On September 19, 2025, Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida and ex-Labor Secretary under President Donald Trump, found himself in the hot seat on Capitol Hill. In a closed-door, six-hour deposition before the House Oversight Committee, Acosta faced intense scrutiny over his role in the controversial 2008 plea deal with financier Jeffrey Epstein—a saga that has continued to grip Washington and the nation at large.
The anticipation around Acosta’s testimony was palpable. According to ABC News, even before the session began in the Rayburn House Office Building, reporters peppered Acosta with questions, which he silently ignored as he entered. The hearing marked the first time Acosta was directly questioned by Congress about his decisions in the Epstein case, a watershed moment in an ongoing investigation that has exposed deep rifts in how federal authorities handled allegations of sexual exploitation by Epstein and his associates.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, was quick to characterize the day’s events as productive. "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," Comer stated, as reported by ABC News. He added that the committee would soon release the full transcript of Acosta’s interview to ensure transparency for the public.
But the atmosphere outside the committee room told a different story. As members emerged from the closed session, Democrats and Republicans offered starkly contrasting accounts of Acosta’s candor and credibility. House Democrats, in particular, were scathing. Ranking Member Robert Garcia told reporters, “Alex Acosta ran a deeply flawed investigation of the Epstein case.” Garcia emphasized that Acosta would not admit that Epstein received a “sweetheart deal,” nor would he accept any responsibility for the pain suffered by Epstein’s victims. “He had no knowledge of what happened to those victims, even to this day,” Garcia added, according to reporting by ABC News and other outlets.
Other Democratic lawmakers echoed these concerns. Rep. Jasmine Crockett described the session as disturbing, recounting that Acosta seemed to imply the era excused the handling of victims’ statements. “I heard things that disturbed me, such as, ‘Well, back in 2006, it was a different time,’ and it seemed as if we were going back to a little bit of victim shaming,” Crockett said. Rep. Dave Min, a former law professor, called Acosta “completely non-credible as a witness,” citing evasive answers and an apparent lack of familiarity with the evidence. Rep. Yassamin Ansari, speaking on CNN, said it was “very difficult to get straightforward answers out of him.”
Acosta, for his part, has long defended his actions as U.S. attorney. In a 2019 press conference, days after Epstein’s arrest in New York on new charges, Acosta said, “The goal here was straightforward: put Epstein behind bars, ensure he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with a means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was within their midst.” He repeated similar justifications during his congressional deposition, according to committee members.
The 2008 plea deal at the center of the controversy allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state charges in Florida, serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the Palm Beach County jail with work release privileges—a deal many have since described as shockingly lenient. The agreement meant Epstein avoided facing a 60-count draft federal indictment that was reportedly gathering dust in the lead prosecutor’s office, even as the FBI and prosecutors continued to identify new victims and potential co-conspirators, according to a 2020 Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report cited by ABC News and NPR.
The OPR report found that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case before the investigation was complete, but did not conclude that he or his team committed professional misconduct or violated DOJ rules. Still, attorneys for Epstein’s victims blasted the report as a “whitewash.” The report also revealed that Acosta and his deputies held repeated meetings with Epstein’s high-powered legal team—some of whom had previously worked in the same Miami office or with Acosta at an elite law firm—despite objections from lead prosecutor A. Marie Villafaña. According to the OPR, Villafaña “vehemently opposed” these meetings and feared they would result in further delays and leniency for Epstein. She told the OPR, “It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be.”
Republicans on the committee, however, defended Acosta’s cooperation. Chairman Comer accused Democrats of “attempting to manufacture yet another false narrative about President Trump.” He also noted that Acosta confirmed he had never seen Trump’s name on any documents related to Epstein. Comer further claimed Acosta’s office had received assurances that Epstein would not receive work release, but that Palm Beach County authorities allowed it anyway.
The committee’s investigation has already led to the release of more than 33,000 pages of Epstein-related documents, with more expected. These files, according to UPI, are heavily redacted to protect witnesses and block child abuse materials. The committee recently obtained additional files, including a “birthday book” note allegedly written by Trump decades ago—a claim the former president has denied, calling the note a forgery.
Epstein’s suicide in a New York City jail in 2019, while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, only intensified calls for accountability. The fallout has touched not only Acosta, who resigned as Labor Secretary in 2019 amid renewed outrage, but also the broader Justice Department and FBI. In recent weeks, FBI Director Kash Patel appeared before Congress, reportedly blaming Acosta’s 2008 deal for a lack of available information and a delay in releasing more Epstein files. Democrats, in response, accused Patel and the Trump administration of complicity in a cover-up and argued that the Justice Department still possessed documents it could release.
As the dust settles from Acosta’s marathon testimony, the divide on Capitol Hill remains sharp. Democrats left the session with more questions than answers, expressing little hope for major revelations but intent on following new leads. Republicans, meanwhile, insisted the investigation was progressing and promised further action soon. The committee has pledged to release the transcript of Acosta’s interview in the coming weeks, a move both sides hope will shed more light on one of the most notorious prosecutorial decisions in recent U.S. history.
As the Oversight Committee prepares its next steps, the eyes of the nation remain fixed on Washington, waiting to see whether this latest chapter will finally bring clarity—or simply deepen the mystery—around the Epstein case and those who shaped its outcome.
