WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has expanded its review of documents related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to 5.2 million as it also increases the number of attorneys trying to comply with a law mandating release of the files, according to a person briefed on a letter sent to U.S. attorneys.
The figure is the latest estimate in the expanding review of case files on Epstein and his longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell that has run more than a week past a deadline set in law by Congress.
The Justice Department has more than 400 attorneys working on the review, but does not expect to release more documents until Jan. 20 or 21, according to the person briefed on the letter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.
The White House did not dispute the figures laid out in the email, and pointed to a statement from Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who said the administration’s review was an “all-hands-on-deck approach.”
Blanche said Wednesday that lawyers from the Justice Department in Washington, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York are working “around the clock” to review the files. The additional documents and lawyers related to the case were first reported by the New York Times.
“We’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain,” Blanche said. “Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released.”
Still, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is facing pressure from Congress after the Justice Department’s rollout of information has lagged behind the Dec. 19 deadline to release the information.
“Should Attorney General Pam Bondi be impeached?” Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who helped lead the effort to pass the law mandating the document release, asked on social media this week.
Democrats also are reviewing their legal options as they continue to seize on an issue that has caused cracks in the Republican Party and at times flummoxed President Trump’s administration.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on social media that the latest figures from the Department of Justice “shows Bondi, Blanche, and others at the DOJ have been lying to the American people about the Epstein files since day one” and pointed out that the documents released so far represent a fraction of the total.
NEW YORK — The Senate’s top Democrat urged his colleagues Monday to take legal action over the Justice Department’s incremental and heavily redacted release of records pertaining to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that required disclosure of records by last Friday.
“Instead of transparency, the Trump administration released a tiny fraction of the files and blacked out massive portions of what little they provided,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “This is a blatant cover-up.”
In lieu of Republican support, Schumer’s resolution is largely symbolic. The Senate is off until Jan. 5, more than two weeks after the deadline. Even then, the resolution will likely face an uphill battle for passage. But it allows Democrats to continue a pressure campaign for disclosure that Republicans had hoped to put behind them.
The Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis by the end of the year. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring victims’ names and other identifying information. So far, the department hasn’t given any notice when new records arrive.
That approach angered some accusers and members of Congress who fought to pass the transparency act. Records that were released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context.
There were few revelations in the tens of thousands of pages of records that have been released so far. Some of the most eagerly awaited records, such as FBI victim interviews and internal memos shedding light on charging decisions, weren’t there.
Nor were there any mentions of some powerful figures who’ve been in Epstein’s orbit, like Britain’s former Prince Andrew.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Justice Department’s decision to release just a fraction of the files by the deadline as necessary to protect survivors of sexual abuse by the disgraced financier.
Blanche pledged that the Trump administration would meet its obligation required by law. But he stressed that the department was obligated to act with caution as it goes about making public thousands of documents that can include sensitive information.
Blanche, the Justice Department’s second-in-command, also defended its decision to remove several files related to the case from its public webpage, including a photograph showing Donald Trump, less than a day after they were posted.
The missing files, which were available Friday but no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one of a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Blanche said the documents were removed because they also showed victims of Epstein. Blanche said the Trump photo and the other documents will be reposted once redactions are made to protect survivors.
“We are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with Mr. Epstein, and that narrative, which is not based on fact at all, is completely false,” Blanche told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Blanche said Trump, a Republican, has labeled the Epstein matter “a hoax” because “there’s this narrative out there that the Department of Justice is hiding and protecting information about him, which is completely false.”
“The Epstein files existed for years and years and years and you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years and yet … lo and behold, all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer suddenly cares about the Epstein files,” Blanche said. “That’s the hoax.”
Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
After steadily gaining power and influence for more than a decade, the watchdogs that provide civilian oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department face an uncertain future.
A recent leadership exodus has left behind gaps in experience and knowledge, and a succession of legal challenges and funding cuts by the county have left some concerned that long-fought gains in transparency are slipping away.
“It is beginning to look like the idea of effective oversight of the Sheriff’s Department is a pipe dream,” said Robert Bonner, former chairman of the Civilian Oversight Commission, who announced in June that he was being pushed into “involuntarily leaving” before he completed pending work.
Current and former oversight officials have argued that the office of county counsel, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department have repeatedly undermined efforts to rein in law enforcement misconduct.
The cumulative effect, some advocates worry, is that the public will know less about law enforcement activity, and that there will be fewer independent investigations into deputies and department leaders alike.
“The Sheriff is committed to transparency in law enforcement,” the department said via email. “As we move forward it is essential to strengthen collaboration with the [Civilian Oversight Commission] while ensuring that the rights and safety of our personnel are protected.”
