Epstein Data Wiki

The Epstein investigations: what they were, what they are, what could still happen

Properties2
tagstopic, overview, investigations, fbi, department-of-justice, grand-jury, statute-of-limitations, plain-english
aliasesEpstein investigations overview, What investigations into Epstein existed, Is there an Epstein investigation now, Epstein investigations explained

49 min read

What this page isA plain-English guide to the criminal investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and of people around him: which ones existed, how each one ended, and what the record shows about whether one is running now
Investigations coveredSix numbered FBI case files, the town police investigation that started the first of them, the two federal prosecutors’ offices that ran the federal cases, one internal Justice Department review of prosecutors, and one criminal investigation in France123
Where the case statuses come fromThe FBI’s own table, “Epstein and Maxwell Related Investigations”, compiled from a New York case-index email of March 12, 20251
Status of the two Epstein sex-offence files in that tableBoth recorded as “Pending Inactive”. The other four are recorded as closed, each with a closing date1
A second FBI list, five days laterSame six numbers, one different answer: it records the New York file as “Pending appeal” rather than Pending Inactive4
The Department’s own last published word on new suspectsA Justice Department and FBI memorandum, undated on its face and dated by a federal court to July 6, 2025: “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”. That is, it did not find the factual basis needed before an investigation may be opened56
What the two deaths didEpstein’s death in August 2019 ended the prosecution of Epstein and nothing else; the same office charged Ghislaine Maxwell ten months later. Brunel died in a Paris prison in February 2022 before trial, and a wire report held in the released files says his death closed the case against him in France713
What this page does not establishWhether any criminal investigation into Epstein’s associates is open today. See the last section

Content note: this page concerns investigations into the sexual abuse of children. It names no complainant, reproduces no account of what was done to anyone, and takes no personal detail from any victim record.

An investigation is not a mood or a rumour. It is a file. A named office opens it, puts a number on it, assigns people to it, and later either charges someone, closes it, or leaves it open and does nothing. Every claim on this page is tied to one of those files or to a document a court or an office produced about one.

This page is written for someone who has arrived from an argument online and has no legal training. It explains each term the first time it is used. It links out rather than repeating: the fuller account of each investigation is on its own page, and those pages carry the documents.

The short answer, before the detail

There were real criminal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and people around him, in the United States and in France, and they are on the record with case numbers and dates. Most are recorded as closed, each with a closing date. Two are not: an FBI list of March 2025 puts the New York child sex trafficking file and the older Florida file in “Pending Inactive” status, a phrase no FBI document defines.1

Epstein’s death in August 2019 ended the case against Epstein, and nothing else. Under American law a prosecution stops when the defendant dies, and on the day the charges were dropped the prosecutor told the court that this “in no way prohibits or inhibits the government’s ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators”.7 The same office charged Ghislaine Maxwell ten months later.1 Jean-Luc Brunel died in a Paris prison in February 2022, before any trial. A wire report preserved in the released files put the consequence in one line: “Brunel’s death means his case is closed, unless other suspects are implicated in the same case in the future.”3 That is a news report of French law and practice, not a French court record, and the searches run for this page found no French court document saying what became of that investigation.

Is a criminal investigation running now? The searches run for this page could not establish that one is. In July 2025 the Justice Department and the FBI published a memorandum saying they “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”. That is, they did not find the factual basis an agency needs before it may open one.5 Those searches returned no document recording a criminal investigation opened after that, and none recording either “Pending Inactive” file being closed. That is a statement about what the released record shows and does not show. It is not proof that nothing exists.

1. What the investigations were

This is the whole list this page could establish, in order. The seventh row covers two small FBI files together.

WhenWho investigatedWhat it was aboutHow it ended
2005 to 2006Palm Beach Police Department, Florida, case 1-05-000368Whether Epstein paid girls under 18 for sex at his Palm Beach houseHanded to the county prosecutor, who put it to a grand jury (a panel of citizens who decide in private whether there is enough evidence to charge), and one state charge was returned8
2006Office of the State Attorney, 15th Judicial Circuit, FloridaThe same conductA grand jury returned one count of solicitation of prostitution, July 19, 20068
2006 to 2008FBI West Palm Beach and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, “Operation Leap Year”, FBI file 31E-MM-108062Federal sex offences against minorsEnded without any federal charge, by the non-prosecution agreement of September 24, 2007, a contract in which prosecutors promise not to charge910
2009 to 2012The same two offices, “Operation Stolen Globe”, FBI file 72-MM-113327Obstruction: a former Epstein employee took evidence and tried to sell itHe was charged, convicted and sentenced; the FBI closing communication is dated December 20, 2012, and the Bureau’s 2025 table gives the closing date as March 13, 2013111
2018 to at least 2025FBI New York and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, file 50D-NY-3027571Child sex trafficking by Epstein, then by his associatesEpstein indicted (formally charged) in 2019 and died; Maxwell convicted 2021; file recorded “Pending Inactive” in March 2025112
2019 to 2022FBI New York, file 90A-NY-3151227How Epstein died in jailTwo prison officers charged; agreement with prosecutors; file closed December 2022113
2019 to 2023FBI New York, files 90C-NY-3154599 and 9A-NY-3144791Contraband at the jail; online threats against a victim of EpsteinBoth closed, October 2023 and May 12, 20201
2018 to 2020Justice Department Office of Professional ResponsibilityNot a criminal investigation: whether the prosecutors who made the 2007 deal broke professional rulesReport, November 2020: no professional misconduct, but “poor judgment”214
2019 to 2022French police and investigating judges, ParisRape and trafficking allegations against Jean-Luc BrunelHe was charged and held; he died in prison on February 19, 2022, before trial153

Grand jury. A grand jury is a panel of ordinary citizens who sit in private, hear a prosecutor’s evidence, and decide whether there is enough to charge someone. Its decision to charge is called an indictment. What is said in front of it is secret by law. That secrecy is why so much of this record stayed sealed for so long: in 2015 the court in the victims’ case held that the petitioners had “not met their heavy burden of demonstrating a compelling and particularized need for the disclosure of grand jury materials pertaining to the investigation of Epstein”, and refused to release them.169

Non-prosecution agreement. This is a contract in which prosecutors promise not to charge someone. The 2007 agreement is the reason there was no federal trial in Florida. It also contained one unusual paragraph promising not to charge “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”, naming four people.17 The Department’s own later review found that clause was “added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors”.18 Those pages are the agreement, Alex Acosta and A. Marie Villafaña.

