1. The FBI was aware of at least 10 additional co-conspirators 

Epstein would have been incapable of carrying out his predatory attacks on minors without the help of many others.

 

Records show that the FBI was aware of at least 10 co-conspirators who were supporting Epstein’s illegal activity across the country (37362). The FBI had served all but one of the co-conspirators (37401) and had sent agents to London to investigate at least one witness /co-conspirator (37438). By May 2020, the Department of Justice had developed several documents including a 7-page memo on co-conspirators they believed could be charged and an 86-page background memo on co-conspirators (30339; 21904; 17767). In February of that year, the Department had prepared talking points on the co-conspirators that emphasized that “Epstein couldn't have done what he did without the assistance of others and [we] can assure you that our investigation is moving forward.” (20571). Only one co-conspirator was ever charged, however: Maxwell. Yet at one point, the NY FBI office indicated that it was actually focusing on charging another co-conspirator “based on the volume and quality of evidence.” (37224). 

​

2. The FBI received several tips from women who alleged illegal activity, yet there is no record of any further follow-up

Multiple women alerted the FBI to Epstein’s abuse.

 

The FBI and DOJ received several tips concerning Epstein’s abuse (e.g., 14609; 20457; 20473; 20493; 20508; 20509; 25010; 25017). These tips suggest that other co-conspirators were involved. At least two tips mention Donald Trump (25010; 25017). However, it doesn’t appear that DOJ released any further information on whether the FBI seriously followed-up on the tips. It is also unclear whether there were additional FBI tips or not. Until we have assurances that all records have been released, these tips raise more questions than they answer.

​

3. The Administration released the Grand Jury files related to Epstein and Maxwell’s indictments, but did not provide witness statements and interviews (so called FD-302s)

The Justice Department withheld most witness interview records, leaving the public unable to fully understand who knew about and enabled Epstein’s crimes.

​

As with many investigations, the FBI transcribed interview records of witnesses and subjects during the investigation of Epstein and Maxwell. These records are imperative to a full understanding of the crimes committed by Epstein and Maxwell and who knew of and facilitated those criminal acts. In fact, an email from an Assistant US Attorney sharing a draft “co-conspirator memo” acknowledged that it lacked detail because they were “waiting for the FBI to send us some interview notes.” (17767). Yet the Administration has yet to provide a complete record of those statements. Some FD-302s were released, e.g., documents related to BOP’s oversight of Epstein while in custody (09958; 18135). Other FD-302 interview documents are alluded to but do not appear to have been provided (e.g., 10172; 10334; 14116; 17886; 19478; 23480). For example, one email alludes to several FD-documents, as well as Epstein’s “black book”, but the FD-302s are not attached to the file (17867). Another email notes that AUSA conducted interviews in Florida that included at least one FD-302, but that document does not appear to have been provided either (18757). In addition, at least one victim’s representative raised concerns that there were discrepancies between an FD-302 of the victim’s interview and the victim’s recollections (13595). The release of all FD-302s is important for true understanding of the crimes committed by Epstein and Maxwell and who was aware of those crimes.

​

4. The Administration has released almost no new information about the financial mechanisms used to support Epstein’s enterprises

The documents released so far reveal almost nothing about how and between whom money flowed.

 

Epstein made use of a vast network of financial intermediaries to support his lifestyle and sex trafficking empire. The disclosures include almost no information about that network; and the few documents–including those related to previously-reported and disclosed relationships–are heavily redacted. The small glimpses the public gets into this world from these documents (e.g. 18951,13184) include, for instance, investigators referencing a spreadsheet of Epstein’s contacts and associates that apparently lists more than 30 attorneys who worked for Epstein in federal cases, more than 60 individual accounts at Deutsche Bank, and a list of “Witnesses and CCs”; and a list of American Express records showing Epstein paid for “nearly 5,000 flights for individuals,” a file that is “too big to share” via email. Neither list is in the production. 

​

5. The Administration has released no information about the transfer of Ghislane Maxwell from low security to minimal security custody (including any security designation or custody classification)

The government has provided no explanation or documentation regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's prison placement after her conviction.

​

To date, no explanation appears to have been provided concerning why Maxwell was transferred from a low security prison to a minimum security prison camp following her so-called “Maxwell Proffer.” Yet several documents should be readily accessible and easily findable, including final determinations by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and his staff concerning adjustments to Maxwell’s security designation or exemptions provided to her custody classification under BOP Program Statement 5100.08. 

​

6. The Administration has redacted information far beyond what was permitted under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

This includes the names of all government employees, including an attorney prosecuting the Epstein cases who shared drinks with Alan Dershowitz as the case was wrapping up.

​

The government has redacted far more information than the law allows. The EFTA provides that information can only be excluded for five categories of information: private information related to victims, child sexual abuse materials, images of death, abuse, or injury, classified information, and documents that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation. The Administration has largely ignored those categories, providing material that redacts the names of government officials, email addresses, telephone numbers, and other information that does not fall within any of the provided categories. Concerningly, some of these redactions appear to hide embarrassing information or potential improprieties by members of the Department of Justice. For example, a series of emails between Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, and someone in the office of the U.S. Attorney entitled “it was nice having a drink” suggests a close relationship and potential inappropriate sharing of information between the prosecution and defense (13834). Depending on the circumstances, these contacts could have violated Federal ethics laws or bar rules. DDF has prepared a complaint to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) demanding an audit of the redactions, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s assertions that information can be redacted under common law privileges. Yet, as DDF explained in our complaint, any such privilege must bend to the clear Congressional intent set forth in the EFTA.

​

7. The Administration has failed to comply with the requirement that they provide contemporaneous explanations of their redactions in the Federal Register 

The Justice Department has ignored the law’s requirement to publicly explain its redactions.

 

Section 2(c)(2) of the EFTA mandates that “[a]ll redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” As of January 28, 2026, the Department has not published any justification for its redactions in the Federal Register. The text of EFTA makes it clear, however, that each redaction must be “accompanied by” a written justification. The term “accompanied by” means “with” or “existing at the same time” or “go[ing] . . . together.”  The implication is that the justifications for the redactions would appear at the same time as the redactions themselves. The Department’s failure to provide a contemporaneous listing of its redactions is in violation of the plain text of the EFTA, and DDF’s complaint asks the DOJ OIG to review this violation as well.

 

8. The Department of Justice has surreptitiously updated redactions in certain documents without providing any notice or providing an audit trail

The Department of Justice quietly altered previously released documents without notice.

​

On January 15, 2026. DDF ran a review comparison between documents that were originally released by the Department and those documents that were currently on the website. That review identified several documents that the Department modified, including by applying additional redactions. Although many of these changes were minimal, the Department’s failure to provide prior notice or to identify that the documents were changed in any way is deeply concerning. DDF filed a supplemental complaint with the DOJ OIG in mid-January.