It has been more than 30 days since the Department of Justice was required by federal law to make all of the Epstein Files public. According to the DOJ’s own estimates, it has released less than 1% so far. Even worse, the last time the Department of Justice released any documents was Dec. 23, 2025 — four days after the statutory deadline for full disclosure.

View in browser ([link removed] )

NL-Header_DD-Premium2 ([link removed] )

January 19, 2026

It has been more than 30 days since the Department of Justice was required by federal law to make all of the Epstein Files public. According to the DOJ’s own estimates, it has released less than 1% so far. Even worse, the last time the Department of Justice released any documents was Dec. 23, 2025 — four days after the statutory deadline for full disclosure.

Why the DOJ failed to meet this deadline, and why even the rolling productions have now stopped, is a matter of intense speculation and debate. The most likely explanation is also the most obvious: Donald Trump does not want the files released, and the DOJ is doing his bidding.

The department would have you believe the delay is due to the sheer volume of records, making the Dec. 19 deadline unrealistic — bordering on impossible. Just last week, Pam Bondi told a federal judge in New York that the DOJ is now employing “over 500 reviewers.”

But if the DOJ is, as she suggests three separate times in her letter to the judge, making “substantial progress,” why has it not released more partial productions of documents that have already been reviewed? She does not say.

Nor does she acknowledge or explain the Department’s other violations of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including redacting the names of men and failing to provide Congress with the mandated report.

Accountability is essential to a healthy democracy, and a premium membership helps make it possible. You can’t defend our future without understanding what’s at stake. Become a member today ([link removed] ) .

SUPPORT OUR WORK
([link removed] )

Bondi also has not explained how the current reviews differ from the prior reviews the DOJ claimed to have completed last spring and summer. For example, last July, the DOJ and FBI issued a joint statement asserting that “the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein.”

According to Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, “the FBI conducted digital searches of its databases, hard drives, and network drives, as well as physical searches of squad areas, locked cabinets, desks, closets, and other areas where responsive material may have been stored. These searches uncovered a significant amount of material, including more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence.”

We were told that all of these materials were “systematically reviewed” by “teams of agents, analysts, attorneys, and privacy and civil liberties experts.” The result, we were told, was that there was “no incriminating ‘client list,’” nor any “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

When Congress enacted the disclosure law, it reasonably assumed that the 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence already reviewed in July could be promptly made public, with only victim-identifying information redacted.

That did not happen.

Instead, after several small productions, the DOJ claimed on Christmas Eve that it had recently “uncovered over a million more documents potentially related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.” By New Year’s Eve, according to the Associated Press, the number of documents requiring review had ballooned to 5.2 million.

Three days later, the DOJ dropped another bombshell: more than 2 million documents remained unreviewed, and the Department had released just 0.6 percent of all the materials in its possession.

With each announcement, we were assured that the DOJ was increasing the number of lawyers conducting the review and that they were “working around the clock,” but that the final release “may take a few more weeks.” Those weeks have now turned into a month, and we still do not have the files.

There is one additional fact related to the Epstein Files release that has largely gone unnoticed. In early December, shortly before the full set of Epstein Files was supposed to be made public, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a motion to vacate her conviction. This is a routine motion often filed by federal prisoners after their direct appeals have been rejected.

After she filed the motion, the government successfully sought to place it — along with 148 exhibits — under seal so the materials could be reviewed for victim-identifying information that should remain confidential. The judge ordered prosecutors to complete that review and provide a public version by Jan. 6.

On Jan. 6, government lawyers requested another week, to complete the review. Then, on Jan. 11, they asked for yet another extension — until Feb. 10.

In the meantime, a redacted version of Maxwell’s motion was made public. Among her claims, Maxwell asserts that there may have been “secret settlements with 25 men.” These agreements, she claims, were “hidden” from her before trial. Had she known about them, she says she “would have certainly called the men as witnesses” in her defense.

To be clear, it is entirely possible that Maxwell’s claims lack merit. She is a convicted criminal with a clear motive to lie.

Still, it is difficult to understand why a team of 500 lawyers reviewing the full Epstein Files has sought multiple extensions — totaling nearly two months — to review and release just 148 documents attached to her motion.

Those reviewing the Epstein Files for damaging material are searching for needles in a very large haystack. More than almost anyone else, Maxwell knows where those needles might be hidden. One might reasonably assume that the 148 documents she attached to a motion seeking her freedom would be among the most important.

It is also possible that the delay in reviewing and releasing these documents is purely administrative. Maxwell’s filings may be disorganized, and the government lawyers assigned to the case may be occupied with more pressing matters.

Perhaps all of these questions — the July review, the shifting document counts, the missed deadlines, the halted rolling productions, and the Maxwell petition — have simple explanations. If so, we have not heard them.

Maybe it is all innocent. But nothing about the Epstein Files has ever been innocent. Maybe the DOJ is simply being careful to protect victims. Or maybe the DOJ is once again doing what it believes is best for Trump, and everything else be damned.

Like you, I hope we find out soon.

When powerful institutions refuse to explain themselves, independent journalism matters more than ever.

Become a premium member to support our work and pro-democracy mission ([link removed] ) .

JOIN THE PREMIUM COMMUNITY
([link removed] )

Facebook ([link removed] )

X ([link removed] )

Instagram ([link removed] )

Bluesky_Logo-grey (2) ([link removed] )

YouTube ([link removed] )

Website ([link removed] )

TikTok ([link removed] )

We also understand that not everyone is able to make this commitment, which is why our free daily and weekly newsletters aren’t going anywhere! If you prefer not to receive samples of our premium content and only want our free daily and weekly newsletters, you can opt out here. ([link removed] )

Unsubscribe ([link removed] ) | Manage your preferences ([link removed] ) | Donate ([link removed] )

Democracy Docket, LLC

250 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 400

Washington, D.C., 20009