Justice Department Faces Growing Backlash Over Handling of Epstein Records

By The New York Times

Washington — Pressure is mounting on the Justice Department after survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network accused federal authorities of violating a new transparency law and mishandling the long-awaited release of investigative records, intensifying a controversy that has now spread across Congress, the courts and the political landscape.

In a statement released on December 22, a group of Epstein survivors said the Department of Justice failed to meet a clear legal deadline under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a law passed with near-unanimous bipartisan support and signed by the president. The statute required the department to release its full records of the Epstein investigation by December 19, with only narrow exceptions to protect survivor identities.

Instead, the survivors said, the public received only a partial disclosure — one they described as riddled with unexplained redactions, internal inconsistencies and omissions that undermine both accountability and public trust.

“It is alarming that the United States Department of Justice, the very agency tasked with upholding the law, has violated the law,” the statement read. The survivors said massive quantities of documents were withheld without explanation, while some victim names were left unredacted, causing what they described as “real and immediate harm.”

The controversy has quickly escalated into a broader political scandal, with critics comparing it to — and in some cases arguing it surpasses — the Watergate coverup in scope. At the center of the dispute are allegations that senior officials within the Trump administration, along with the FBI and DOJ, worked in concert to delay, redact or suppress records that could implicate powerful figures connected to Epstein.

The department has not publicly explained why hundreds of thousands of pages remain unreleased, despite repeated assurances earlier this year that the files were being prepared for disclosure. Attorney General Pam Bondi had said in televised interviews that the documents were “on my desk” and would be released soon — statements that critics now say were misleading.

Adding to the scrutiny is sworn congressional testimony by Kash Patel, a senior Trump ally, who told lawmakers months ago that there was no credible evidence Epstein trafficked girls to other individuals. That assertion has been widely challenged by survivors, journalists and court records from Epstein’s prosecution and the conviction of his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Since the partial release of records, critics have pointed to what they describe as erratic handling of sensitive materials. Entire sections of documents — including 119 pages of grand jury minutes that had been approved for release by a federal judge — were fully blacked out. Financial records were not included at all. Meanwhile, some files initially justified as heavily redacted to protect victims were later unredacted, revealing no survivor names, while other documents inadvertently exposed them.

Survivors also said the manner of release made it nearly impossible for them to locate materials relevant to their own cases. They reported receiving no guidance, no direct communication from the department and no copies of their own files, despite repeated requests.

“This administration is uniquely scandalous in the way it suppresses survivors’ voices,” said one advocate working closely with the group. The criticism echoes earlier moments when survivors held press conferences urging transparency, only to be dismissed by political leaders as promoting a “hoax.”

The controversy has drawn bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill. A small coalition of lawmakers — including progressive Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans — forced a discharge petition to compel the release of the records, overriding resistance from House leadership. Lawmakers involved in the effort say the administration’s actions amount to a direct defiance of Congress.

Legal experts note that the Epstein Files Transparency Act left little room for discretion. “There was no provision for delayed disclosure,” said one former federal prosecutor. “Nor did it authorize redacting the names of government officials, donors or other non-victims.”

The Justice Department now faces calls not only to complete the release, but also to explain whether internal decisions violated federal law. Some critics have gone further, urging investigations into potential perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power by senior officials.

The episode has also revived long-standing questions surrounding Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019. Past claims by federal authorities that surveillance footage conclusively disproved foul play were later undermined by revelations that the video was edited and did not clearly show Epstein’s cell.

For survivors, however, the issue goes beyond political fallout. “This is not a game,” their statement said. “We have been fighting for decades to be heard.”

As Congress weighs its next steps and public pressure intensifies, the handling of the Epstein files is increasingly seen as a test of whether the justice system can hold both criminals and institutions accountable — or whether, as critics argue, power once again shields itself from scrutiny.