A separate strand: the victims’ own case. Two women sued the government in 2008 under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, a federal law giving crime victims a right to be told what prosecutors are doing. In 2019 the court held their right to be consulted had been violated, while saying expressly that it was “not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper”.19 See Doe v. United States.

What a death does to a case, and what it does not

This is the question people most often have to answer in an argument, so here it is plainly.

When a defendant dies before a verdict, the case against that person ends. The rule is called abatement. In August 2019 the government told the New York court that this was “clear Second Circuit law” (the Second Circuit is the federal appeals court above New York): “upon the death of a defendant before a final entry of a judgment of conviction, all proceedings must be abated”. It was therefore, it said, “legally obligated to seek dismissal of the pending indictment”.7 The judge dismissed the indictment on August 29, 2019.20 Epstein was never tried and was never convicted of the New York charges.12

A death does not end an investigation into anyone else. The same prosecutor said so in the same breath, on the record, in open court:

To be very clear, dismissal of this indictment as to Jeffrey Epstein in no way prohibits or inhibits the government’s ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor does it prevent the bringing of a new case in the future or the prosecution of new defendants.7

She added that it also did nothing to prevent the government from pursuing civil forfeiture (a court process for taking property that was used in a crime or bought with its proceeds), and that “investigations into those matters have been ongoing, remain ongoing, and will continue following dismissal of the indictment here.”21 Four months later the New York office wrote an 86-page memorandum to its own United States Attorney titled “Investigation into Potential Co-Conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein”, which “analyzes the extent to which certain of Epstein’s associates and employees may or may not be criminally liable”.22 Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted six months after that.1

A death does not end lawsuits, records cases, or compensation. The victims’ rights case continued and was decided in 2019.23 Four days after Epstein died, a New York prosecutor was circulating an assessment of forfeiture options against his estate.24 The estate later funded a compensation programme that reported paying out over $121 million.25

Brunel. Jean-Luc Brunel was charged in France in December 2020 with rape of a minor and held in custody. He denied the allegations. He died in a Paris prison on February 19, 2022, before any trial.15 Agence France-Presse, in a wire report preserved inside the released files, reported the consequence in one line: “Brunel’s death means his case is closed, unless other suspects are implicated in the same case in the future.”3 That is a news report of French law and practice, not a French court record, and the searches run for this page did not find a French court document in the release saying what became of that investigation. It is a lead this page could not run down.

2. What the investigations are

The best answer the record gives is a table the FBI wrote about itself.

In March 2025 the Bureau compiled a two-page document headed “Epstein and Maxwell Related Investigations”, saying its contents were “Summaries provided from Case Indexes email from NY sent on March 12, 2025”. It lists six case numbers and gives the status of each.1 Read from the page images, it says:

  • 50D-NY-3027571, the New York child sex trafficking investigation opened 12/06/2018 (a second, near-identical FBI summary of the same case gives the opening date as 12/08/2018), running through Epstein’s indictment, his death, and Maxwell’s conviction and sentence: “This investigation remains in Pending Inactive status.”126
  • 31E-MM-108062, the Florida case opened 07/25/2006: “This case has remained in Pending Inactive status since 07/25/2017 and case materials have been preserved for a civil litigation hold.”1
  • 72-MM-113327, the obstruction case: “This investigation was closed on 03/13/2013.”1
  • 90A-NY-3151227, the death investigation: “Closed in December 2022.”1
  • 90C-NY-3154599, the jail contraband case: “Case closed in October 2023.”1
  • 9A-NY-3144791, threats against a victim: “closed on 5/12/2020.”1

Five days later, on the evening of March 17, 2025, an FBI email tracking the same six numbers gave one of them a different answer: “50D-NY-3027571 – Pending appeal / 31E-MM-108062 – Pending Inactive”, with the other four listed as “Closed case”.4 The two documents were written five days apart and do not agree about the New York file. This page reports the difference rather than choosing between them.

What “Pending Inactive” means is not defined in either document. Neither says whether anyone is assigned, whether any step is being taken, or what would move the file back to active. The words on the page are the whole of what the record says.14

These files were described as live at earlier dates, by the offices holding them. In 2013 an FBI special agent swore, under penalty of perjury, “Operation Leap Year remains an open case.”27 In August 2020 the Bureau’s Palm Beach office told the unit that answers requests under the Freedom of Information Act, of the same Florida file, “This case is being actively investigated by the New York Office.”28 In September 2020 FBI New York wrote: “50D-NY-3027571 is an open and pending investigation regarding Epstein, Maxwell and his associates.”29 Those are statements about 2013 and 2020. The most recent statement in the record is the March 2025 pair above.

The Department’s own last published word points the other way. A memorandum on joint Justice Department and FBI letterhead, which a federal court dates to July 6, 2025, reports an “exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein” and then says three things in one paragraph:

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.5

It concludes “that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”5 The copy of this memorandum in the released files carries no date and no signature on either of its two pages; the date of July 6, 2025 comes from the court opinion that quotes it.5306 To predicate an investigation means to have the factual basis a rule requires before an agency may open one. The sentence is the Department saying it did not find that basis.

