NPR's review of the documents has found numerous examples of the Justice Department failing to redact names of publicly identified victims of sexual abuse as well as names of individuals who have not previously been publicized.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Trump last year, called for the Justice Department to minimize its redactions while turning over information about the life and death of Epstein and the criminal charges he and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell faced. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, crimes she committed with Epstein.
Those redactions, too, are inconsistent with what the law directs.
"In addition to the documentary redactions, which includes personal identifying information, victim information and other privileges, there is extensive redaction to images and videos to protect victims," Blanche said Friday, announcing the final batch of files. "We redacted every woman depicted in any image or video, with the exception of Ms. Maxwell. We did not redact images of any men unless it was impossible to redact the woman without also redacting the man."
But multiple examples can be found in the Epstein files repository that show the faces of women and hide the faces of men, including one text message conversation between former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Epstein where Trump's face in a news article was obscured with a black box.
The files aren't shared in chronological order or grouped in any identifiable way. Countless duplicate copies of email threads, investigative files and correspondence are spread throughout the database, sometimes with different levels of redactions applied.
The same PowerPoint presentation prepared last fall by the Justice Department detailing the timeline and cases against Epstein and Maxwell, alleged victims and powerful figures in his orbit who faced allegations of misconduct appears six times with different information blocked out in each version.
Annie Farmer, one of the women who testified in court against Epstein and Maxwell, told NPR's All Things Considered on Monday that the redaction issues felt intentional.
"There's just no explanation for how it could've been done so poorly," she said. "They've had victims' names for a very long time. I don't think this is just about rushing to get this information out."
One document in the newly released tranche is a summary that FBI officials appear to have compiled last summer, of more than a dozen tips received by the agency involving Trump and Epstein.
It is unclear why the investigators put together the summary, and it does not say when the tips, which include unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse, were received. The document also does not include any corroborating evidence or indication that the tips were verified.
Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. In response to a request for comment from the New York Times, the White House referred to a statement from the justice department on Friday, which stated that the new tranche of documents “may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos”.
“Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the DoJ statement added. “To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”
Geoff Bennett:
And for a closer look at the legal issues surrounding this latest release of Epstein files, we turn to Barbara McQuade. She's a former federal prosecutor and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
It's great to have you back on the program.
Barbara McQuade, Former U.S. Attorney:
Thanks, Geoff. Glad to be here with you.
Geoff Bennett:
So the Justice Department says Friday's release brings it into compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but millions of files, as you well know, remain unreleased, withheld for reasons like attorney-client privilege, privacy concerns, and the like.
Democrats are now demanding access to the full record. From a legal standpoint, did the DOJ actually comply with the law?
Barbara McQuade:
Well, no.
First of all, the deadline was December 19, and here we are many weeks after that deadline. But also, in light of all of these redactions, Geoff, I think there is some room to argue here that they're not in compliance in it.
Within 15 days, which should have been 15 days from December 19, the Justice Department is also required to produce a log explaining what was redacted and why. One of the things they have said they have redacted is internal memoranda and things that disclose their deliberative privileges.
But that was specifically spelled out in the statute that required production. That could be something that the Justice Department and Congress might have to litigate if the Justice Department continues to refuse to produce those things.
But I think that the enormous amount of redactions seems to go beyond the scope of what would be obvious, things like names of survivors and other things. And so I think we're going to have to see that log first before Congress can really ascertain exactly what was withheld.
Geoff Bennett:
Why have no perpetrators beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell been charged, despite years of investigation and the volume of information that's now public?
Barbara McQuade:
Well, of course, we still don't know what's behind those redaction bars.
But I think what the public is seeing here is, there is a difference between things that are wrong, morally reprehensible, shady, even awful. But to prove a crime, you would have to show that someone engaged in actual sex trafficking. That means transporting someone across state lines who is underage for the purpose of engaging in sex acts or, if they are not a minor, doing so through threats or coercion.
That requires a level of intent, knowledge, and the actions of doing these things. And I don't know that we have seen any evidence that that was done. Certainly, just associated with Jeffrey Epstein or even making comments about women is not enough to bring a case.
And so, as I said, we don't know what's behind those redaction bars, but it would not surprise me if the Justice Department simply did not have sufficient evidence to prove some of these cases.
Geoff Bennett:
And that might address a question I have seen a lot online since Friday's release, which is, why did the Justice Department, under multiple presidential administrations, to include the Biden administration under Merrick Garland, why did they not pursue broader prosecutions tied to Epstein's network?
Barbara McQuade:
Yes, I think it's the same.
