Just days before Christmas 2025, the Justice Department dropped a bombshell: over a million newly uncovered documents potentially tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking empire, pushing back the full release of files that Americans have demanded for years.T

Prominent legal experts are sounding alarms over the U.S. Justice Department’s ongoing delays in fully releasing documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, warning that prolonged secrecy could deepen public distrust and provoke unintended leaks or scandals.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in November 2025, mandated the complete disclosure of all non-exempt DOJ records on the late sex offender by December 19. However, the department missed this deadline, initially releasing partial batches—many heavily redacted or previously public—before announcing on December 24 the discovery of over one million additional potentially relevant documents from the FBI and Southern District of New York prosecutors.

This revelation has extended the timeline by “a few more weeks,” with officials citing the need for redactions to protect victims’ identities. Yet critics, including bipartisan lawmakers like Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), accuse the DOJ of non-compliance, heavy-handed redactions, and possible cover-ups.

Legal scholars argue that such staggered releases fuel conspiracy theories and erode faith in institutions. “The drip-feed approach only amplifies skepticism,” said one constitutional law professor. “When transparency is promised but delayed indefinitely, it invites speculation that powerful figures are being shielded.” Experts note that partial disclosures have already included references to high-profile individuals, including President Trump, but extensive blackouts leave gaps that breed distrust.

Victims’ advocates echo these concerns, emphasizing that full disclosure is crucial for accountability. Senators, including Republican Lisa Murkowski, have called for an independent audit by the DOJ inspector general to restore credibility.

As the process drags into 2026, analysts warn that continued opacity risks explosive backlash—potentially from unauthorized leaks—if public patience wears thin. In an era of polarized trust in government, experts stress that swift, unredacted compliance is essential to prevent further damage to institutional legitimacy.