So: is a criminal investigation running now? The honest answer is that this page cannot establish that one is. Two files are recorded “Pending Inactive” as of March 2025, a phrase neither document defines. The Department said in July 2025 that it had found nothing that could predicate an investigation of anyone not already charged. The searches run for this page, which are listed at the foot, returned no document recording a criminal investigation opened after that, and none recording the two Pending Inactive files being closed either.

What would show otherwise. Two terms first. A subpoena is a court-backed order to hand over documents or to come and give evidence. A search warrant is a judge’s authorisation to search a place and take things away. Any one of these would show that an investigation is running:

  • a new indictment, or a criminal complaint, which is the charging document a prosecutor files before an indictment;
  • a grand jury subpoena, or a search warrant, in a new matter;
  • a document opening a case, dated after July 2025;
  • a statement by the Department that it is withholding records because releasing them would jeopardise an active investigation. The 2025 disclosure statute allows that ground, and the next section sets out what the Department has said under it.31

What the investigations left behind

Every investigation on this page produced paper, and that paper is most of what the public can now read. It is worth knowing which pile is which, because people argue about the piles as though they were the investigations.

The FBI’s evidence and intake records are the administrative layer: what was seized, when it was booked in, where it was kept, who it went to and when it came back. They record acts, not findings, and they do not say what was found.3233 The exhibits from the Maxwell trial are a different pile again: the prosecution’s own index marks each one Public or Sealed, and an exhibit does not say on its face which it is, so the only way to know is to look it up in the index.34 And in the victims’ case the government held back a large part of the Florida file on claims of privilege, a legal ground for refusing to hand a document over, such as legal advice or an office’s internal deliberations. It filed three logs listing what it was holding back and why; the victims answered those logs line by line, and the court ruled on them in 2015.3516 In the same case the victims put twenty-six written statements to the government and asked it to admit or deny each one, and the government’s filed answers are in the release alongside an unsigned draft that answers several of them differently.36

What else is going on, which is not a criminal investigation. Congress passed a disclosure statute in November 2025 and has been arguing since about whether the Department complied.37 Courts are still ruling on what may be unsealed.38 Freedom of Information Act requests and the lawsuits over them continue.3940 Maxwell is serving a sentence of 240 months, which is 20 years; her appeal was rejected, the Supreme Court declined to hear her case in October 2025, and her later challenge was denied in August 2026.41 None of that is a criminal investigation. Disclosure fights, records suits and appeals are separate machinery, and confusing them for an investigation is the commonest error this page exists to answer.

3. What could still happen

Everything in this section is either a rule of law, a decision a court has already made, or a step an institution has already taken. Where no route could be established from the record, this page says so. Nothing here is a prediction.

Time limits

A statute of limitations is a deadline. After it passes, a prosecutor cannot bring that charge at all, however good the evidence.

The New York prosecutors set out the rule for these offences in their own April 2020 memorandum, and that part of it is not blacked out. The version of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 in force in 1994 ran “until ‘the child reaches the age of 25.’” In April 2003 the section was changed to permit prosecution of sex offences against minors “at any time during the lifetime of the minor victim”.42 So for conduct reached by the current rule there is no deadline while the victim is alive. The two subsections in which that office applied the rule to its own case, headed “Application of the Statute of Limitations in This Case” and “Application of Section 3283 to the Proposed Charges”, are blacked out in the release down to their headings, so what the office concluded about its own facts is not in the record.43 This page therefore states the rule and does not state what it means for any particular person.

The deadline has already run out in at least one place. Four days after Epstein died, a New York prosecutor circulated an internal assessment of which of Epstein’s properties the government might be able to take. The writer dealt with New York, the Virgin Islands and Florida separately. For Florida, the only trafficking offences involving that property which the office had evidence for, and which it could properly bring in that district (venue is the lawyers’ word for which court is entitled to hear a case), were ones arising from the original Florida investigation. Of those the writer wrote: “I do not believe we can credibly argue that forfeiture based on those offenses is not time-barred.” Read past the double negative: in the writer’s view it was too late.24

Who could bring a case, and who could not

No court in this record has ordered anyone to be prosecuted. Two were asked to do something close to it, and both refused, each for a reason it stated.

Judge Kenneth A. Marra held in September 2019 that he could not order the 2007 agreement torn up as to Epstein, because “[a]s a result of Mr. Epstein’s death, there can be no criminal prosecution against him”.44 He also held he could not tear it up as to anyone else, because those people were not parties to the case, and any ruling about their rights “would merely be advisory and is thus beyond this Court’s jurisdiction to issue”.45 That leaves a clear rule for the future, in his own words:

The question of the validity of the non-prosecution provisions of the NPA as they relate to the alleged co-conspirators will have to be litigated with their participation if any prosecution against them is ever brought.45

In plain terms: the co-conspirator clause is not a wall that has been struck down, and it is not a wall that has been upheld. It is a defence that would be argued if and when someone is charged.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting as a full court in April 2021, held that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act “does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights in a freestanding civil action”.46 A victim can raise those rights inside an existing case. She cannot start her own case to force one.

Which office matters. The Second Circuit held in September 2024 that the 2007 Florida agreement did not bind the New York prosecutors, and the Solicitor General, the government’s own advocate in the Supreme Court, made the same point in the brief opposing Supreme Court review.4110 The practical consequence is documented rather than speculative: on that ruling, the New York office was not barred by the Florida agreement. The ruling is about that office; it does not decide the position of every other district.

