A new controversy is emerging over the handling of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation — specifically whether key FBI interview records referencing Donald Trump were withheld from Congress.

The dispute centers on the Justice Department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and a congressional subpoena seeking materials from what has been described as the “Epstein trove.” While Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche have indicated that no further production is forthcoming, members of Congress and outside analysts argue that significant materials may still be missing.

The Missing “302s”

At the heart of the issue are so-called FBI “302” reports — formal summaries prepared by agents documenting interviews with witnesses and alleged victims. These records typically include detailed statements, names of potential corroborating witnesses, and evidence timelines. In cases involving alleged misconduct, 302s often form the backbone of investigative files.

According to reporting by NPR, analysis of document numbering suggests that approximately 15 FBI 302 reports exist relating to a particular accuser. However, only seven were reportedly produced to Congress, and just one has been made public.

The accuser in question previously filed — and later withdrew — a civil lawsuit alleging that Trump assaulted her when she was 13 years old. The claim was never adjudicated, and Trump has denied wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the existence of FBI interview records documenting her allegations has intensified scrutiny.

Congressional Response

Representative Robert Garcia, ranking member on a House oversight panel, stated that after reviewing unredacted materials, it appears the Justice Department “illegally withheld” FBI interviews connected to the accuser.

Garcia and other Democrats argue that if such 302 reports were part of the Epstein investigative file, they should have been disclosed under the transparency law unless subject to specific statutory exemptions.

Justice Department officials have not publicly detailed their rationale for the partial production. It remains unclear whether the documents were withheld due to privacy protections, ongoing investigative considerations, or other legal grounds.

Legal and Political Stakes

The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of longstanding public demands for greater transparency in the Epstein case. Advocates have emphasized that victims’ statements — documented through 302 interviews — are among the most significant materials for understanding what investigators knew and when.

Legal experts caution, however, that redactions or non-production may be permissible under certain circumstances, including protection of victim identities or safeguarding sensitive information. Determining whether the withholding was improper would likely require formal review.

If additional records exist and were not produced in compliance with subpoena requirements, congressional committees could seek enforcement measures or judicial intervention.

What Comes Next

For now, the spotlight remains on the Justice Department to clarify:

• How many 302 reports exist in total relating to the accuser

• Why some were produced while others were not

• Whether any statutory exemptions justify withholding

The matter could escalate into a broader separation-of-powers dispute between Congress and the executive branch.

While the underlying allegations against Trump remain unproven and previously withdrawn in court, the transparency question is now central: whether investigative records tied to those claims were properly disclosed under federal law.

As congressional scrutiny intensifies, the Department of Justice may soon be required to provide more detailed explanations about its handling of the Epstein files.