On September 19, 2025, Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney whose 2008 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein has haunted the American justice system for over a decade, sat for six hours of closed-door testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The session, which drew sharp partisan lines and reignited public outrage, marked the first time Acosta spoke under oath about the controversial agreement that let Epstein largely evade serious consequences for his sex crimes against minors.
Acosta’s testimony came amid a renewed congressional push to uncover how the late financier was able to abuse hundreds of girls and young women over more than twenty years, despite being on federal authorities’ radar since 2006. According to Nexstar Media Inc., House Democrats emerged from the hearing deeply critical of Acosta’s conduct and the deal itself. “It’s very clear that Alex Acosta ran a deeply flawed investigation of the Epstein case. That’s clear. He also would not admit that Mr. Epstein received a sweetheart deal, which has been widely reported and agreed upon since that deal was actually made by Mr. Acosta and his team,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, said after the interview.
The 2008 plea deal allowed Epstein to plead guilty to lesser state charges, avoiding federal sex trafficking prosecution that could have resulted in a life sentence. According to The Miami Herald, the agreement also granted immunity to Epstein’s associates and was initially sealed, with victims left uninformed. Epstein ultimately served just over a year in jail, much of it on work release, commuting daily to his West Palm Beach office. Survivors have since testified that abuse continued during this period. “One of the survivors that was there was very clear that she was abused and assaulted and raped by Jeffrey Epstein during his work release, and during that time when he was out during that 18-month period that was given to him by Mr. Acosta and his team,” Garcia noted.
Acosta’s demeanor during the hearing drew sharp rebukes from Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) told The Miami Herald, “There was a clear lack of remorse. This is someone who should at least acknowledge that he made a mistake … his memory faded whenever we asked pointed questions.” Rep. Maxwell Frost added that Acosta “essentially said he didn’t have faith in the victims, their stories and their ability to tell their own story and their own testimony, which is deeply disturbing to all of us sitting in there.”
Acosta, for his part, maintained his belief that the plea deal was the best course of action at the time, citing evidentiary challenges and the risk of losing at trial. In a statement through his attorney, Jeff Neiman, Acosta said, “With today’s knowledge, the 2006 prosecution would have been handled differently, as far more is known about Epstein now than nearly two decades ago. He expressed regret that the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s communication with the victims was not more forthright.” Acosta took responsibility for approving the resolution and admitted that relying on the state system was a mistake, but emphasized that Epstein “served jail time, registered as a sex offender, and was ordered to compensate victims, sending a message to the community that Epstein’s conduct was unacceptable.”
Yet, critics argue that the consequences were far from sufficient. Under the terms of the deal, Epstein was able to continue his pattern of abuse, and the secrecy surrounding the agreement—sealed from public view and hidden from victims—fueled allegations of a cover-up. As The Miami Herald revealed in its “Perversion of Justice” investigation, federal prosecutors led the sentencing judge to believe there was only one victim, when in fact there were at least two dozen, most between the ages of 14 and 16. Many came from vulnerable backgrounds, including foster care and poverty, making them easy targets for Epstein.
Republicans on the committee took a markedly different tone, focusing on the need for broader accountability within the justice system. Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) told Politico, “Alex Acosta cooperated with our questions today and provided information that will help advance our investigation into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. This information will guide our next steps as we work to bring accountability, and we expect to announce new action soon.” Comer also criticized Democrats for focusing too heavily on former President Donald Trump’s ties to Epstein, saying, “We’re trying to find out more—who dropped the ball? Was it Acosta? Was it the FBI? Was it the local prosecutors? Was it the Department of Justice? Those are the questions I think we need to know.”
Acosta testified that he never met Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell and never saw Trump’s name on any Epstein-related documents. He also stated he was not pressured to resign as Labor Secretary during the Trump administration, instead asserting that his 2019 resignation, which followed Epstein’s re-arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, was his own decision to avoid being a distraction. According to The Independent, Acosta said, “I’ve testified for six hours. I’ll let the record speak for itself.”
FBI Director Kash Patel’s earlier testimony loomed over the proceedings. Patel called Acosta’s 2006 prosecution the “original sin” in the mishandling of the Epstein case, noting that the investigation used very limited search warrants and failed to seize sufficient evidence. “If I were the FBI director then, it wouldn’t have happened,” Patel asserted. Patel also insisted there was no credible “client list” of prominent figures tied to Epstein, a finding that has frustrated both survivors and segments of the public who suspect a broader cover-up.
The fallout from the 2008 plea deal has been far-reaching. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that Acosta and his team violated the law by concealing the deal from more than 30 known underage victims, who were led to believe the investigation was ongoing when, in fact, prosecutors were already negotiating a plea bargain. The judge eventually ordered the deal unsealed, but by then, the damage was done. Many survivors and their advocates remain angry, feeling that justice was denied and that powerful interests shielded Epstein and his associates.
Acosta’s appearance before Congress has done little to resolve these tensions. As Rep. Yassamin Ansari put it, “It’s important to remember that this is a massive cover up. There are many, many more people involved, financial institutions involved, potentially foreign governments involved, but this is one key part to getting to the bottom and getting to the answers that we need to get justice for the survivors.”
As the committee prepares to release the transcript of Acosta’s testimony and considers its next investigative steps, the survivors of Epstein’s abuse—and the American public—are left waiting for the full truth to emerge. The scars of the case, and the questions it raises about accountability for the powerful, are far from healed.
