Epstein files: who decides what information is released to the public?

One of the hardest tasks of any government in a democracy is balancing the right to know against the need to know. Just because the public wants to know something doesn’t necessarily mean that they should. But without this access to information, how can voters make informed choices and the powerful be held to account? This debate is now central to the release and redaction of the Epstein files.

For the past decade or so the Epstein files have been used by Democrats and Republicans as a political stick with which to beat each other. In the meantime, speculation has run rife online with a global guessing game of what these files contain and who is or isn’t named in them.

This is the dilemma facing the Trump administration at the moment. On the one hand there is justifiable public anger that they have not been told the truth, and that some of the richest and most powerful people in the world may have committed terrible crimes with impunity. This fury – and its political implications – is the chief reason why the US Congress voted in November 2025 to release the Epstein files.

What is often missed in this discussion is the fact that the files are not a single set of documents. Instead, these are multiple packages of information including files gathered by the FBI investigation, court records and grand jury documents. This distinction is extremely important legally.

Of the documents that have been made available so far, many of these have been heavily redacted with black bars covering names, addresses, emails and photos. In some cases, it is clear why this had happened. In others, the absence of any reason for the redaction has simply added fuel to the fire, with spectators filling in the blanks themselves.

The US has long prided itself on being one of the freest societies on Earth. Since the Watergate scandal seriously dented public confidence in government integrity, various pieces of landmark legislation have been passed to make sure government files can be made available to the public. These include the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966, the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, and the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.

These acts cover the federal government – including the FBI and Department of Justice, which have been overseeing the Epstein case. But there has also been legislation that has limited what can be released. This includes the Privacy Act of 1974. This legislation was designed to ensure that random members of the public do not have their names released and their reputations damaged.

Given the number of government agencies that can be involved, this process has not always been consistent. One agency might redact one part of a document, while another might redact a separate part. In some cases, documents might be redacted despite the fact that they are already publicly available.

Because the process is so legally and politically complicated, the work is normally done by civil servants in the federal bureaucracy. But it should also be remembered that some files and information are not covered by the freedom of information laws. The two most significant are probably court and grand jury records. These records can only be released by judges – and due to the separation of powers, Congress has no jurisdiction here.

The freedom of information acts give several important reasons for why files might be redacted. The trouble is that without explanation it’s difficult to know which ones apply. The first and most obvious is national security. If an agency feels that the release of any particular information might damage America’s reputation, they have sweeping powers to withhold information.

This applies even if the information doesn’t mention specific things such as the names of undercover agents, details of troop movements or programmes that could be harmed, but does include important information on how agencies operate. Other information can be redacted if it includes financial data or patents.

Perhaps the most significant are redactions covered by the Privacy Act of 1974. These can include third parties (people simply cc’d into emails or in the background of photos who are of no relevance to the investigation), addresses, phone numbers and – crucially in this case – the names of victims and witnesses.

In the case of the Epstein files, this means that, rightly, a lot of information has been blacked out (although there are reports that a few of the victims have been named and in some cases their addresses and even photos have been published).

Striking a balance

Critics have argued that the public needs to be given greater context about the redactions. Namely, who gets to decide what is redacted and why. Whether, for example, a person whose name is blacked out is a potential perpetrator, a crucial witness or an innocent third party.

The issue is made more complicated by the fact that, for law enforcement reasons, court cases resulting from some of this information are likely to proceed. So it’s important not to release information that could compromise investigations or future trials.

All of this is impossible to challenge without knowing the background details.

Because Epstein was such a prominent figure and seemed to know everyone in positions of power, it’s possible that information is being redacted for all of these reasons.

Assuming good faith on all sides (not always easy in today’s political climate in the US) this leaves government officials with a dilemma. While justice demands that innocent people’s reputations are protected, it equally demands that the public’s right – and need – to know is properly served. All of which must be balanced by the need to ensure that the right people, no matter how powerful or influential, involved in any wrongdoing revealed in the files are held accountable.

At this stage it seems likely that the debate over what should be made public and what should remain secret will run on indefinitely.

Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.