Another country is not bound by American decisions at all. France opened its own investigation on allegations made in France, ran it under three investigating judges, and charged Brunel.15

How the last one actually started

The most recent Epstein investigation to be opened is on the record, with a date and a cause. The government’s own filing in the Maxwell case sets it out under the heading “The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018”:

On or about November 29, 2018, the USAO-SDNY initiated its investigation into Epstein and possible co-conspirators, and formally opened the investigation on or about November 30, 2018. The investigation was prompted by a series of articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction.47

A footnote on the same page records that at the press conference after Epstein’s arrest the United States Attorney, Geoffrey S. Berman, said that while he was not “going to go into any aspects of how our investigation originated[,] I will say that we were assisted from some excellent investigative journalism.”47 The FBI’s own case-summary table gives the opening date of the corresponding Bureau file as 12/06/2018.1

That is the documented answer to “what would it take”, and it is worth stating plainly: the last time an office opened a criminal investigation into Epstein and the people around him, what caused it was published journalism reaching prosecutors who had jurisdiction and decided to act. Not a court order, not a petition, and not a vote.

What courts have already ordered released, and refused

In August 2025 Judge Paul A. Engelmayer refused the Department’s own motion to unseal the grand jury material in the Maxwell case, holding that no exception to the grand jury secrecy rule applied.41 After Congress passed the disclosure statute, the Department came back, and on December 9, 2025 the same judge held that the statute covered the grand jury materials and overrode the secrecy rule as to them.41 That is the clearest demonstration in the record of what changes an outcome: not a new argument, a new statute.

On January 21, 2026 the same court refused a request by two of the statute’s sponsors to take part in the closed criminal case and to have a special master, an outside official a court appoints to supervise part of a case, oversee compliance, holding that a closed criminal prosecution gave it no jurisdiction over a civil records statute.41 The route of asking that criminal court to police disclosure has been tried and refused.

Earlier decisions on what was unsealed, and what was kept sealed, are set out at Unsealing decisions in the Epstein proceedings.

What Congress asked for, and what it got

Between December 2018 and July 2025 the Justice Department logged eleven pieces of congressional correspondence about Epstein and routed each to a named component. Nine of those letters were passed to the FBI with the identical instruction: “FOR INFORMATION ONLY. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FBI ACTION.”48 That is what letters achieved.

Legislation achieved something different. The Epstein Files Transparency Act became law on November 19, 2025, and requires the Attorney General to publish, within 30 days, all unclassified Department records relating to nine listed categories.31 It allows withholding on five grounds only. One of them, section 2(c)(1)(C), permits withholding material that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary”.31

The Department’s report to Congress under the Act, dated February 14, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2026, says: “The only category of records withheld were those records where permitted withholdings under Section 2(c) and privileged materials were not segregable from material responsive under Section 2(a).”49 It then sets out four of the five permitted grounds as the ones it worked through, and rules the fifth out by name: nothing, it says, was withheld to keep information secret in the interest of national defence or foreign policy.50 It makes no such statement about the active-investigation ground, and gives no number of records withheld under it. So the report neither asserts nor denies that an investigation is open. That question cannot be answered from the report, and this page does not read an answer into the silence.

Members of both chambers have said on the floor since December 2025 that the release is incomplete.37 Follow-on bills have been introduced.37 Whether any of that produces more records is not something this page can say.

What a professional-responsibility review could reach, and what it could not

The Office of Professional Responsibility is the Justice Department’s internal unit for investigating its own lawyers. It is not a criminal investigator, and it cannot charge anyone.

Its November 2020 report reviewed hundreds of thousands of records and conducted more than sixty interviews, and named five subjects: Acosta, three former supervisors and the line prosecutor.2 It concluded that none of them committed professional misconduct, that Acosta’s decision not to prosecute federally was within his authority, and that there was no evidence the decision “was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations”.14 It also concluded that “Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment”.14 Acosta had already resigned as Secretary of Labor in July 2019, before the report was written.51

So the ceiling of that route was a finding about professional conduct. It could not, and did not, decide whether anyone committed a crime.

Routes that could not be found in the record

  • A way to compel a prosecution. The searches run for this page returned no document describing any mechanism by which a court, a member of Congress or a victim can require the executive to open or bring a criminal case. The two courts asked to do something close to it declined for want of jurisdiction.4546 If such a route exists in the record, this page did not find it, and it is not asserting a negative about the world.
  • What happened to the French investigation after February 2022. See above.
  • Whether either “Pending Inactive” file has been touched since March 2025. The searches returned nothing later.
  • Whether any record was withheld under section 2(c)(1)(C). The Department’s report does not say.

What this page deliberately does not do

It does not name people as suspects. Appearing in these documents is not evidence of wrongdoing, and nothing here is a finding against anyone. Where a person’s own answer is in the record, it is on that person’s page beside the allegation.

It does not retell the underlying conduct. Those accounts are at Victims in the Epstein record and Survivor testimony in the Epstein record, which are written with the care that material needs.

It withholds names the productions withhold. The prosecutor who spoke at the August 2019 hearing is named on the transcript’s appearance page but blacked out on the pages quoted here, and this page does not supply her name from elsewhere. The subject of the obstruction case is blacked out on the FBI table quoted here, so this page takes no name from that table and describes him in the table row and in the text only as a former Epstein employee. He is named openly on other documents, and the published pages that name him, Operation Stolen Globe and his own, cite those documents rather than this one. The link to his page in the list below is navigation, not a name sourced to the table.

The searches run for this page

The corpus full-text index was searched, column-scoped, for the exact phrases “Pending Inactive” (54 pages), “ongoing investigation” (2,078), “active investigation” (198), “reopen the investigation” (35), “reopening the investigation” (4), “no ongoing investigation” (0), “investigating judges” and “investigating magistrate” (7 pages between them), “OCRVP” (2), “predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties” (5 pages, of which three are EFTA copies and two are DOJ-OGR copies) and “no incriminating” (16 pages). None of those counts came from a query carrying a row limit. The Act’s own text and the Department’s report to Congress were fetched from govinfo.gov and the Federal Register and read.

