According to the statement, entire categories of information were missing. The women noted that no financial records were provided and that 119 pages of grand-jury minutes, which a federal judge had approved for release, were blacked out in full. They added that “hundreds of thousands” of additional pages remain undisclosed. The group called the omissions “clear-cut violations of an unambiguous law” and urged Congress to step in “immediately” to oversee compliance.
Some files originally posted on Friday with extensive redactions returned to the site early Saturday with fewer or no redactions after departmental review. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on social media that the DOJ would continue producing materials “consistent with the law and with protections for victims.” A departmental statement on Sunday repeated that additional reviews are under way.
The disclosure requirement stems from legislation signed by President Donald Trump in November, which gave the Justice Department 30 days to publish the materials. Congressional sponsors said the measure was designed to provide transparency and help victims pursue civil claims.
Attorneys Brittany Henderson and Brad Edwards, who represent more than 200 Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell survivors, told ABC News they spent the weekend contacting federal officials in Washington and New York after discovering that some clients’ names and other identifiers appeared in public filings. In one instance, they said a sealed document from settled civil litigation, listing more than two dozen alleged victims, was uploaded without redactions. Roughly 15 documents have been removed at least temporarily, the lawyers said, while the Justice Department reevaluates redaction needs.
On Sunday, the DOJ confirmed via social media that it had “received incoming from individuals alleging to be victims and their lawyers, requesting that certain information be removed.” The department said the material was taken down “out of an abundance of caution” and would be reposted with “appropriate redactions, if legally required.”
In a televised interview on NBC the same day, Blanche defended the department’s pace and methodology. He said officials are balancing the directive to release documents with statutory obligations to shield personal data. “Anybody, any victim, any victims’ lawyer, any victim-rights group, can reach out to us and say, ‘There’s a document that identifies me,’” he said. “We will then, of course, pull that off and investigate.”
Imagem: Internet
The women’s statement disputes that approach, contending the DOJ made no effort to consult them on redactions before publication. They argue the document dump’s format and search tools make it “difficult or impossible” for survivors to locate information relevant to ongoing litigation.
Legal analysts say the department’s handling of the records could invite additional scrutiny from Capitol Hill. Lawmakers have authority to request testimony, demand timelines for full disclosure and, if warranted, propose amendments to strengthen victim-privacy safeguards. The Justice Department, however, maintains that continuing reviews are standard procedure when documents contain sensitive data, grand-jury material or information affecting other investigations.
Epstein’s case has produced multiple parallel inquiries, including state investigations into possible accomplices, civil suits against his estate and a separate criminal conviction against Maxwell for sex-trafficking and conspiracy. Because of that breadth, the document collection spans investigative reports, photographs, travel records, financial ledgers and correspondence obtained through subpoenas and search warrants.
Victims’ advocates argue that a complete, properly redacted release is crucial for accountability. Without the full trove, they say, survivors cannot cross-check witness statements, identify potential assets for restitution or verify whether all potential defendants have been examined. Some observers note that the absence of financial documents, in particular, could hinder efforts to trace payments allegedly used to procure or silence victims.
The DOJ has not provided a public timeline for finishing its review. Until the process is completed, attorneys for survivors say they will continue monitoring the website and requesting prompt removal of any files that reveal personal information. Meanwhile, members of Congress have signaled interest in holding oversight hearings to determine whether the department is meeting its statutory obligations.
Further background on the federal victim-privacy statute can be found on the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women website.
Crédito da imagem: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
