On December 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released a long-awaited trove of documents related to the criminal investigations, life, and death of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The release, mandated by a new law signed just weeks earlier, was supposed to provide the public with a comprehensive look at the evidence amassed over more than two decades. But by the next day, journalists and the public noticed that something was amiss: more than a dozen images, including one showing President Donald Trump, had quietly vanished from the department’s online library.
The missing image in question depicted a desk drawer containing multiple photos of Trump, including one with young women and another with his wife, Melania Trump. According to NPR, the deleted files also included various works of art—some containing nudity—and were among more than a dozen items that had been available in the initial batch but were gone by Saturday afternoon. The Associated Press confirmed that at least 16 images had been removed without official explanation.
The DOJ addressed the growing confusion on social media late Saturday, writing, “Photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.” The department’s website, meanwhile, directed the public to report any files that should not have been posted, acknowledging that the sheer volume of material meant some sensitive or non-public information might slip through the cracks. Still, the lack of transparency about the specific removals only fueled speculation—and criticism—about the department’s motives.
Despite the official deletions, the missing images, including the Trump photo, remained available on open-source, public collections quickly set up by internet archivists and transparency advocates. This parallel release underscored the inconsistencies in the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files and raised questions about whether the removals were meant to shield powerful figures from scrutiny. As Democracy Docket pointed out, the disappearance of the Trump image in particular suggested “the removals may aim to shield the president from public scrutiny of his relationship with the convicted sex offender.”
Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019, was a longtime associate of Trump. While Trump has admitted to a past friendship with Epstein, he has consistently denied any involvement in or knowledge of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation, claiming the two had a falling out in the mid-2000s. Yet the president and his allies—including former attorneys now serving in the DOJ—have repeatedly resisted the full release of the Epstein files. In fact, the law compelling the release, known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, was passed by Congress and signed by Trump himself last month, giving the DOJ 30 days to process and publish the material.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former Trump defense attorney, was tasked with ensuring the release of all Epstein-related documents by the December 20 deadline. However, as reported by Reuters and NPR, Bondi failed to fully comply. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, also a former Trump attorney, said the department would deliver only a fraction of the files by the deadline, citing the need for additional time to redact sensitive information to protect victims. The files that were released were heavily redacted—some documents of over 100 pages were almost entirely blacked out—and the DOJ acknowledged it was still reviewing hundreds of thousands of additional pages for possible future release.
The partial and selective nature of the release drew sharp criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), co-sponsor of the transparency law, told NPR, “There are powerful men, bankers, politicians who we know from survivors—they’ve told us this—who were at these parties where there were many young women, and a few were under age, and these powerful men knew about it, and they didn’t say anything. They need to be at least publicly held accountable.” His Republican counterpart, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), echoed the frustration, posting on X that the release “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.” Massie even warned that “a future DOJ could convict the current [Attorney General] and others” for not properly releasing all files as mandated.
Some of the redacted files included references to other high-profile figures. Bill Clinton, for example, appeared in several photos and documents, which senior DOJ and White House officials seemed keen to highlight. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Angel Ureña, pushed back, stating, “They can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. There are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We’re in the first. No amount of stalling by people in the second group will change that.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s presence in the newly released documents was unusually sparse. Apart from the missing drawer photo, only a few images of Trump with women and a framed photo of Epstein with a redacted woman and a $22,500 oversized check signed by Trump were found. Previous releases by the House Democratic Oversight Committee had included over a thousand mentions of Trump, mostly documenting Epstein’s apparent obsession with Trump’s presidency and his efforts to position himself as a “Trump whisperer” among powerful associates. Notably, last month’s tranche of emails from Epstein’s estate included one in which Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls,” though the context of that statement remains unclear. Trump has dismissed the allegations as a “political hoax.”
The controversy over the missing files and heavy redactions comes at a politically sensitive time. The release was supposed to lay to rest conspiracy theories and restore public trust, but instead it has left many—including Epstein’s victims—feeling even more frustrated. Victim Marina Lacerda told MS NOW, “All of us are infuriated by this. It’s another slap in the face. We expected way more.”
The DOJ maintains that it is redacting files “in accordance with the law and caution,” emphasizing the need to protect victims’ privacy and sensitive information. But for lawmakers, journalists, and the public, the unexplained removal of files—especially those involving the sitting president—has only deepened suspicions of selective transparency. As the DOJ continues to review hundreds of thousands of pages, and as both Democrats and Republicans threaten further action, the story of the Epstein files appears far from over. The coming weeks may reveal whether the full truth will emerge, or whether the most explosive secrets will remain locked away in the government’s archives.
For now, what was meant to be a moment of reckoning has instead become yet another chapter in the long, tangled saga of Jeffrey Epstein and the powerful people who once orbited his world.