Fifteen document runs were rendered locally at 300 or 400 dpi and read at the image before anything was quoted from them: EFTA00019994, EFTA00095067, EFTA00163964, EFTA00174043, EFTA01649099, EFTA01657747, EFTA01657752, EFTA01681955, EFTA01683940, EFTA01683978, EFTA01684602, EFTA02731082, EFTA02731168, EFTA02758614 and EFTA02846455. Each of them carries a footnote below naming the page that was rendered and the resolution it was read at, so this list can be checked against the footnotes rather than taken on trust.

DOJ-OGR documents could not be image-checked, because that production refuses automated image requests by design. Five quotations on this page come from the text layer of a DOJ-OGR run, and the footnote carrying each one says so: two sentences from the executive summary of the Office of Professional Responsibility report, one from the body of that report, one from the August 2025 court opinion that supplies the date of the July 2025 memorandum, and one from the 2019 detention order in the New York case. Where a copy of the same text exists in the EFTA release and can be rendered, this page cites that copy instead. It does so twice: the July 2025 memorandum is quoted from a rendered EFTA copy rather than from the court opinion, and the 2007 agreement’s co-conspirator clause, which names four people, is quoted from the government’s own court filing at EFTA00095067, rendered at 400 dpi, rather than from the production copy of the agreement.

That is a statement about these searches. It is not a statement about what the release contains.

Documents

DocumentWhat it is
EFTA00163964FBI table, “Epstein and Maxwell Related Investigations”, compiled March 2025, covering all six Epstein-related case numbers and their statuses
EFTA01649099FBI email tracking the same six case numbers, written the evening of March 17, 2025
EFTA02846455Joint Justice Department and FBI memorandum on the review of the Epstein holdings; two pages, undated and unsigned on its face
EFTA00019994Transcript of the hearing of August 27, 2019 at which the Epstein indictment was dismissed
EFTA02758614Judge Marra’s opinion and order of September 16, 2019 ending the victims’ rights case
EFTA00074599In re Wild, the victims’ appeal, decided by the Eleventh Circuit sitting as a full court, April 15, 2021
EFTA02731168Prosecution memorandum of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, April 10, 2020, which states the statute-of-limitations rule in the clear
EFTA02731082 p.1Memorandum of the same office, December 19, 2019, “Investigation into Potential Co-Conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein”; only page 1 of this run is cited on this page
EFTA01657747Sworn FBI declaration of September 3, 2013: “Operation Leap Year remains an open case”
EFTA01683978, EFTA01683940FBI internal emails of August and September 2020 on the status of the two files
EFTA00174043Open-source transcription, held in the release, of an Agence France-Presse report of February 21, 2022 on Brunel’s death
DOJ-OGR-00002533Executive summary of the Office of Professional Responsibility report, November 2020
DOJ-OGR-00015133Opinion and order of August 11, 2025 quoting and dating the July 2025 memorandum
EFTA00095067Government’s omnibus memorandum in opposition in United States v. Maxwell, whose page 91 records when and why the 2018 investigation was opened, and whose page 33 quotes the 2007 agreement’s co-conspirator clause in the clear
EFTA01684602 p.2A second FBI summary of the New York case, giving the opening date as 12/08/2018 where the March 2025 table gives 12/06/2018
Public Law 119-38The Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Department’s report to Congress under it

Footnotes

  1. “Epstein and Maxwell Related Investigations”, “Summaries provided from Case Indexes email from NY sent on March 12, 2025”, EFTA00163964 pp. 1-2. Read from the page images at 400 dpi. The rows read: for 50D-NY-3027571, “Child Sex Trafficking investigation into Epstein, opened 12/06/2018 … This investigation remains in Pending Inactive status.”; for 31E-MM-108062, “Child Prostitution case against Epstein brought by Palm Beach County Police Department (PBPD), opened 07/25/2006 by FBI Miami Palm Beach RA, resulting in a guilty plea in State Court. This case has remained in Pending Inactive status since 07/25/2017 and case materials have been preserved for a civil litigation hold.”; for 72-MM-113327, “This investigation was closed on 03/13/2013.”; for 90A-NY-3151227, “Closed in December 2022.”; for 90C-NY-3154599, “Case closed in October 2023.”; for 9A-NY-3144791, “closed on 5/12/2020.” The subject of the obstruction case is blacked out on the image at both of its occurrences and is not supplied here from any other document. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20

  2. Executive Summary of the Office of Professional Responsibility report, November 2020, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 p.6 (summary p. vi), recording the scope of the investigation, the five subject attorneys and their cooperation. Text layer only: this production refuses automated image requests, so its pages could not be rendered and read. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Guillaume Daudin, Agence France-Presse, “Epstein ally found dead in French prison: prosecutors”, as published by The Jakarta Post on February 21, 2022 and preserved in the release as a U.S. government open-source transcription, EFTA00174043 p. 2 of 6, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “His former associate Brunel, in his mid-70s, had been charged with the rape of minors and held in prison since December 2020.”; “Brunel’s death means his case is closed, unless other suspects are implicated in the same case in the future.”; “Brunel had denied the charges.” This is a wire report, not a French court record. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. Email, subject “Grand Jury Material Guidance”, header timestamped Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:29:49 +0000, EFTA01649099 p. 1, read from the page image at 400 dpi. The list reads “50D-NY-3027571 – Pending appeal / 31E-MM-108062 – Pending Inactive / 72-MM-113327 – Closed case / 90A- NY-113327 - Closed case / 90C-NY-3154599 - Closed case / 9A-NY-3144791 – Closed case”. The header offset is explicit, so 00:29:49 UTC on 18 March is 8:29 p.m. Eastern daylight time on 17 March, which the message’s own “Good evening” confirms. The From, To and Cc lines are blacked out on the image; the attribution to the FBI rests on the message’s reference to the Bureau’s Information Management Division and on the Bureau case-file numbers it lists. The 90A number in this list differs from the number the case-summary table gives for the death investigation; this page cites the table for that number. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Memorandum on joint Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation letterhead, EFTA02846455 p. 1 of 2, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein”; “This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”; “it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” The page carries no date and no signature. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  6. Opinion and Order, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), August 11, 2025 (Engelmayer, J.), https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00015133 p.7, which introduces the passage as “On July 6, 2025, the DOJ and the FBI issued another memorandum regarding Epstein” and quotes it. Text layer only; this production refuses automated image requests, so its pages could not be rendered and read; the quoted memorandum text was verified separately against the rendered EFTA copy cited above. ↩ ↩2

