WASHINGTON, April 25, 2026 —
The Justice Department’s internal watchdog announced Thursday it is launching a formal audit of whether the department fully complied with the law requiring the release of millions of pages of investigative records tied to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a move that puts the department’s own leadership under scrutiny and prolongs one of the most politically charged sagas to shadow the Trump administration.
The audit, announced by acting Inspector General William M. Blier, will examine how the department identified, collected, redacted, and released records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed in November and President Trump signed into law. A public report will follow once the review is complete, though the timeline for completion has not been set.
What the Law Required — and What the DOJ Did
The Epstein Files Transparency Act gave the Justice Department 30 days from signing to release essentially all investigative files related to Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Exemptions existed only for materials that would expose victims’ identities, compromise an active investigation, or constitute child sexual abuse material.
The department failed to meet the 30-day deadline. Officials initially released only a fraction of the required records, later disclosing they had unexpectedly discovered a massive additional tranche of documents that required review. Over subsequent weeks, the department released more than 3 million pages of material. But the releases were staggered, inconsistent, and punctuated by a rolling cycle of documents being published and then quietly removed.
A CBS News analysis found the department had taken down more than 47,000 files — comprising approximately 65,500 pages — after they were initially published. Links to those files returned a page-not-found error. DOJ officials described the removals as records that were incorrectly coded as duplicates and inadvertently published. Critics in Congress from both parties called for an independent review.
The Victims’ Information Problem
The controversy that drew the most sustained outrage had nothing to do with what the DOJ withheld. It had to do with what it released.
When the files were made public, personal identifying information about Epstein survivors appeared in the documents — names, addresses, and details that the law specifically required to be protected. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called the disclosure horrible and inexcusable. A group of survivors subsequently sued the Trump administration and Google over the exposure of their information.
The inspector general’s review will specifically examine the department’s process for addressing those concerns, in addition to its broader handling of the document identification and redaction process.
What the DOJ Says — and What Critics Allege
| Issue | DOJ Position | Critic Position |
|---|---|---|
| Full compliance with the law | Yes — Blanche: “We released everything” | No — 200,000+ pages withheld or redacted |
| Protection of Trump | “We did not protect President Trump” | Accusers: key names redacted |
| Victims’ info exposure | Inadvertent, on compressed timeline | Inexcusable, possibly negligent |
| Files removed after release | Incorrectly coded duplicates | Deliberate unpublishing |
| Active investigation claim | Some files withheld to protect ongoing probe | Which investigation? Never publicly specified |
The Epstein investigation produced exactly one criminal conviction — Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence. Epstein himself died in federal custody in August 2019 under circumstances that were ruled a suicide but have generated persistent public skepticism. Since the files were released, at least nine investigations related to Epstein have been opened across eight countries.
Who Is Running the Watchdog — and Why That Matters
The announcement came from acting Inspector General Blier because the previous inspector general, Michael Horowitz, departed to take a position at the Federal Reserve. The inspector general’s office has faced criticism throughout Trump’s second term for a perceived lack of public action as the administration overhauled the Justice Department, fired career prosecutors, and restructured major investigations.
This audit marks the watchdog’s first significant announced probe since those changes took effect. On Tuesday — just two days before Blier’s announcement — President Trump nominated Don Berthiaume, a career government attorney, to serve as the department’s next permanent inspector general. Berthiaume’s nomination now awaits Senate confirmation.
The timing raises an unavoidable question: will a future inspector general appointed by the same administration be positioned to reach conclusions critical of that administration’s handling of the files? The current review, at least, was announced by an acting official operating independently of department leadership. Its findings, whenever they arrive, will carry the full weight of that independence — or be tested by the absence of it.
