Justice Department says it's releasing 3 million pages from its Jeffrey Epstein files

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 11:52 AM EST, January 30, 2026


NEW YORK (AP) — The Justice Department on Friday released many more records from its investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein, resuming disclosures under a law intended to reveal what the government knew about the millionaire financier’s sexual abuse of young girls and his interactions with the rich and powerful.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department was releasing more than 3 million pages of documents in the latest Epstein disclosure, as well as more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. The files, posted to the department’s website, include some of the several million pages of records that officials said were withheld from an initial release of documents in December.

They were disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted after months of public and political pressure that requires the government to open its files on the late financier and his confidant and onetime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

“Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act,” Blanche said at a news conference announcing the disclosure.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/epstein-files-justice-department-trump-ed743598c320b94bd9d91631618678d9

---

Link to DOJ "Epstein Library" (for file search) - https://www.justice.gov/epstein

Article updated.

Original article/headline -

Justice Department releases many more records from its Jeffrey Epstein files

Updated 11:07 AM EST, January 30, 2026


NEW YORK (AP) -- The Justice Department on Friday released many more records from its investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein, resuming disclosures under a law intended to reveal what the government knew about the millionaire financier's sexual abuse of young girls and his interactions with the rich and powerful.

The files, posted to the department's website, include some of the several million pages of records that officials said were withheld from an initial release of documents in December.

They were disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted after months of public and political pressure that requires the government to open its files on the late financier and his confidant and onetime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

After missing a Dec. 19 deadline set by Congress to release all of the files, the Justice Department said it tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needs to be redacted, or blacked out, to protect the identities of victims of sexual abuse. The number of documents subject to review has ballooned to 5.2 million, including duplicates, the department said.

[Wicked Blue]

1. Covered with suspicious-looking Sharpie markings, no doubt

[RandySF]

2. The Epstein files are now the distraction.

[Wicked Blue]

4. Everything can be used as a distraction from everything else

It's the Shell Game --

1. A game, usually involving gambling, in which a person hides a small object underneath one of three nutshells, thimbles, or cups, then shuffles them about on a flat surface while spectators try to guess the final location of the object.

2. A fraud or deception perpetrated by shifting conspicuous things to hide something else.

From Wikipedia

[UpInArms]

3. Completely redacted

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00009713.pdf

[FakeNoose]

5. I got some interesting bank transfer memos

I did a search for "Little Saint James" and a bunch of listings come up. Also "Saint James" search works too, but you get "Greater" Saint James documents included.

There are many documents that aren't very interesting, but if it contains the word "Beneficiary" then it's a banking memo. Many good ones there. I don't know how to search for the most recent documents, I think they're all mixed together.

[twodogsbarking]

6. That's a lot of files. They must have suspected wrongdoing long ago.

Release the Trump files too.

[Bayard]

7. Does this statement mean they've done all they're going to?

"end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process"

I'm still astounded that it took an act of Congress to get this far.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. In AP's initial article, the mentioned this -

The number of documents subject to review has ballooned to 5.2 million, including duplicates, the department said.

So they are purportedly more than halfway through that.

What is sadly astounding however, is that when they do release stuff and it gets posted on DU after many many calls to "release the Epstein files", the threads get a yawn response.

[Bayard]

13. Heads should still roll over the long missed deadline,

And then they finally release pages that do not redact victim's identities. Sounds like a criminal case to me.

[Igel]

15. If you were sexually assaulted and wanted nobody to know about it,

how'd you feel seeing your name in the headlines as sexually assaulted.

Oops. I guess "our" right to know trumps their right to privacy and controlling the own story. Who knew we were that, um, tru... powerful?

Oh, even better--it was your daughter and she wants to move on and you support her choice and her decision--she's had 25 years to go public and didn't; but now, married, with kids, hubby, kids, colleagues read about the intimate details of what she experienced when she was 17.

[Igel]

14. One suspects a bit of self-misdirection.

It's not the documents but the suspicion about the claim that withholding them constitutes iron-clad proof that there's really scurrilous and politically damaging material there.

[tonekat]

8. Whatever they release will be like Nixon's Transcripts

Totally scrubbed of any incriminating evidence about Republicans.

[louis-t]

10. And I would guess, adding the names of

fuck face's enemies and Democrats.

[in2herbs]

11. Wait a sec. . . isn't the DOJ saying that even the USSC doesn't have jurisdiction to make them

release any files? So, why are they releasing files?????

[Igel]

16. You're merging two unmergeable things.

1. The law stands. They're in violation of it. And while one tentacle of government says they can't be sued over violating it, nonetheless they seem to be making a bona fide effort to abide by it.

Note that if somebody founds legal grounds for a case, by really pushing their people to try to abide by the law they are establishing a bona fide effort to comply. And courts tend to view that with respect. (I mean, imagine a law that says in2herbs must provide all financial documents for his/her/... family by 2/1. You comply! And then in 1/31 you remember that that Bob's Storage unit in the town you lived in 6 years ago and which has auto-billed you monthly for some pittance has boxes of such documents, but it's 10 pm and you can't skip work and you can't get a ticket and oh crap you can't comply and it can only be intentional. No, wait. That last bit. "It can only be intentional." That doesn't fit.

They knew where all the files were, but lots of jurisdictions were working on the Epstein case(s) over 20 years. I know that in the late '80s I was working for a church and a few quibbles came up about church doctrine or preaching in the '30s and '40s and into the '70s. Except all the records were lost. And in some cases, no recording was ever made. Oops.

Me? I like original documents. I revel in archives. Obscure crap. I rummaged. And found crap going back to the '30s and '40s. The recordings were made. But nobody had looked in those boxes for decades. Nobody lied; they were just wrong.

Note that the political atmosphere that was souring under Reagan, increased its fermentation under Obama and soared in pOH under Trump I rejects the idea of "bona fide" among those we already know are bad but just need to find the reason for the judgment. What evs.

2. The law has no enforcement mechanism, no way for anybody--they claim--to have standing to bring a lawsuit.

Nobody said that the courts can't hear the case. They did say that nobody has standing to bring a case so there can't be a case for SCOTUS to hear (said by implication only). So, yes, in a sense even SCOTUS can't hear the case, just as SCOTUS can't hear the wonderful violin concerto that I didn't write.

[Martin68]

12. So they were using ICE brutality to divert attention from Epstein, but now they are using Epstein to divert attention

from cold-blooded murder recoded on video.

[Igel]

17. Obviously.

Because while we're focused on what they don't want us focused on, we can't be focused on what they don't want us focused on.

Like a the guy who murdered his wife distracting the cops by leading them to his son's dead body.