So, certainly, Jeffrey Epstein was charged before he committed suicide, and Ghislaine Maxwell was charged and convicted. I think her trial occurred in 2021. But just because -- we had a term we used when I was working as a prosecutor, which is awful, but lawful.
Sometimes, people engage in really hideous conduct. You investigate, but you are just not able to prove the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. And so certainly there is some shady information here going on, but it is actually one of the reasons that the Justice Department typically does not disclose records unless there is an indictment.
And that is to protect people's reputations when there really is just sort of this sort of slimy, kind of awful conduct that doesn't amount to a crime. So we're seeing all these disclosures about these wealthy and powerful men and their affiliations with Jeffrey Epstein.
Certainly, perhaps they showed poor judgment. They may even have attended parties and gone to his island and other kinds of things. But if they have not engaged in the crime of sex trafficking, it's really sort of inappropriate. Typically, the Justice Department protects people like that from disclosure to protect reputations when they cannot prove a criminal case.
Geoff Bennett:
We have also seen some survivors say that their identifying information was released accidentally. I would imagine, in these documents that they weren't properly redacted.
What obligation does the DOJ have to survivors in releases like this? And what corrective steps, if any, could be taken at this point to correct the wrong?
Barbara McQuade:
Well, the statute itself said that they should not produce, they should withhold and protect from production the names and other identifying information about survivors, which is par for the course.
It is typical, when the prosecution produces even discovery to a defendant, to redact those names and provide only that which is necessary to share with them for a fair trial. And so, in some instances, it strikes me as sloppy.
Now, I know they had millions of documents they had to review in a very short period of time, but that's the law. You need to make those your priorities. Maybe there's some things you can't do that month. Maybe there's some immigrants, Geoff, that can't be arrested that month because you need prosecutors to be reviewing the documents, in compliance with the law.
What can be done about it? I suppose there could be civil lawsuits to the extent that survivors want to file a lawsuit to suggest that they have been defamed in some way by the production of their names, in violation of this federal statute. I think they could have some civil remedies available.
Geoff Bennett:
I also want to get you to weigh in on another important matter. And that's President Trump today suggesting that Republicans should, in his words, nationalize the voting process.
And he argued it's necessary to prevent what he calls crooked Democrat-led states from allowing illegal voting. Here's what he told Dan Bongino.
President Donald Trump:
These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally. And the -- amazing that the Republicans aren't tougher on it. The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.
Geoff Bennett:
When the president says "these people," he's talking about undocumented immigrants.
The Brennan Center for Justice has said time and time again that this is a lie. It's a conspiracy theory. There is no widespread voting by noncitizens. But from a constitutional standpoint, what would it even mean to nationalize elections? And does the federal government have the authority to do that when elections are the authority of state governments?
Barbara McQuade:
No, the Constitution says that it is the states that set the time, place and manner for elections. And that has consistently been held to mean that we have not one national election. We have 50 elections throughout our country on Election Day.
And there's good reason for that. One is state sovereignty, but another is, that kind of decentralized system is what protects us against some sort of widespread fraud that attacks our nation or the collection of one database of all voting records.
But in terms of administering the elections, that is all done at the state level by the Constitution. So the only way to nationalize elections would be through a constitutional amendment.
President Trump called in a new interview for the Republican Party to “nationalize” voting in the United States, an aggressive rhetorical step that was likely to raise new worries about his administration’s efforts to involve itself in election matters.
During an extended monologue about immigration on a podcast released on Monday by Dan Bongino, his former deputy F.B.I. director, Mr. Trump called for Republican officials to “take over” voting procedures in 15 states, though he did not name them.
“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,’” he said. “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
Under the Constitution, American elections are governed primarily by state law, leading to a decentralized process in which voting is administered by county and municipal officials in thousands of precincts across the country. Mr. Trump, however, has long been fixated on the false claims that U.S. elections are rife with fraud and that Democrats are perpetrating a vast conspiracy to have undocumented immigrants vote and lift the party’s turnout.
“The cuts to federal student lending in President Trump’s OBBBA will make it more difficult for Americans to finance their educations—opening the door for private lenders to swoop in on vulnerable borrowers and their families”
“[These findings] underscore an urgent need for oversight of the private lending market as these companies prepare to cash in on the Administration’s agenda”
Responses from: Citizens | College Ave | Navient | Nelnet | Sallie Mae | SoFi
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, along with Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.); Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii); Ron Wyden (D-Ore.); Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.); Ed Markey (D-Mass.); and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), released a new report revealing the findings of their investigation into how private student loan lenders will reap the benefits from cuts to federal student loan access enacted in Republicans’ Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBBA). The report is the first Congressional analysis of the impacts of the OBBBA’s student loan restrictions on the private lending market.