  7. Transcript of proceedings, August 27, 2019, United States v. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.), EFTA00019994 p. 10 of 86, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “clear Second Circuit law, that upon the death of a defendant before a final entry of a judgment of conviction, all proceedings must be abated”; “the government is legally obligated to seek dismissal of the pending indictment against Jeffrey Epstein”; “To be very clear, dismissal of this indictment as to Jeffrey Epstein in no way prohibits or inhibits the government’s ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor does it prevent the bringing of a new case in the future or the prosecution of new defendants.” The speaker’s surname is blacked out on this page and is not supplied here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Palm Beach Police Department investigation (2005-2006), which carries the case number, the search warrant, the probable cause affidavits, the state charging decision and the referral to the FBI, each to its own document. Its principal source for the state phase is the Office of Professional Responsibility report, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.46 (narrative p. 20), for the grand jury’s return of one count of solicitation of prostitution on July 19, 2006; the department’s own case number is on its probable cause affidavit, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01308488 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  9. Operation Leap Year, which carries the naming of the file, the grand juries, the subpoena series and the file’s later handling, sourced to the Office of Professional Responsibility report at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.44 (narrative p. 18) for the naming and to the office’s own grand jury subpoena log at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01702617 p.68. ↩ ↩2

  10. 2008 non-prosecution agreement, which carries the instrument at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 p.2, its thirteen numbered terms, the co-conspirator clause, and the Second Circuit’s decision of September 17, 2024 holding that the agreement did not bind the Southern District of New York, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 p.4. ↩ ↩2

  11. Operation Stolen Globe, which carries the naming of that file, the prosecution memorandum, the authorisation from Main Justice and the closing communication. The FBI closing communication, serial 62 of case 72-MM-113327, is dated 12/20/2012 and reads “Request captioned case be closed. The defendant/subject in this case has been sentenced and all prosecutorial matters have been resolved.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00129637 p.1. The Bureau’s 2025 case-summary table instead gives “This investigation was closed on 03/13/2013.” ↩

  12. United States v. Epstein (S.D.N.Y. 2019), which carries the indictment of July 2, 2019 at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000258 p.1, the bail litigation, the death and the dismissal, and which records Judge Berman’s statement in the detention order that Epstein was “innocent of the Federal charges alleged against him now and until such time, if it comes, that a jury or the Court finds … that he is guilty”, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000472 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  13. Death of Jeffrey Epstein (August 10, 2019), which carries the custody records, the medical examiner’s determination, the FBI and Inspector General investigations and the prosecution of the two correctional officers, and which sources the FBI file’s closure to https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01656198 pp.12-13 and the Inspector General’s June 2023 findings to https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01656708 pp.101-102. ↩

  14. Same executive summary, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 p.10 (summary p. x): “was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations”; “Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment.” Text layer only: this production refuses automated image requests, so its pages could not be rendered and read. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. Jean-Luc Brunel, which carries the French detention and charge, his denials and his death. The three investigating judges and the mutual legal assistance request are recorded in a Justice Department email thread of January 2021, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00021720 pp.2-3 (“There are three investigating judges assigned to this case, which is pretty unusual”). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 330, entered July 6, 2015, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p.7: “The Court concludes that Petitioners have not met their heavy burden of demonstrating a compelling and particularized need for the disclosure of grand jury materials pertaining to the investigation of Epstein.” Read from the page image at 300 dpi. The order runs to 51 pages, of which the last 26 are a table of its rulings document by document; that table is described at Operation Leap Year and Doe v. United States. ↩ ↩2

  17. The co-conspirator clause of the non-prosecution agreement of September 24, 2007, as quoted in the government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition in United States v. Maxwell, EFTA00095067 p. 33 of the run (Bates EFTA00095099, printed p. 7), read from the page image at 400 dpi: “In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.” The filing gives the source of that block quotation beneath it as “NPA at 5”. The agreement itself is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 p.5, in a production whose page images cannot be fetched, so the four names are taken here from the rendered court filing and not from that copy. The full account is at the 2008 non-prosecution agreement. ↩

  18. Office of Professional Responsibility report, November 2020, https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.195 (narrative p. 169): “Important provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all ‘potential co-conspirators,’ were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors.” Text layer only: this production refuses automated image requests, so its pages could not be rendered and read. ↩

  19. Opinion and Order, same case, Document 435, entered February 21, 2019, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 pp.22-23, 26-33 (“At a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein.”; “The Court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper.”). The fuller account is at Doe v. United States. ↩

  20. Order of nolle prosequi, Document 52, United States v. Epstein, filed August 29, 2019, signed by Judge Richard M. Berman. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000637 p.2. Text layer only: this production refuses automated image requests, so its pages could not be rendered and read. ↩

