As the clock ticks toward the congressionally mandated deadline of 19 December by which Donald Trump’s justice department must release its files related to Jeffrey Epstein, there is intense speculation about the contents of these documents – but also questions as to what happens when they are released.
The US president on 19 November signed a bipartisan bill requiring that the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, disclose these documents to the US public within 30 days. Given that other tranches of materials related to the disgraced financier included damning correspondence with high-profile individuals, many expect that still more names of the rich, famous and powerful will be named.
Victims of Epstein and their advocates, including an overwhelming majority of Congress, have expressed hope that they will also learn why he was able to avoid meaningful prosecution for years despite numerous minors telling authorities that he abused them.
Many also believe that these papers could lift the veil on more details of Trump’s relationship with Epstein, as the president, who had been his friend before a falling out, is mentioned repeatedly in previously released communications.
Trump, whose decision to sign the bill marked a reversal from his months-long opposition to it, has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in relation to Epstein. His representatives have slammed reports of Trump’s prior ties to Epstein as “tired and pathetic attempts to distract from all the success of President Trump’s administration”.
If Trump’s justice department does comply with this law – as Bondi has vowed it will – experts and observers told the Guardian that the long-fought battle for transparency could prompt deep ramifications for those named in the files. These could range from severe ostracism to legal liability.
Sam Bassett, a criminal defense attorney with the Austin, Texas, firm Minton, Bassett, Flores & Carsey, explained that statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse crimes in various states have expanded in recent years. Federal law does not have time limits for pursuing sex crimes involving minors.
Prosecutors might be able to pursue cases and other investigations if these files “were to reveal enough evidence for somebody to seek charges and or an indictment”.
“It is possible, depending on the jurisdiction,” Bassett said.
That wouldn’t mean that charges would automatically result for anyone implicated with even damning evidence, given logistical constraints. “Given the passage of time, they’re going to have to be pretty selective on which kind of which case or cases they would seek prosecution on,” Bassett said.
Spencer Kuvin, the top legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for several Epstein victims, voiced similar sentiments about possible prosecution for Epstein associates.
“Once these files are released, the next step is simple: follow the evidence wherever it leads. The documents should be treated as actionable intelligence for further investigations and potential prosecution,” Kuvin said. “Every name, every communication, every corroborated act that points toward facilitation, cover-up, or participation in Epstein’s trafficking network should trigger renewed investigative scrutiny.”
There is also the potential of well-warranted social ostracism for any exposed Epstein associates who have stayed off the radar so far.
“People who were communicating with Epstein after his conviction in Florida should be seen by the public for what they are: individuals that were complicit or facilitated of a sex trafficker,” Kuvin said.
“For my clients, transparency is not the end goal – justice is. The files must be the beginning of long-overdue accountability.”
Kuvin said authorities must “correct past institutional failures”.
“If the files reveal misconduct inside federal agencies, the government has a duty to confront those failures openly and create structural protections, so no victim is ever sidelined again,” he said. “This isn’t just about uncovering crimes – it’s about rebuilding trust with survivors who were betrayed by the system.”
Gretchen Carlson and Julie Roginsky, who pursued sexual harassment lawsuits against former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and co-launched the non-profit Lift Our Voices, said that seeing the files was imperative. The information, in turn, could guide appropriate next steps.
“I think that the possibilities are endless as to what could be the result. I think there could be more criminal charges. I think that there could be accountability, not only for individuals, but institutions or other groups that may be named,” said Carlson, who believes the files will be released. “I think there’s a tremendous amount of information out there that we’re not aware of yet.”
“If you only consider the fact that we learned so much just from the emails that the House oversight committee released, then you can only imagine how much would be in the million pages of documents.”
Skepticism about this disclosure persists, however, given multiple carve-outs for withholding information. This legislation does not allow redaction of names only because those identified might face embarrassment or reputational damage, but one provision does permit the withholding documents that might allegedly impinge on ongoing investigations.
Bondi, deferring to Trump’s request, has assigned a prosecutor in New York to investigate former president Bill Clinton, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and other Trump political adversaries who once associated with Epstein. Both Clinton and Hoffman, who have not been accused of misconduct related to Epstein, have denied wrongdoing and expressed remorse for their prior association with him.
Many have wondered whether the Clinton and Hoffman probes will be used as an excuse to keep secret documents which should otherwise be subject to disclosure. The justice department’s track record on disclosing these documents – one of Trump’s campaign promises – has been spotty.
Roginsky, who is among those who thinks the administration could invoke these investigations to withhold files, also noted Trump’s broad power. “The law does allow him to classify certain aspects of these files, and he has unilateral authority to determine what is classified as a matter of national security,” she said.
Another possibility: “They release some of the files that are embarrassing politically to people the president wants to embarrass, that the administration wants to embarrass, but not potentially to himself or his allies.”
Should the information come out as required by law, views vary on how to best present an analysis to the public. Asked whether Congress should prepare an analysis similar to the 9/11 commission report, Kuvin said “absolutely”.
“This case deserves nothing less than a full, independent, public accounting. The Epstein scandal wasn’t just a trafficking operation – it was a catastrophic breakdown of federal, state and local institutions,” Kuvin said. “A 9/11-style commission, with subpoena power and independence from political influence, is the only mechanism capable of mapping out Epstein’s network, identifying systemic failures, determining who intervened, who looked the other way and why, [and] recommending safeguards to prevent anything like this from happening again.
“Without a commission, we’re piecing together fragments of truth from a system that already failed these survivors once.”
Carlson said that the bipartisan agreement on transparency gives her hope that there might be agreement across the aisle in next steps.
“Depending on what’s in these files, both parties might decide that if both parties have people that fall down, or whatever the case may be, that it’s important for the country – and for moving us all forward – that they come together and do come up with some sort of a report.”
For Roginsky, the landscape is so different that a report wouldn’t have the same impact as it did after 9/11, further underscoring the need for disclosure.
“I think we are living in a very different world than we were living in after 9/11,” she said. “I think that there is such a level of mistrust right now that even a 9/11-style commission is not going to be perceived by everybody, and, certainly, I think by enough people, to be legitimate.”
Jennifer Plotkin of Merson Law, a firm that has represented 33 Epstein survivors and is pursuing a lawsuit over federal authorities’ inaction on allegations decades ago, was succinct in describing what she thought should come next.
“The government should accept accountability and responsibility to Epstein’s victims in the FBI by resolving the matter instead of fighting with the survivors like it is now,” Plotkin said.
Asked about transparency concerns, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: “President Trump has been consistently calling for transparency related to the Epstein files – by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House oversight committee’s subpoena request, and President Trump recently calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, the Trump administration has done more for the victims than Democrats ever have.”
