Will the Epstein Files Be Released? Maybe Not
It is tempting to speculate, but so far, truth has proved more tantalizing than fiction or speculation
By Anil Madan
Late on Wednesday, November 19, President Trump announced on his social media site that he had signed the bill passed 427-1 by the House of Representatives the previous day. Trump’s signing of the bill was done quietly, muted almost, without the customary celebratory gaggle of acolytes hanging around as he flourishes his Sharpie at bill signing events.
Following passage in the House, the Senate agreed to fast track the bill and enact it by unanimous consent, an initiative by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer designed to avoid debate and, worse yet, amendments that would then have sent the bill back to the House and caused further delays.
The House bill is now law. It directs the Attorney General to make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records relating to Jeffrey Epstein in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the FBI and US Attorneys’ offices within 30 days.
So, does this mean that the Epstein Files, so-called, will in fact be released to the public? Maybe, and maybe not. One would think that with such an overwhelming vote for release, the Attorney General would populate an online database with alacrity. Don’t hold your breath. There are many subtexts here.
The push for disclosure
Let us start with the forces behind the push for disclosure. One subtext here is that the pleas for disclosure come from Epstein’s victims, the young girls, subjected to his paedophilia and sex trafficking. These victims see “justice” in disclosure and accountability. Another subtext is about what is more a putsch than a push and that comes from the Democrats. It’s not really a hope to overthrow Donald Trump, but more to embarrass him as much as possible and those who stuck with him to prevent disclosure of the Epstein files.
Another subtext evinces itself in how rapidly Congressional Republicans turned from resisting mandated disclosure of the Epstein files because Trump was opposed, to their near unanimous vote in favour of the bill. To be sure, Trump had urged Republicans to vote for the bill, but that was clearly after it became clear that the battering ram had busted through the gates, and the ramparts of the fortress were no longer guarded against those climbing them and clamouring for passage. In short, the subtext here is about whether Donald Trump has suddenly grown webbed feet and transitioned to the status of a Lame Duck? He certainly went from quacking against a House vote in favour of releasing the documents to being a half-hearted cheerleader for the vote — the Republicans following a sort of mallard as would ducklings.
Now that Congress has directed the Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi to release the Epstein files, will she release all the files and is any of it likely to be embarrassing to the President? Putting aside the question whether such information exists — we simply do not know — AG Bondi can fall back on the text of the law that the House passed to be quite selective about what she puts into the public domain.
The House bill is facially sweeping. It requires the AG to release information that relates to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs and other travel-related documentation, individuals including government officials named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities and legal and investigatory proceedings, entities tied to Epstein’s financial or trafficking activities, and investigation materials in general. Moreover, the House bill admonishes that no record shall be withheld, delayed or redacted based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.
But there is a catch. Isn’t there always a catch? The AG is given authority to withhold or redact that portion of any records that contains “personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or that “depicts or contains child sexual abuse materials,” or that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.”, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.
So, those hoping that the Epstein files would suddenly disgorge salacious videos are going to be disappointed.
The AG is also authorized to withhold classified information that might affect the national security of the United States. Why the activities of a convicted paedophile, who died six years ago in a prison, should still affect national security is not clear. In any event, President Trump has the unfettered authority to declassify the Epstein files if he chooses to do so. So far, there has been no declassification order from the White House.
A losing proposition
Let us go back to the one vote against the bill in the House. That vote came from Rep. Clay Higgins, a Republican from Louisiana and is a staunch Trump supporter. Speaker Mike Johnson, also from Louisiana, is likewise a staunch Trump acolyte. Higgins’ statement about the bill is intriguing: “I have been a principled ‘NO’ on this bill from the beginning,” he wrote on social media. He went on: “As written, this bill threatens to reveal and injure thousands of innocent people—witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, and others. If enacted in its current form, this broad release of criminal investigative files to a rabid media will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt.” It is not clear how Mr Higgins knows this to be so since he has not seen the Department of Justice (DOJ) or FBI files. And if he had read the bill, he would know that materials relating to ongoing criminal investigations are exempt from disclosure.
Rep. Higgins may have been running interference for Speaker Johnson and, therefore, indirectly for Trump. Johnson, who voted for the bill in the House, was asked for his reaction to Senate Leader John Thune’s release of the bill without any amendments in the upper chamber. Johnson said: “I am deeply disappointed in this outcome. I think… I was just told that Chuck Schumer rushed it to the floor and put it out there pre-emptively. It needed amendments, I just spoke to the president about that. We’ll see what happens.” Of course, Trump had already said that he would sign the bill when it got to his desk and now, he has.