  21. Same transcript, EFTA00019994 p. 11 of 86, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “It also does nothing to prevent the government from continuing to explore the possibility of seeking civil forfeiture of any assets that were used to facilitate the crimes charged in this indictment. Indeed, as has been stated publicly, investigations into those matters have been ongoing, remain ongoing, and will continue following dismissal of the indictment here.” ↩

  22. Memorandum to Geoffrey S. Berman, U.S. Attorney, dated December 19, 2019, “Investigation into Potential Co-Conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein”, EFTA02731082 p. 1 of 86, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “This memorandum details the investigative steps taken since the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in this District on July 2, 2019 and analyzes the extent to which certain of Epstein’s associates and employees may or may not be criminally liable for their conduct during their employment with Epstein.” The recipient list below Berman’s name and the authors’ names are blacked out on the image and are not supplied here. ↩

  23. Same order, EFTA02758614 p. 15 of 15: “rulings which were rendered during the course of this litigation likely played some role, however small it may have been, in the initiation of criminal charges against Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of New York and that office’s continuing investigation of others who may have been complicit with him.”; “The Clerk will close the case and all pending motions are denied as moot.” ↩

  24. Email, subject “Epstein Forfeiture Options”, Sent line dated Wednesday, August 14, 2019, from an account tagged “(USANYS)”, EFTA01681955 p. 1 of 2, read from the page image at 400 dpi. Under the heading “Viability of Actions” the writer treats New York, the Virgin Islands and Florida separately. For Florida the writer records that the only trafficking offences involving the Florida property for which the office had evidence and venue were those arising from the original Florida investigation, and writes: “I do not believe we can credibly argue that forfeiture based on those offenses is not time-barred.” The sender and the addressees are blacked out on the image, as are two names in the body. The Sent line carries no time zone, so no clock time is given here. The wider account of this email is at Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. ↩ ↩2

  25. Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, which carries the protocol of May 29, 2020 at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00010045 p.8, the funding arrangements, and the programme’s own closing announcement of August 9, 2021 reporting about 225 claims, nearly $125 million awarded and over $121 million paid, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00078666 p.1. ↩

  26. A second FBI summary of the same case, near-identical in wording to the row above, EFTA01684602 p. 2 of the 200-page run (Bates EFTA01684603), read from the page image at 400 dpi: “Child Sex Trafficking investigation into Epstein, opened 12/08/2018.” It also carries one sentence the other copy does not, “Maxwell requested an appeals extension to 04/10/2025”, and ends with the same “This investigation remains in Pending Inactive status.” The two summaries give opening dates two days apart. Within each document the page image and the extracted text agree, so this is two FBI documents disagreeing and not a transcription error; the difference is reported and not resolved. A third figure again is in the government’s own filing, which gives November 29 to 30, 2018 for the prosecutors’ investigation. ↩

  27. Declaration of E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, West Palm Beach, Florida, filed as Respondent’s Exhibit A in No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA, EFTA01657747 p. 3 of 3, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “7. Operation Leap Year remains an open case.”; “8. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”; “EXECUTED on September 3, 2013.” ↩

  28. FBI internal email, “Sent: August 17, 2020 3:17 PM (UTC-04:00)”, replying to a Record/Information Dissemination Section request of August 11, 2020 concerning file 31E-MM-108062, over a sign-off reading “FBI Miami / Palm Beach County Resident Agency”, EFTA01683978 p. 1 of 2, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “This case is being actively investigated by the New York Office and I am unable to answer the below cases.” The sender’s name is blacked out. The Sent line carries an explicit offset, so the time is Eastern daylight time. ↩

  29. FBI New York to the Record/Information Dissemination Section, “Sent: September 8, 2020 12:06 PM (UTC-04:00)”, in a thread headed “20-cv-1527 - Pending FOIA”, EFTA01683940 p. 1 of 4, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “50D-NY-3027571 is an open and pending investigation regarding Epstein, Maxwell and his associates. Release of information, especially victim information could be harmful to the upcoming trial of Maxwell and pending investigation of others. We have been using b7a for all FOIA requests at the moment, so if we could continue to do so, that would be helpful.” The sender’s name is blacked out and only the office is legible. The Sent line carries an explicit offset, so the time is Eastern daylight time. ↩

  30. Same memorandum, EFTA02846455 p. 2 of 2, read from the page image at 300 dpi. The second page sets out the FBI’s conclusion on the manner of Epstein’s death and links to video files; it too carries no date and no signature block. ↩

  31. Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119-38, 139 Stat. 655 (November 19, 2025), sections 2(a), 2(c)(1)(C) and 3, read in full from the enrolled text. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ38/html/PLAW-119publ38.htm ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  32. FBI evidence inventory in the Epstein investigation, which carries the evidence reports and case-file listings, item by item, with their case numbers. ↩

  33. FBI intake records in the Epstein investigation, which carries the search logs, the receipt for property and the chain-of-custody entries, and states in terms that such a record establishes that an item was received or moved and not what was in it. ↩

  34. Maxwell trial exhibits, which carries the prosecution’s own exhibit index, its Public and Sealed column, and the Southern District’s March 2025 warning that “The exhibits themselves do not indicate whether they are sealed, so they must be reviewed in tandem with the Excel index.” ↩

  35. The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation, which carries the three logs, the grounds claimed in each row, the victims’ line-by-line objections and the court’s 2015 ruling. ↩

  36. The government’s answers to the victims’ first requests for admission, which carries the twenty-six requests, the government’s filed answers, and the unsigned draft answers that differ from them. ↩

