The latest release of millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein has done little to calm public anger. Instead, it has intensified long-standing suspicions that the full truth about one of the most notorious abuse scandals in modern US history remains deliberately obscured. Despite the disclosure of more than three million investigative files by the US Department of Justice last week, advocates for victims, journalists and Democratic lawmakers argue that vast amounts of crucial material are still being withheld and that transparency promised by law has not been delivered.
Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), the Department of Justice was required to disclose all investigative records connected to Epstein by 19 December. While some documents were released on that date, the bulk of the files only became public nearly six weeks later, well past the statutory deadline. The delay itself has fueled distrust, reinforcing perceptions that the process has been tightly controlled and politically managed rather than driven by a genuine commitment to accountability.
Deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, who previously served as Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer, has insisted that the latest disclosure represents the conclusion of a thorough and lawful review process. According to Blanche, the justice department identified more than six million pages as potentially relevant but ultimately released just over three million, arguing that the remaining material consisted largely of duplicates or documents deemed “non-responsive”. He described the effort as an example of the department “erring on the side of over-collection” in order to ensure maximum transparency. For many advocates, however, this explanation rings hollow. They argue that the gap between the number of documents collected and the number released raises more questions than it answers — particularly in a case defined by institutional failure. Epstein was able to sexually abuse girls for decades, despite repeated complaints to law enforcement, and secured a widely criticized plea deal in the mid-2000s that shielded him from federal prosecution. Understanding how such a breakdown occurred requires more than files detailing Epstein’s crimes; it requires insight into who protected him and why.
Jennifer Plotkin, an attorney representing more than 30 Epstein survivors, has accused the government of continuing to evade responsibility. In her view, the released files underscore not transparency but the repeated failure of authorities to act on credible evidence of abuse. Similarly, Ann Olivarius, a prominent women’s rights lawyer, argues that the disclosures focus overwhelmingly on Epstein’s “depravity” while leaving untouched the mechanisms that granted him effective immunity for years. “A disclosure is not complete”, she has said, “if it tells us everything about the criminal but nothing about the shield”.
That distinction between documenting wrongdoing and exposing systemic protection lies at the heart of the current outrage. Critics emphasize that the decision about which documents are “responsive” rests entirely with the same institution whose conduct is under scrutiny. To them, claims that millions of pages were excluded due to duplication or irrelevance appear less like neutral administrative judgments and more like opportunities for strategic omission.
Media organizations share this skepticism. Radar Online, which has pursued Epstein records through freedom of information litigation for nearly a decade, argues that the justice department has acknowledged withholding millions of documents while simultaneously applying extensive redactions to those released. The outlet is now seeking to reopen its FOIA case in order to directly challenge what it views as an effort to undermine transparency through procedural maneuvering.
Victims’ advocates also warn that the disclosure process has caused fresh harm. Jennifer Freeman, who represents Epstein survivor Maria Farmer, described the rollout as chaotic and insensitive, noting that some redactions appear arbitrary while the identities of survivors have been exposed. For her, the central issue is not the volume of documents released but the unanswered questions that remain: Where are the full FBI files documenting early complaints? How did federal authorities respond to repeated warnings? And why are alleged perpetrators still shielded while victims bear the cost of public scrutiny?
These concerns have found echoes in Congress. Prominent Democrats have accused the Trump administration’s justice department of orchestrating a cover-up. Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, has pointed to the discrepancy between the six million documents initially identified and the three million released, as well as the tens of thousands of redactions applied. To him, the disclosures amount to selective transparency – revealing only what officials are willing to show while keeping the most sensitive material hidden.
The Department of Justice rejects this characterization. In response to criticism, a spokesperson dismissed allegations of withholding as a “tired narrative”, insisting that more than 3.5 million pages were produced in full compliance with the law and that Congress was clearly informed about what was deemed non-responsive. Yet such assurances have done little to restore confidence among victims, advocates or the public.
At stake is more than procedural compliance. The Epstein case has become a symbol of how wealth, power and political connections can distort justice. Without a full accounting of how Epstein evaded accountability for so long – and who enabled that evasion – the release of millions of pages risks feeling performative rather than revelatory.
Comments