released less than one per cent of the material it acknowledges holding.
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, who represents dozens of Epstein's survivors, condemned the delay. "Congress did not create a discretionary timeline – it created a legal obligation," he said. "Every day these records remain withheld sends a message to victims that transparency is optional when powerful interests are involved."
Bipartisan Lawmakers Demand Court Action
The congressmen who co-sponsored the Act, Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie, have taken the extraordinary step of asking a federal judge to intervene. In an 8 January letter to Manhattan Judge Paul Engelmayer, they requested the appointment of a special master or independent monitor to compel the DoJ's compliance.
They accused the Department of Justice of multiple failures, including missing the statutory deadline, applying improper redactions, and asserting legal privileges not permitted by the Act. The lawmakers also noted the DoJ had flouted a requirement to provide a detailed report on what was being withheld and why.
"Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act," Khanna and Massie wrote. They expressed "urgent and grave concerns" about the DoJ's failure to obey the law and a related court order.
The Path to Transparency: A Special Master?
The call for a special master – an independent court officer appointed to oversee a specific process – has gained support from other quarters. News outlet Radar Online, which has a longstanding lawsuit seeking the files, agreed an independent figure was needed to ensure transparency and avoid political decision-making within the DoJ.
Legal expert Roy Gutterman of Syracuse University suggested a special master could help manage the colossal volume of documents. However, David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, cautioned that appointing one would not guarantee swift release. The process could involve complex legal steps across multiple courts, and it remains unclear if Judge Engelmayer has the authority to enforce the Act's requirements in this context.
For survivors and their advocates, the delay is a painful setback. "These files are not abstract government records; they are evidence of how institutions failed children," Spencer Kuvin stated. "Continued secrecy retraumatises victims and undermines public confidence in the justice system." The unfolding standoff between Congress and the Executive Branch now sets the stage for a protracted legal battle over accountability and the public's right to know.