  37. Epstein Files Transparency Act, which carries the House roll call of November 18, 2025 (427 to 1), the Senate’s passage the following day, the Department’s report, and the floor statements of December 2025 to August 2026 disputing completeness, each cited there to the Congressional Record. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  38. Unsealing decisions in the Epstein proceedings, which carries the named applications, who applied, and what each court held, including the victims’ motion to unseal the agreement of September 25, 2008 at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02729730 p.1 and the Florida state order of June 25, 2009 at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02729597 pp.1-3. ↩

  39. FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records, which carries the Bureau’s response letters between 2017 and 2020, the exemptions checked on each, the counts of pages reviewed and released, and the internal correspondence quoted above at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01683940 p.1. ↩

  40. Requests for Epstein records answered outside the FBI’s FOIA letters, which carries the Bureau of Prisons and Marshals Service responses and the litigation over them, including the November 2019 reply that “The guidance provided indicates this is an active and on-going investigation and as such the institution has not prepared a report for release on behalf of the BOP”, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687991 p.26. ↩

  41. Ghislaine Maxwell, which carries the conviction, the sentence, the Second Circuit’s holding at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 p.4 that the Florida agreement did not bind the New York office, the Solicitor General’s brief in opposition at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000219 p.20, the denial of certiorari on October 6, 2025, the denial of her collateral challenge on August 24, 2026, and the grand jury unsealing rulings of August 11, 2025, December 9, 2025 and January 21, 2026, the last three sourced there to the court’s own published opinions. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  42. Prosecution memorandum of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, April 10, 2020, EFTA02731168 pp. 21-22 of 32: “In 1994, the statute of limitations in effect for sexual offenses against children ran until ‘the child reaches the age of 25.’”; “in April 2003, Section 3283 was revised to permit the prosecution of sex offenses against minors at any time during the lifetime of the minor victim.” A footnote on the same pages notes a further 2006 revision the memorandum treats as inapplicable. The published page on this document is EFTA02731168. ↩

  43. Same memorandum, EFTA02731168 p. 23 of 32, read from the page image at 400 dpi: the headings “Application of the Statute of Limitations in This Case” and “Application of Section 3283 to the Proposed Charges” are visible in italic and everything else on the page, including a footnote at its foot, is blacked out. ↩

  44. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 478, entered September 16, 2019, EFTA02758614 p. 5 of 15, read from the page image at 300 dpi: “Here, there is no longer an Article III controversy permitting the Court to address the appropriateness of the remedy of rescission. As a result of Mr. Epstein’s death, there can be no criminal prosecution against him and the Court cannot consider granting this relief to the victims.” ↩

  45. Same order, EFTA02758614 pp. 5-6 of 15, read from both page images at 300 dpi. The sentence quoted in the body straddles the page break: it begins at the foot of p. 5 with the words “The question of the validity of the non-prosecution provisions of the NPA as they” and completes at the head of p. 6 with “relate to the alleged co-conspirators will have to be litigated with their participation if any prosecution against them is ever brought.” Also on p. 6: “Since the alleged co-conspirators are not parties to this case, any ruling this Court makes that purports to affect their rights under the NPA would merely be advisory and is thus beyond this Court’s jurisdiction to issue”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  46. In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. April 15, 2021) (en banc), Westlaw printout, EFTA00074599 p. 4: “While the CVRA permits a crime victim like Ms. Wild to ‘mov[e]’ for relief within the context of a preexisting proceeding—and, more generally, to pursue administrative remedies—it does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights in a freestanding civil action.” ↩ ↩2

  47. Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition, United States v. Maxwell, EFTA00095067 p. 91 of the run (printed p. 65), read from the page image at 400 dpi: heading “4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018”; “On or about November 29, 2018, the USAO-SDNY initiated its investigation into Epstein and possible co-conspirators, and formally opened the investigation on or about November 30, 2018. The investigation was prompted by a series of articles published by the Miami Herald earlier that same week relating to Epstein, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction.”; and n.32, “Indeed, on July 8, 2019, at the press conference following the arrest of Epstein, Geoffrey S. Berman, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, stated that while he was not ‘going to go into any aspects of how our investigation originated[,] I will say that we were assisted from some excellent investigative journalism.’” The prosecutor the same passage calls “AUSA-1” is identified in that filing by designation only, and this page does not supply a name for her. The filing gives the opening date as November 29 to 30, 2018; the FBI’s own case-summary table gives 12/06/2018 for the corresponding Bureau file. The difference is reported, not resolved. ↩ ↩2

  48. The Justice Department’s handling of congressional Epstein correspondence, which carries the eleven logged workflows, the action components and the nine Bureau referrals reading “FOR INFORMATION ONLY. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FBI ACTION; however, it is being referred to you for your information in the event you may be contacted by the DOJ entity tasked with handling the response”, one of which is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00175123 p.2. The same page records the one document in that run that is not a referral: an assignment of April 8, 2025 naming an action office, a signature level and a due date, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00175192 p.1. ↩

  49. U.S. Department of Justice, “Report Under Public Law 119-38”, 91 Fed. Reg. 55356 (August 27, 2026), appendix, report p. 2 of 6, read from the rendered page image of the Federal Register PDF: “The only category of records withheld were those records where permitted withholdings under Section 2(c) and privileged materials were not segregable from material responsive under Section 2(a).”; and the block quotation of section 2(c) subparagraphs (A) to (D). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/27/2026-17533/report-under-public-law-119-38 ↩

  50. Same report, p. 3 of 6, read from the rendered page image: “Although permitted by the Act, no materials were redacted or withheld on that basis that a record ‘contain[ed] information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.’ See Sec. 2(c)(1)(E).” The report makes no equivalent statement about section 2(c)(1)(C). ↩

  51. Alex Acosta, which carries his account to the Office of Professional Responsibility and his resignation, submitted July 12, 2019 and effective July 19, sourced to the report’s executive summary at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 p.4 (summary p. iv). ↩

Backlinks