Revelations in Epstein Files Raise Questions About Surveillance of Journalist During Trump’s First Term

WASHINGTON — When the Justice Department released a large tranche of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking investigation earlier this month, in compliance with a new congressional mandate, few expected the files to contain the personal travel records of a prominent investigative journalist. Yet there, among grand jury subpoenas and flight manifests, was an American Airlines itinerary from July 2019 belonging to Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter whose dogged reporting played a pivotal role in reopening the federal case against Epstein.

Ms. Brown, whose 2018 series “Perversion of Justice” exposed the lenient 2008 plea deal that allowed Epstein to avoid serious consequences for abusing dozens of underage girls, discovered the record herself. The booking, made under her full name including a rarely used maiden name, detailed a round-trip flight she had arranged. “I expected my name to be in the Epstein files, since the Miami Herald published the series,” she wrote on Substack. “What I didn’t expect to see was an American Airlines flight record from 2019 with my full name on them.” She questioned publicly why the department appeared to be “monitoring” her movements during the height of the renewed investigation.

The timing is notable: July 2019 was the month federal agents in New York arrested Epstein on new sex-trafficking charges, charges that many investigators and victims’ advocates credit directly to Ms. Brown’s reporting. Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell weeks later, an event that has fueled years of speculation and conspiracy theories. The inclusion of Ms. Brown’s travel details — attached to materials from the Southern District of New York’s probe during President Trump’s first term — has prompted sharp questions from lawmakers, press freedom advocates and former prosecutors about whether journalists covering sensitive stories faced unusual scrutiny.

A Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, offered an explanation that the flight record was obtained incidentally as part of broader subpoenas for commercial airline manifests. Investigators, the official said, were seeking to identify any victims who had traveled on routes potentially linked to Epstein’s activities but not on his private jet, whose passenger logs have long been scrutinized. In this instance, the official asserted, Ms. Brown had booked travel for a victim she was interviewing, and the record surfaced in response to a wide-ranging subpoena.

Ms. Brown has not disputed that she arranged travel for sources during her reporting, a common practice among investigative journalists to protect vulnerable interviewees. But she and others have expressed skepticism about the breadth of the subpoenas and whether her own movements were inadvertently or deliberately captured. Press advocacy groups, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the revelation “deeply troubling,” arguing that even incidental collection of a journalist’s records risks chilling aggressive reporting on powerful figures.

The episode has resurfaced broader concerns about the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case. Mr. Trump, who socialized with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s before publicly distancing himself, has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and described Epstein as a “terrific guy” in a 2002 interview, while later claiming he banned him from Mar-a-Lago. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, who as a U.S. attorney in Miami oversaw Epstein’s controversial 2008 deal, resigned in 2019 amid renewed scrutiny sparked by Ms. Brown’s work.

In recent months, the Epstein matter has continued to shadow the second Trump administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi, confirmed earlier this year after promising greater transparency, has faced bipartisan criticism for the department’s heavily redacted December release, which some lawmakers described as falling short of the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s requirements. Democrats have accused the department of selective omissions to shield prominent figures, while some Republicans have pressed for fuller disclosure.

The discovery of Ms. Brown’s records has amplified those tensions. Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, called it a matter requiring “full accountability,” while civil liberties advocates warned of the dangers of government access to journalists’ travel data without robust safeguards. Former federal prosecutors noted that grand jury subpoenas for airline records are not uncommon in trafficking cases, but the optics — a journalist central to exposing Epstein finding her own itinerary in the files — are undeniably awkward.

Ms. Brown, for her part, has continued her work undeterred. Her 2021 book, also titled “Perversion of Justice,” detailed the systemic failures that allowed Epstein to operate for years. In interviews since the files’ release, she has emphasized the need for continued scrutiny, not just of Epstein’s enablers but of institutional responses to powerful predators.

As Congress prepares for the new year, some members have signaled interest in further oversight hearings. The episode serves as a reminder that the Epstein saga, more than six years after his death, remains a potent symbol of accountability — or its absence — for the rich and connected. For the journalist who helped bring it back to light, the latest twist is a personal footnote in a much larger story of power, secrecy and justice deferred.