“Our report confirms what I’ve long sounded the alarm about: the Big Beautiful Bill is a massive giveaway to private student loan lenders,” said Senator Warren in a separate statement. Instead of helping sketchy private lenders profit from our college affordability crisis, the Trump administration should be lowering costs for students and borrowers.”
“The anticipated expansion of the role of private lending is deeply concerning, since private student loan lenders have a long record of predatory practices that raise costs for borrowers and deprive them of basic consumer protections,” wrote the senators.
OBBBA set new caps on federal student loan borrowing for graduate students and others, paving the way for a significant expansion of the private student loan market. The private student loan market currently accounts for approximately 8 percent of student loan debt, but represents more than 40 percent of student loan-related complaints submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The senators pressed six significant private student loan lenders, Citizens, College Ave, Navient, Nelnet, Sallie Mae, and SoFi—which, combined, lent over $14.7 billion via private student loans in 2024—to provide details on their policies, lending activity, and future plans related to OBBBA. The investigation found that:
- There is a history of persistent predatory behavior in the private student loan market - and major lenders have been expanding their student loan activity each year;
- Private student loan lenders expect more students to turn to private loans due to OBBBA’s loan limits, and at least one lender is already making plans to expand its loan offerings in response to this policy change;
- Most of the private lenders surveyed offer minimal protections for borrowers who are defrauded by their schools or who face a sudden school closure;
- Half of the private lenders surveyed either have sold student loans to private equity firms or plan to do so in the future; and
- Private lenders do not yet have concrete plans in place to expand customer service capacity if they increased their student loan activity.
“Private student loan lenders have a record of utilizing abusive practices, including lying to borrowers about the availability of debt cancellation, autopay discounts, and unemployment protections for borrowers,” the senators warned.
“The Trump administration continues to capitulate to big corporations and special interest – all while increasing the pain and costs for American families. Higher education is a ticket for the middle class, and Republicans are trying to destroy this opportunity,” said Leader Schumer. “Our findings were horrific – but unfortunately not shocking. The so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ forces students to turn to the predatory private student loan market to finance their education. And, as our report finds, this will expose students to predatory lending practices and a lack of consumer protections. Senate Democrats will continue to fight to protect students and borrowers so that anyone, regardless of income or family background, can have a chance at higher education.”
“This report makes it even more clear that by placing an arbitrary cap on federal student loans, President Trump and his Republican allies are making it more expensive for everyday students to pursue higher education. Why? To support huge tax breaks for themselves and their billionaire buddies,” said Senator Hirono. “Students should be able to pursue higher education without taking on a lifetime of debt. I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that we put an end to abusive practices that exploit borrowers, to institute further consumer protections, and to prevent companies from cashing in on this regime’s political agenda.”
“Instead of addressing the rising cost of higher education, the Trump Administration and Republicans have slashed access to federal student loans – limiting opportunities for American students to pursue degrees, especially in fields where we face workforce shortages. Private lenders are eager to profit off these harmful restrictions, and more students will be at risk of falling victim to deceptive, predatory practices,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“Trump and MAGA Republicans’ Big Ugly Bill has made borrowing for college and graduate school riskier and more expensive, pushing the dream of higher education further out of reach for working and middle-class Americans,” said Senator Markey. “I’ll continue to fight to defend borrowers from predatory lenders and restore loan protections for students.”
“The Republican vision of ‘Families Lose, Billionaires Win’ is leading to less affordable student loan repayment options and a higher risk of folks falling victim to predatory lending, which overwhelmingly harms working families,” said Senator Merkley. “As private lenders prepare to cash in on this disastrous agenda, our report makes clear that urgent oversight is needed to protect borrowers and ensure they can access affordable higher education for generations to come.”
In response to the findings, the senators called for careful oversight of any new private loan offerings targeting students and families affected by the federal loan caps and for experts to examine potential impacts of private lenders selling student loans to private equity firms.
“One year into the Trump Administration, President Trump and Secretary McMahon have made countless efforts to strip federal support from student loan borrowers as part of their crusade to dismantle the Department of Education…[These findings] underscore an urgent need for oversight of the private lending market as these companies prepare to cash in on the Administration’s agenda,” the senators concluded.
###
-
-
-
-
Miguel: Tiny Desk Concert3 hours ago
-
-
-
Chump and Melania two losers6 hours ago
-
A court verdict worth noting6 hours ago
-
-
Lindsey Graham's lipstick6 hours ago
-
Con Man Musk6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
