With the clock ticking on a 30-day deadline to release the long-awaited Epstein Files, the Department of Justice has formally asked two federal judges in New York to authorize the release of grand jury transcripts and exhibits tied to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — a move that could reshape the public understanding of one of the most infamous criminal networks in modern American history.
In motions filed late Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed to lead the review of Democratic-linked Epstein associates, urged the courts to lift standing protective orders that restrict disclosure of grand jury material. The request comes under the new Epstein Files Transparency Act, recently signed into law by President Donald Trump, mandating the DOJ to make the documents public within 30 days.
“In light of the Act’s clear mandate, the Court should authorize the Department of Justice to release the grand jury transcripts and exhibits and modify any preexisting protective orders that would otherwise prevent public disclosure,” the DOJ filing reads.
The move signals the administration’s intent to demonstrate compliance with the new transparency law while balancing the sensitive nature of ongoing investigations and the privacy of victims — a task that could expose deep institutional tensions between politics, justice, and survivor advocacy.
Judicial Caution and a Complicated Path Forward
The DOJ’s request comes before two judges who have previously ruled against unsealing grand jury materials — U.S. District Judges Paul Engelmayer and Richard Berman — both of whom presided over significant portions of the Epstein and Maxwell proceedings.
Engelmayer, who oversaw parts of the Maxwell case, has already indicated he plans to issue a ruling by mid-December. However, he made clear that the DOJ’s motion is “silent as to the rights of victims” and set a December 3 deadline for victims to respond, as well as for Maxwell herself to decide whether she will object. The DOJ must respond by December 10.
Judge Berman, in a previous August ruling, had sharply criticized the government’s attempt to involve the courts when it already had possession of the evidence. “The instant grand jury motion appears to be a diversion from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession,” Berman wrote. “The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged conduct. The Government’s complete information trove would better inform the public.”
The criticism underscores the broader question: Is the DOJ’s current effort a genuine bid for transparency or a procedural maneuver designed to shift political responsibility to the judiciary?
A 30-Day Clock and a Political Minefield
Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the DOJ is legally bound to release tens of thousands of documents, videos, and grand jury exhibits within 30 days — a deadline that expires next month. The law includes limited exceptions for materials that could jeopardize active investigations or identify victims.
Notably, the DOJ motion makes no mention of the recently announced investigation into Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, three high-profile figures Trump ordered Bondi’s team to examine for potential links to Epstein’s network. Legal experts say this omission could shield that probe from scrutiny — for now.
“This is an unprecedented convergence of criminal law, privacy law, and political theater,” said Dr. Renee Markham, a former assistant U.S. attorney now teaching at Georgetown Law. “You have a sitting president mandating disclosure of sealed grand jury materials while simultaneously directing an investigation into his political rivals. The courts are being asked to navigate not just legality, but legitimacy.”
The Legal Battle Over Grand Jury Secrecy
The release of grand jury materials has long been one of the most controversial issues in American law. Under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, such materials are traditionally sealed to protect witnesses, preserve the integrity of investigations, and encourage candid testimony.
“The Justice Department can’t unilaterally disclose grand jury records — it requires judicial approval,” explained Prof. Markham. “That’s why this motion is necessary. But it’s also why it’s fraught — judges rarely lift that secrecy, especially in politically charged cases.”
However, supporters of the transparency law argue that the Epstein case’s unique scale and public interest justify an exception. They point out that Epstein’s 2019 death in federal custody, Maxwell’s conviction, and persistent questions about powerful individuals’ involvement have left the public with “a right to know.”
Survivors Caught in the Middle
For Epstein’s victims, the issue is deeply personal. Many fear their names, medical histories, or testimony could resurface in public filings, reigniting trauma. Others, however, see full disclosure as the only way to achieve closure and accountability.
“It’s not about politics — it’s about truth,” said Marina Lacerda, a survivor who testified in the Epstein case. “We just want the files released responsibly. The secrecy protects abusers, not survivors.”
Victim advocates have urged the DOJ to consult directly with survivors before any release, warning that premature or incomplete disclosure could retraumatize those who testified in confidence.
Engelmayer’s order that victims be allowed to file objections by December 3 marks a rare acknowledgment of those concerns within an otherwise rigid legal process.
The Political Fallout
The DOJ’s latest filing also lands amid renewed partisan conflict over Epstein’s legacy. Republicans have accused Democrats of selectively releasing emails that appear to implicate Trump, while Democrats allege the administration is withholding files that could expose broader complicity.
“Trump’s team wants to look like they’re being transparent, but they’ve also weaponized the process,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. “The real question is: what happens when those files start naming names on both sides?”
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that the administration is following the law and “ensuring that justice and transparency prevail.”
But as the deadline nears, political analysts say the situation could spiral into a broader constitutional dispute between the executive and judicial branches.
A Moment of Reckoning
The coming weeks could define the balance between transparency and privacy, justice and politics. If the courts approve the DOJ’s motion, the public may soon see — for the first time — grand jury evidence revealing who knew what, and when, about Epstein’s decades-long web of abuse and corruption.
If they don’t, the administration could face accusations of failing to meet the transparency law’s mandate — and survivors could remain trapped between promises and politics once again.
As Judge Berman wrote earlier this year:
“The truth about Jeffrey Epstein is not in any one file, transcript, or motion. It’s in the courage to confront the systems that enabled him.”
That courage — and who wields it — will soon be tested again in the halls of justice.
With the clock ticking on a 30-day deadline to release the long-awaited Epstein Files, the Department of Justice has formally asked two federal judges in New York to authorize the release of grand jury transcripts and exhibits tied to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — a move that could reshape the public understanding of one