Justice Department Under Fire as Epstein Files Release Sparks Accusations of Cover-Up and Political Interference

In a move that has intensified scrutiny on the Trump administration’s handling of sensitive documents, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has faced mounting accusations of orchestrating a deliberate cover-up in the release of files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Lawmakers from both parties, along with victims’ advocates, have decried the partial and heavily redacted disclosures as a breach of transparency, raising questions about potential efforts to shield powerful figures, including President Trump himself, from further exposure. The controversy erupted after the department missed a congressional deadline mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by Mr. Trump in November, which required the full release of investigative materials by Dec. 20.

The act, passed with near-unanimous bipartisan support, aimed to shed light on Epstein’s sprawling network of influence, which ensnared politicians, celebrities, and business leaders. Yet, when the Justice Department finally unveiled a trove of documents on Friday, critics pointed to glaring omissions. Pages from New York grand jury proceedings were redacted extensively, and initial versions of some exhibits appeared to scrub references to Mr. Trump, only for a photo of him to be restored later after public outcry. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the actions in a Sunday interview, citing victim protection protocols and the need for careful review to avoid compromising ongoing inquiries. “This is not a cover-up; it’s caution,” Mr. Blanche said, emphasizing that the department had released thousands of pages while planning further disclosures in the coming weeks.

The backlash has been swift and pointed. Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, accused Ms. Bondi of “flagrant contempt for the law” and warned that failure to comply could lead to impeachment proceedings or even criminal charges for obstruction of justice. In a statement co-signed by fellow Democrats Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia, they described the delays as part of a broader “Epstein cover-up” perpetuated by the administration. Republicans, too, have voiced unease; Representative Thomas Massie suggested on social media that the redactions smacked of selective editing to protect allies, though he stopped short of directly implicating Mr. Trump.

At the heart of the furor is Mr. Trump’s longstanding association with Epstein, a relationship that has haunted his political career. Court documents and witness accounts from the 1990s and early 2000s depict the two men as frequent companions in New York’s social scene, with Epstein’s former assistants recalling Trump’s regular phone calls—up to three times a week—and his habit of sharing modeling cards for Epstein to review. A 1994 handwritten note corroborated by The New York Times noted Trump as a “regular presence” in Epstein’s life. While the recent releases do not accuse Mr. Trump of criminal involvement in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation, they reinforce questions about what he knew and when. Mr. Trump has repeatedly downplayed the ties, claiming in 2019 that he “wasn’t a fan” and had fallen out with Epstein years earlier. Yet, a birthday card from Mr. Trump referencing “secrets and women” has fueled speculation, leading to a lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal that remains unresolved.

Victims’ groups have expressed profound disappointment. One survivor, identified as Jane Doe in filings, penned a letter to the Justice Department protesting the failure to redact her name in initial releases, calling it a “heartbreaking betrayal.” “We’ve waited decades for justice, only to see politics triumph over truth,” she wrote. Advocacy organizations like the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program have echoed these sentiments, arguing that the redactions prioritize the powerful over the vulnerable. In interviews, several former Epstein employees, speaking on condition of anonymity, described parties where underage models were present and alcohol was served illegally, though they did not implicate Mr. Trump directly.

Behind the scenes, sources familiar with the department’s operations suggest internal chaos. A whistleblower, months earlier, predicted that files would be scrubbed of references to Republicans, including Mr. Trump, while highlighting Democrats like former President Bill Clinton, whose photos featured prominently in the batch. Indeed, the releases included repeated mentions of Mr. Clinton but omitted potentially damaging material about Mr. Trump, such as unredacted allegations from grand jury testimony. One insider, a midlevel DOJ official who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, claimed that Ms. Bondi’s team conducted a “frenetic search” over the summer to isolate releasable content that could deflect scrutiny from the president.

The administration’s response has been defiant. Mr. Trump, in a post on his social media platform, dismissed the controversy as a “witch hunt” orchestrated by “radical left Democrats,” while praising Ms. Bondi as a “tough fighter.” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles reportedly criticized Ms. Bondi’s early handling as a “complete whiff,” according to aides, amid broader admissions of the president’s penchant for “score settling.” Legal experts warn that defying the congressional mandate could invite subpoenas or contempt charges, potentially escalating into a constitutional standoff.

As more documents trickle out, the episode underscores enduring tensions between executive power and legislative oversight. For Epstein’s victims, the partial truths offer little solace, while for Mr. Trump, they represent another chapter in a saga that refuses to fade. With investigations into Democrats’ Epstein ties now underway at the president’s behest, the line between justice and politics grows ever blurrier. In Washington, where scandals often simmer before boiling over, this one shows no signs of cooling.