In recent years, oversight bodies have uncovered information about so-called deputy gangs, published reports on inhumane jail conditions and issued subpoenas for records related to on-duty use of force incidents.
Inspector General Max Huntsman’s sudden announcement last week that he was retiring from the position he’s held since its creation more than a decade ago completed a trifecta of departures of top law enforcement oversight officials this year.
In addition to Bonner’s departure, former Civilian Oversight Commission chairman Sean Kennedy stepped down from the body in February in response to what he described as improper county interference in the commission’s activities.
L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna, right, talks with Sean Kennedy during an event on April 5 in Baker. Kennedy left his position on the Civilian Oversight Commission earlier this year.
(William Liang / For The Times)
Kennedy and others have said the Sheriff’s Department has refused to comply with multiple subpoenas by the commission for personnel files and records related to deputy misconduct.
“The attack on integrity and on oversight capacity is threatening all of us in Los Angeles County,” Hans Johnson, who took over as chairman of the Civilian Oversight Commission following Bonner’s departure, said at a recent public meeting. “We look forward to making sure that oversight is preserved and protected and not muzzled and not unplugged or sabotaged.”
The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said in a statement that it maintains a “long-standing commitment to strong oversight.”
The Sheriff’s Department said only one request it has received from oversight officials this year remains pending.
“The Department remains committed to working cooperatively to provide all requested information as required by law,” the statement said.
On the state level, reform advocates recently scored what they described as a victory for transparency.
In October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill known as AB 847, which granted civilian oversight bodies across California the ability to view confidential law enforcement records in private sessions. L.A. County officials had previously balked at sharing certain sensitive files on sheriff’s deputies, and some reformers worry the new law may not go far enough.
Dara Williams, chief deputy of the Office of the Inspector General, said at a July public meeting that the Sheriff’s Department has a history of being “painfully slow” to respond to requests for records related to homicides by deputies. In one instance, she said, Huntsman’s office served the department with a subpoena in October 2024 “and we are still waiting for documents and answers.”
The Sheriff’s Department said it has hired an outside attorney who is “conducting an independent review” of its records to determine if “those materials actually exist and can be found.”
The department’s statement said it will abide by the law and that protecting confidential information “remains of the utmost importance.”
Some involved in oversight have also become the subject of probes themselves.
In June, the Office of the County Counsel said it was investigating Kennedy for alleged retaliation against a sergeant who had worked for a unit that had been accused of pursuing cases for political reasons during Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s tenure.
Kennedy has denied the allegations, telling The Times in June, “I was just doing my job as an oversight official.”
Budget cuts — some already instituted, others threatened — are also a concern.
Huntsman said earlier this year that the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors was reassigning or eliminating a third of his staff.
Former L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman listens during a hearing at Loyola Law School’s Advocacy Center on Jan. 12, 2024.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
He too left amid acrimony with county officials.
“The County has made it very clear over the past couple of years that they are not going to enforce the state oversight laws,” Huntsman told The Times. “Instead the county supports the sheriff limiting the flow of information so as to restrict meaningful oversight.”
The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said the changes implemented this year have had a “minimal” impact that “neither limits OIG’s responsibility nor their capacity.”
The possibility of eliminating the Sybil Brand Commission, which monitors L.A. County jails, was discussed in an August report to the Board of Supervisors. County officials said it would save about $40,000 annually.
Sybil Brand commissioner Eric Miller told The Times in September that he believes “the county is attempting to limit oversight of the Sheriff’s Department … to avoid lawsuits.” The department, he said, “is a powerful constituency within the county.”
In September, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta launched a state lawsuit over what he described as a “humanitarian crisis” inside L.A. County jails.
There are even concerns that the Sheriff’s Department is seeking greater control over local groups that facilitate conversations between deputies and members of the public — often some of the only opportunities for community concerns to be heard.
In the Antelope Valley, the Palmdale Sheriff’s Station Community Advisory Committee has been roiled by allegations that a local Sheriff’s Department captain appointed a new member without other members’ approval.
The chair of the committee, Georgia Halliman, resigned in October and committee member Sylvia Williams has alleged that the Sheriff’s Department captain tried to force her out.
“I was going to leave, but they need someone who’s real in there,” Williams told The Times. “You have to have an overseer.”
The department said it is reviewing the situation.
Melissa Camacho, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, said the county is at a crossroads.
“The main question right now is what is the county going to do?” she said. “Is this going to be a moment when the Board of Supervisors decides to actually invest in oversight?”
Kitsch Liao, associate director at the Atlantic Council Global China Hub, says Beijing’s reaction to the largest US arms sale to Taiwan is an information warfare tactic.
