As pressure mounts over the so-called Jeffrey Epstein files, experts warn that victim safety is being politicized — and that the Justice Department’s past failures could undermine public trust in future prosecutions.
The so-called Jeffrey Epstein files, allegedly detailing a client list linked to the late convicted sex trafficker, have become a sordid political football with many moving parts.
There are numerous unanswered questions surrounding the Epstein case following his 2019 suicide, but there’s no indication that President Donald Trump, a longtime friend of Epstein, is implicated in any criminal wrongdoing, says professor Jeremy R. Paul, former dean of the Northeastern University School of Law.
“Just because he is associated with him doesn’t mean he did anything wrong,” Paul says.
One argument raised by House lawmakers — led by Speaker Mike Johnson — against the release of the files is the need to protect the identities and privacy of victims.
There is justification for caution. Attorney General Pam Bondi has stated that the Department of Justice has in its possession “tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn,” and the department estimated the number of victims at more than a thousand.
Although it appeared prosecutors might reveal more names tied to Epstein, a July Justice Department memo stated there was no evidence to pursue uncharged third parties and no “incriminating client list.” The Trump administration’s mixed signals on the case have drawn widespread criticism — even from within the president’s base.
“To be clear, we don’t really have a good idea of what kind of information they have that they’re not releasing,” Paul says. “But you don’t want the names of victims to be made public unless the victims themselves want to go public. That is the bare minimum in terms of steps that need to be taken here.”
Despite intense interest in the list, the public is not legally entitled to access investigative evidence held by law enforcement before a criminal case is filed, says Rose Zoltek-Jick, associate teaching professor and associate director of the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project at Northeastern.
Zoltek-Jick says that even if there were grounds for further prosecution, serious concerns remain about how the Justice Department would protect the rights of victims — especially given that federal prosecutors in Florida violated federal law when they failed to notify Epstein’s victims of a 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
The common justification — that releasing the files would endanger victim safety — risks distracting from broader questions of accountability, Zoltek-Jick argues.
“This is a false narrative,” Zoltek-Jick says. “There are places for a victim, and a victim has a role to play, but the case is not about the victim.”
She continues: “A victim has a very particular role to play in a criminal case, and a victim’s feelings about whether prosecution should be brought or bought — whether they forgive the defendant or not — is not the primary motivation, nor should it be, nor can it be, when the prosecutor’s responsibility is toward the commonwealth, toward the state, toward public safety.
“In any rape prosecution, and particularly in sexual assault prosecutions and sexual assault prosecutions involving children or underage victims, you are always conscious of the victim, but you are concerned about holding the perpetrator accountable once you have proved your case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Ghislaine Maxwell, a close Epstein associate who is serving a 20-year prison sentence. She’s also been subpoenaed to testify before Congress and has requested immunity. Separately, Maxwell is also appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court.
The meeting sparked speculation that Trump might pardon her — a move experts say would undermine victims’ trust in the justice system.
“Pardoning or providing clemency to Maxwell, who acted as [Epstein’s] fixer, who acted in such a way as to seduce the girls so that he could then rape them, any way in which she as an accomplice doesn’t serve the sentence that she got, it is a betrayal of the victims,” Zoltek-Jick says. “That is what would harm the victims in this case.”
Though it’s unclear what the meeting was about, Paul says the role of Blanche — Trump’s former personal attorney — in the unfolding saga raises red flags.
“The thing most disturbing about Todd Blanche meeting with Maxwell is the possibility, as has been entertained in the press, that the DOJ is tossing around the pardon,” Paul says. “The idea that these interviews are taking place behind closed doors, and they’re being conducted by someone who we’ve reason to believe is overly loyal to the president, raises concerns.”