Former Prosecutor Says DOJ Could Have Released All Epstein Files
A former federal prosecutor claims the DOJ had legal authority to release all Jeffrey Epstein files, raising new questions about transparency and accountability.
A former federal prosecutor has stated that the U.S. Department of Justice had the legal authority to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein, reigniting public debate over transparency, accountability, and the handling of one of the most controversial criminal cases in modern American history. The remarks come amid growing pressure from lawmakers, journalists, and victims’ advocates who argue that key information remains hidden despite Epstein’s death and years of investigations.
According to the former prosecutor, federal law did not prevent the Department of Justice from disclosing the full scope of Epstein-related records, provided sensitive victim information was properly redacted. This assertion challenges the long-standing position that legal, procedural, or privacy concerns significantly limited what could be made public. Instead, the comments suggest that withholding documents may have been more a matter of institutional caution or political calculation than strict legal necessity.
Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with powerful connections, was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges involving minors. His death in a New York jail cell later that year officially ended the criminal case, but it did little to quiet public suspicion or outrage. Questions surrounding his associates, the scope of his alleged crimes, and the circumstances of his prosecution have persisted, fueled by partial disclosures and sealed records.
The former prosecutor explained that prosecutors typically possess broad discretion when it comes to releasing records, especially in cases where the defendant is deceased and no ongoing trial remains. While certain materials such as grand jury testimony are protected under federal law, many investigative files, interview summaries, and internal documents could legally be disclosed with appropriate safeguards. This distinction is often misunderstood by the public, leading to assumptions that all Epstein-related materials were automatically sealed by law.
Critics of the DOJ argue that limited transparency has undermined public trust. They contend that releasing more comprehensive records could help clarify who knew what, when they knew it, and whether any failures occurred within the justice system. The perception that powerful individuals may have been shielded from scrutiny has only intensified calls for full disclosure.
Victims’ advocates have expressed mixed reactions to the renewed debate. Some support broader transparency, believing that sunlight is essential for accountability and reform. Others caution that indiscriminate releases could retraumatize survivors or expose private details unrelated to public interest. The former prosecutor emphasized that these concerns are valid but manageable through careful redaction and consultation with victims.
The DOJ has previously defended its approach, citing the need to protect ongoing investigations, preserve victim privacy, and comply with court orders. However, as years pass and no major new prosecutions emerge, those justifications are increasingly questioned. Legal experts note that transparency often increases public confidence, particularly in high-profile cases involving allegations of preferential treatment or institutional failure.
Lawmakers from both major political parties have recently renewed calls for greater disclosure. Some have proposed legislative measures to clarify disclosure rules in cases involving deceased defendants and alleged crimes of public significance. While such reforms would not retroactively change past decisions, they reflect growing frustration with opaque processes.
The Epstein case also highlights broader issues within the American justice system, including how wealth and influence intersect with accountability. Epstein’s earlier plea deal in Florida, which allowed him to avoid federal charges and serve minimal jail time, remains a focal point of criticism. Many see the continued secrecy surrounding related records as an extension of that perceived injustice.
Media organizations have played a central role in pushing for disclosure, filing Freedom of Information Act requests and challenging redactions in court. Some documents have been released through these efforts, but they often arrive heavily censored or incomplete. The former prosecutor’s comments may strengthen legal arguments that broader disclosure is both lawful and appropriate.
Public interest in the case remains high, driven by a combination of unanswered questions and broader cultural reckoning around sexual abuse and power. Transparency advocates argue that releasing the remaining files would not only address lingering doubts but also demonstrate a commitment to institutional accountability.
As the debate continues, the DOJ faces a difficult balancing act between legal caution and public demand for openness. The former prosecutor’s assertion that full release was within the department’s power adds weight to arguments that more could have been done. Whether this renewed scrutiny will lead to further disclosures remains uncertain, but it underscores a central reality: the Epstein case is far from closed in the court of public opinion.
Tags
Epstein Files, DOJ Transparency, Jeffrey Epstein Case, Federal Prosecutor Statement, U.S. Justice Department, Legal Accountability, Breaking News
