What else can be done to force Trump’s DoJ to release all the Epstein files? Legal experts weigh in

For months, the 2025 news cycle was dominated by the disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Public outrage over the continued secrecy surrounding Epstein investigative files – which Donald Trump failed to release fully early in his second term, despite campaign promises – was growing.

Federal lawmakers took matters into their own hands: they issued a spate of subpoenas related to the late child sex trafficker, releasing batches of files that renewed attention to his connections to high-profile individuals on both sides of the political spectrum. Congress ultimately passed legislation mandating that the Department of Justice release these files by 19 December, with Trump signing this bill into law.

But that deadline came and went, with Trump’s justice department making a mere fraction of the total disclosures required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). These scant releases have so far failed to lift the veil on how Epstein operated with impunity for years.

Now, the big Epstein-related news is that there is no major Epstein news. Nothing has happened of late that has meaningfully moved the needle toward transparency for victims and advocates, renewing questions about what comes next. Releases of new documents have ceased in recent weeks.

Legal experts told the Guardian that failed efforts to request an independent monitor for the files’ release – known as a special master – have underscored how potential litigation could try to force the justice department’s hand, but might not yield results given thedepartment’s recent track record of seeming legal non-compliance.

‘Transparency has to be dragged out’

Mitchell Garabedian, who has represented victims of clergy sexual abuse for decades, said that pushes for disclosure should involve a double-barrel approach and – along with many other experts – said that legal avenues for forcing the files’ release were far from exhausted.

“The party moving for the release of the investigative files should seek court relief if the files have not been released in a timely manner pursuant to a court order. If it is shown that the files have not been released in a timely manner, the burden will be on the party who is to release the files to show the court why there is a reasonable delay in not complying with the court order,” Garabedian said.

“Epstein victims have a public voice, and they should continue to use that voice to make the public aware of the non-release of the files, to empower themselves and other victims, and make the world safer for children,” Garabedian added.

Like others, Garabedian highlighted how disclosure is key to allowing victims to move on as best they possibly can. Garabedian explained: “The release of the files is an important step in transparency, which will help victims try to gain at least a degree of healing, closure and validation.”

“What’s next has to be continued legal pressure and public accountability. If the special master route is off the table for now, then the only real tools left are court intervention, congressional oversight and sustained public scrutiny,” said Spencer Kuvin, an attorney with Goldlaw who has represented dozens of Epstein victims.

Kuvin added: “These files will not be released just because it’s the right thing to do – history shows they only come out when someone forces the issue.”

For Epstein’s survivors, Kuvin said, this impasse was “devastating”. Victims have waited years, sometimes decades, for the truth.

“Being told once again that there is ‘no path forward’ is not just frustrating – it’s retraumatizing. If Congress can’t get a special master and the DoJ won’t act voluntarily, then the focus has to shift to litigation, Foia [Freedom of Information Act] enforcement, and judicial orders compelling production,” he said. “Transparency in cases like this has never been given freely – it has always had to be dragged out through the courts.”

Lawmakers are considering legal relief. The Democratic congressman Ro Khanna, who co-sponsored the EFTA with the Republican congressman Thomas Massie, said many avenues were on the table.

“We appreciate Judge Engelmayer’s timely response and attention to our request, and we respect his decision. He said that we raised ‘legitimate concerns’ about whether DoJ is complying with the law,’” Khanna said in a statement to the Guardian. “We will continue to use every legal option to ensure the files are released and the survivors see justice.”

Massie voiced similar sentiments, telling the Guardian in a statement, “We appreciate the judge’s thoughtful consideration of our letter and we remain determined to force the DoJ to follow our law using other avenues available to us and the survivors.”

‘The DoJ is not following the law’

Legal pressures, though, remain rife with complications. Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor, said Congress needed to sue for the records’ release, with the goal being a court order compelling production.

There are logistical issues for using courts to prompt these files release. “Something like this could take weeks or longer,” he said, explaining shortly thereafter: “You file the lawsuit seeking equitable relief, which is an order.

“You want that judicial order, because if the judicial order is violated, then the judge can start imposing sanctions. So you really need to involve a district judge to move this process along.”

This presents “challenging” complications, however. “Typically, if there is contempt of Congress or anything like that, or obstruction, it would be the DoJ that enforces that. They prosecute it. They file a lawsuit,” Rahmani said. “But obviously that’s not going to happen in this case, because the DoJ is the target.

“It’s bizarro world where there’s a law and the DoJ is not following the law.”

Neither the justice department nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment.

Representatives for convicted Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who reportedly said this week that she would plead the fifth during an upcoming House oversight committee deposition, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some have pointed out issues with the EFTA that make enforcement difficult. This might necessitate additional lawmaking.

“For unknown reasons, Congress failed to include any type of enforcement mechanism, especially judicial review, within the Epstein legislation. Despite the mandatory provisions and aggressive nature of the disclosure requirements, this is a gaping hole that perhaps was unanticipated but is now openly evident,” Mark Zaid, a national security and transparency attorney, told the Guardian.

“Frankly, it would have been an easy fix at the time to include either a direct congressional oversight pathway for enforcement or even for the general public to litigate the claims through special [Freedom of Information Act] provisions.”

Zaid said he was sure there was a viable legal mechanism to pursue, but such was “a long way from one being viable or successful”.

“The reality is the likely best way forward is to amend the legislation and create explicit judicial oversight,” he said.