Adam Schiff Warns Epstein Files May Be Compromised, Demands DOJ Audit

As a court-ordered deadline approaches for the Justice Department to release long-sealed records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Senator Adam Schiff of California is raising alarms not about rumor or speculation, but about process — and power. In interviews this week, Mr. Schiff warned that political influence inside the Justice Department could shape what the public ultimately sees, and what remains hidden, in one of the most sensitive document disclosures in recent memory.

At the center of Mr. Schiff’s concern is whether the Department of Justice, under leadership he describes as politically compromised, can be trusted to manage the Epstein files with integrity. He has formally requested that the department’s Inspector General conduct an independent audit of the custody, handling and redaction of the records before their release, a step he argues is necessary to preserve public confidence.

“I don’t think we can have confidence,” Mr. Schiff said, referring to assurances from senior Justice Department officials. While he expressed comparatively greater trust in inspectors general than in political appointees, he noted that many such watchdogs were dismissed early in the Trump administration, leaving open questions about their independence and authority.

The Epstein files — a sprawling collection of investigative materials tied to the financier who died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges — are expected to be partially disclosed under a bipartisan law passed by Congress. The White House faces a statutory deadline next week to produce the documents or explain why certain materials are being withheld.

Mr. Schiff cautioned against assuming that the release will bring full transparency. “They will produce something,” he said, but added that the material could be heavily redacted. While redactions to protect victims’ privacy or ongoing investigations would be legitimate, he questioned whether the administration could be trusted to limit redactions to those purposes alone.

The concern is not abstract. News reports have indicated that the F.B.I. assigned roughly a thousand agents to comb through the Epstein records, flagging every instance in which former President Donald J. Trump’s name appeared. For Mr. Schiff, that revelation cuts both ways: it suggests rigorous review, but also raises the risk of selective disclosure.

“If there are documents that are incriminating or embarrassing to the president or his allies,” Mr. Schiff said, “there’s good reason to be suspicious about whether those will ever see the light of day.”

To guard against that possibility, he has asked the Inspector General to verify whether any documents are missing and to examine logs the administration is required to provide listing withheld materials. A vague or incomplete log, he warned, would only deepen mistrust.

The stakes extend beyond the Epstein case itself. Mr. Schiff framed the issue as part of a broader pattern within the Justice Department, which he accused of operating selectively and vindictively. He pointed to the department’s repeated, unsuccessful efforts to persuade grand juries to indict New York’s attorney general, Letitia James — a political adversary of Mr. Trump.

Grand juries require only probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecutors largely control what evidence jurors see. That multiple grand juries declined to indict, Mr. Schiff said, was both unusual and telling. “At one level, it’s shocking,” he said. “At another, it’s all too understandable if the department is determined to go after the president’s enemies.”

Those failures, he argued, illustrate the danger of a Justice Department perceived as an instrument of political retribution rather than an impartial enforcer of the law.

The administration has rejected accusations of impropriety, maintaining that any redactions in the Epstein files will be narrowly tailored and legally justified. Still, public skepticism remains high, fueled by years of institutional strain and partisan conflict.

Legal scholars note that transparency in such cases is inherently complex. Victim privacy, national security concerns and ongoing investigative interests often justify withholding information. But history also shows how redactions can be abused, shielding misconduct or sparing powerful figures from scrutiny.

That is why, Mr. Schiff insists, independent oversight matters. “This isn’t paranoia,” he said. “It’s a necessary check.”

For survivors of Epstein’s abuse and for a public weary of opaque governance, the handling of these files carries symbolic weight. A disclosure perceived as incomplete or manipulated could further erode trust in the justice system. A process seen as fair and independently verified, by contrast, could help restore some measure of confidence.

“This is about democratic accountability,” Mr. Schiff said. “About whether our institutions function as they’re supposed to, even — especially — when powerful interests are involved.”

As the deadline nears, the question is no longer simply what the Epstein files contain, but who decides what the country is allowed to know — and under what scrutiny those decisions are made.