Johnson was so set against a bill to release the Epstein files that he tried to thwart an effort by Representatives Thomas Massie, a Republican and Ro Khanna, a Democrat to force a vote on the measure by initiative petition. Such a petition required 218 votes. With 217 votes in place, Adelita Grijalva, the newly elected representative from Arizona (she won in a special election when the seat became vacant on the death of her father who had represented the Arizona district in the House) vowed to provide the 218th signature as soon as she could take the oath of office and officially take her congressional seat. But Johnson kept the House in recess and out of session for weeks on end and refused to swear Grijalva until the House was back in session. Eventually, with the need to pass a continuing resolution to reopen the government after the recent shut down, Johnson was forced to swear Grijalva in and she signed the petition.
Then Trump tried to dissuade three Republican congresswomen from voting to release the Epstein files. Representatives Khanna and Massie maintained that a signature could not be removed from such a petition once affixed to it. Regardless, the Republican congresswomen refused to back down under pressure from Trump.
Ultimately, sensing that fighting the bill in the House was a losing proposition, Trump urged Republicans to vote for it. And they sure did.
The fallout could be immense. Massie, in an apparent challenge to Speaker Johnson’s leadership, called him out: “Yesterday the House did the People’s will by voting overwhelmingly to release the Epstein files, overcoming Mike Johnson’s five-month long obstruction. His last hope was that the Senate would insert a loophole to kill the intent of the bill, but the Senate was having none of it.”
Schumer appears to have outmaneuvered Thune. But then, Thune probably has presidential ambitions and the last thing he would want on his record is a vote against disclosure of information about a convicted paedophile. “I think when a bill comes out of the House 427 to one, and the president said he’d sign it, I’m not sure that amending it is in the cards,” Thune said, thus deftly ensuring that the bill would never return to the House.
Schumer argued on the floor that the Senate “should pass this bill as soon as possible, as written and without a hint of delay. Republicans must not try to change this bill or bury it in committee or slow walk it in any way.” Schumer added: “Any amendment to this bill would force it back to the House and risk further delay. Who knows what would happen over there?”
And that is precisely what Speaker Johnson had in mind. But he too was outmanoeuvred.
Trump ventriloquist’s dummy
There is more to this story. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene who has been for all intents and purposes, a Trump ventriloquist’s dummy, found herself on the outs with Trump as she declared her support for the victims of Epstein’s predations. When Trump challenged her, she refused to back down. It will be a strange irony, if Green’s stomping on Trump’s webbed feet caused him to limp away into lame duck status.
Meanwhile, recall that Trump had called for investigations of Democrats, including former President Clinton, former Harvard President Lawrence Summers and Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a robust contributor to Democrats. As one might expect, Bondi, not worrying about doing so in public, assured him that she would jump to it. What this means is that the Department of Justice could easily claim that it has ongoing investigations which prevent it from releasing information relating to the same. Theoretically, the House bill requires the AG to notify Congress and justify any withholding or redacting of documents, but good luck with enforcing that.
Spencer Kuvin is an attorney who has represented Epstein’s victims for two decades expressed the hope that the world will see the breadth and scope of this sexual pyramid that Jeffrey Epstein had built, “exactly who was involved … everyone that was involved in this or complicit in this.” But he said his clients are sceptical about the government because they have been denied justice for so long. And he added: “I don’t put it past the government to withhold whatever they think is damaging to them.”
The fallout from the Epstein capers continues. Aside from Mr Windsor, the King of England’s brother, more recently known as Prince Andrew, there is Larry Summers more recently known as Professor. He has expressed his embarrassment at having maintained ongoing communication with Epstein even after the latter was convicted. Now, Summers has resigned from the board of OpenAI and says he will step down from his teaching duties at Harvard. A House of Representatives committee released thousands of documents included among which were emails between Summers and Epstein. Summers was trying to seduce a younger Chinese economist and asking Epstein for advice on how he might get horizontal with her. Really.
Then there are those who were involved at JP Morgan Chase where James Edward “Jes” Staley, who eventually became a group chief executive at Barclays, was a champion for Epstein despite warnings of shady activities and signs of money laundering. The New York Times reported that Epstein “had long been a treasured customer at JP Morgan. His accounts were brimming with more than $200 million. He generated millions of dollars in revenue for the bank, landing him atop an internal list of major money makers. He helped JPMorgan orchestrate an important acquisition. He introduced executives to men who would become lucrative clients, like the Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and to global leaders, like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. He helped executives troubleshoot crises and strategize about global opportunities.”
Britain’s ambassador to the US, Lord Mandelson was fired after emails revealed a deep ongoing relationship with Epstein even after the latter had been convicted.
What seems clear is that Epstein and his money opened doors for him. And in return, he opened the doors of his home and island estate to those seeking the pleasures of his sex trafficking.
Where will all this lead? It is tempting to speculate, but so far, truth has proved more tantalizing than fiction or speculation.
So, let us wait for it play out.
Cheerz…
Bwana
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 November 2025
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
