Epstein files review over – WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice has signalled the end of its formal review of documents tied to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking investigation, with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirming that the material released so far does not provide sufficient evidence for new criminal charges.
Blanche’s remarks, delivered during recent interviews and a news conference, come as part of the Justice Department’s ongoing effort to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a law passed by Congress in late 2025 requiring the disclosure of federal records related to Epstein and his associates.
More than 3 million documents, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images have now been made public, nearly completing the tranche of files identified for release. However, Blanche stressed that even this expansive body of material — spanning emails, correspondence, photographs and investigative records — does not present legally actionable evidence against additional individuals beyond those already charged and convicted, such as Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
End of Active DOJ Investigation on Epstein Files
In interviews on national television and at press briefings, Blanche characterised the four-month review process as exhaustive and complete. He said that the department had reviewed more than 6 million pages of documents — likening the volume of material to “two Eiffel Towers” — but consistently found no clear prosecutable offences that could be brought against others based solely on the existing record.
“There’s a lot of correspondence, emails and photographs,” Blanche told CNN this week, “but that doesn’t allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody.” The Deputy AG added that for charges to be viable, the evidence must meet strict federal prosecutorial standards — which, in the department’s assessment, is not present at this time.
Blanche also reiterated that the review’s conclusion did not mean the Justice Department was shutting the door forever — saying that if new, credible evidence were to emerge later, authorities could re-evaluate whether further action is appropriate.
Massive Document Release Under Transparency Law
The disclosure of the files — mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law in November 2025 — has been one of the most expansive releases of government documents in recent U.S. history. The law required the Justice Department to make public the bulk of its unclassified materials related to federal investigations of Epstein.
On Friday, the department published 3.5 million pages of previously unreleased records, including emails, videos, and images, bringing total public disclosures to more than three million pages since the process began. Some material was withheld or redacted to protect ongoing investigations, victim identities, and legally privileged information.
Blanche emphasised that no files were redacted for national security or foreign policy reasons, and that all redactions were made solely for legal and privacy protections. He said the goal was to balance transparency with responsibility to victims and ongoing legal processes.
Blanche Defends DOJ Handling Amid Criticism
Despite the department’s assertions of compliance, the handling of the file release has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers and survivors’ advocates who argue that the disclosures remain incomplete and heavily redacted.
Several Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have alleged that the Justice Department has not fully met the spirit, if not the letter, of the transparency law. They argue that key material, such as unredacted interviews, grand jury testimony, and prosecutorial memorandums, remains withheld and inaccessible to the public.
Survivors’ attorneys have also expressed outrage, claiming that some of the recently published files have inadvertently exposed the identities of victims — a development that legal advocates say is retraumatising and signals problematic document control. The Department of Justice has acknowledged and pledged to address such errors, though they represent a very small fraction of the total material released.
Lawmaker Pressure for Full Transparency
Pressure from Capitol Hill has not subsided with the release of the latest material. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have demanded access to unredacted files, asserting that only through fully transparent disclosure can the public understand the full scope of Epstein’s network and how investigations were handled.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he believes the DOJ is complying with the law, while others, including Khanna and Raskin, warn that more aggressive oversight may be necessary to ensure accountability and completeness.
Critics have also pointed out that while names of alleged wealthy or powerful associates appear in the public filings, the lack of prosecutable evidence does not necessarily equate to innocence — but rather reflects strict legal standards and the department’s burden of proof.
Survivors’ Groups Slam the DOJ’s Approach
Victims and their legal representatives argue the most recent disclosures are “outrageous” and serve to protect powerful individuals rather than victims themselves. Advocacy groups have called for broader unredacted releases and the involvement of external review mechanisms to ensure that all relevant material is properly disclosed.
One survivors’ coalition stated that the files — as currently published — expose their identities in some cases while leaving alleged abusers unexposed, a disparity they describe as deeply troubling. They have called for a renewed review process that prioritises transparency and justice rather than mere compliance with minimal legal requirements.
What “No New Charges” Really Means
The Justice Department’s declaration that no new charges are likely based on the released files reflects a prosecutorial assessment, not a definitive statement about all possible wrongdoing. The department maintains that its review meets the requirements of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and that existing materials do not currently meet the evidentiary threshold for new federal charges.
Legal experts note that this does not prevent future actions if new evidence emerges — whether through public tips, civil cases, or fresh investigative leads — though the official review, as defined by the DOJ, is now considered closed.
Transparency vs. Accountability Debate Continues
As millions of pages of Epstein files become publicly accessible, the Justice Department insists it has fulfilled its legal obligations and completed its institutional review, signalling that no more federal charges are likely at this time. However, the broader debate over transparency, completeness of disclosures, and justice for victims continues — with lawmakers, advocates, and the public pushing for even deeper access to material that has long been shrouded in secrecy.
The controversy over the Epstein files remains a politically charged and emotionally sensitive issue, illustrating the complexities of balancing transparency, legal standards, privacy protections, and accountability in one of the most infamous criminal cases of the past two decades.
This report is part of FFRNEWS Politics coverage, tracking major legal and accountability developments in the United States. Details are based on official statements from the U.S. Department of Justice, with additional reporting by Associated Press and BBC News, which covered Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s confirmation that the Epstein files review has concluded with no new charges expected despite the large-scale document release.
