On Christmas Eve 2025, a new chapter in the Jeffrey Epstein files saga unfolded, drawing fresh scrutiny to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the White House, and former President Donald Trump. As mounting controversy swirled around Trump’s inclusion in the latest document releases, reporting from Axios and other outlets revealed that the White House had taken the extraordinary step of commandeering the DOJ’s official X (formerly Twitter) account. The move was meant to manage the escalating backlash but instead added fuel to a fire that shows no sign of burning out.
The DOJ’s social media presence, typically marked by a measured, just-the-facts tone, abruptly shifted on December 24. The account’s posts adopted a sharper, rapid-response edge, signaling a more campaign-like approach. According to Axios, this break from tradition was not just about style—it was a marker of the high stakes and political sensitivities surrounding the Epstein files, especially as they pertain to Trump. Critics were quick to point out that no other person named in a criminal case receives such visible protection from the Justice Department’s official communications, raising concerns about the department’s independence and the boundaries between law enforcement and politics.
These concerns are magnified by the current leadership of the DOJ. As reported by Civil Discourse, the Attorney General is a former Trump impeachment defense lawyer, and the Deputy Attorney General previously served as Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney. Many U.S. Attorneys in place are described as having strong personal loyalty to Trump, a situation that observers call unprecedented and, for some, deeply troubling.
The controversy comes as the DOJ continues to release, retract, and re-release batches of the Epstein files, a process marked by confusion and inconsistency. Redactions have sometimes been handled so incompetently that they could be pierced, exposing sensitive information. The files themselves are vast—by the Trump administration’s own estimate, as of late December, there remained up to 700,000 pages yet to be reviewed and released, with just a week to go before the self-imposed deadline for full disclosure.
At the heart of the matter are the names and stories contained in these files. The Southern District of New York’s prosecutors believed there were ten potential Epstein co-conspirators, but only three are named: Ghislaine Maxwell (now convicted), the late French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel (found dead in a Paris jail cell in 2022), and billionaire Leslie Wexner. Seven others remain unnamed, possibly because they are victims whose identities are being protected or because they became cooperating witnesses. The files also reveal that Trump flew on Epstein’s jet at least eight times in the 1990s—more than he previously acknowledged—though there is no evidence he visited Epstein’s infamous island.
After Epstein’s death in 2019, prosecutors drafted several memos that have not been made public. These include a seven-page memo on potential co-conspirators, an 86-page updated list, a memo on possible corporate prosecutions, and a so-called prosecution memo referring to potential perjury charges. Much of this internal documentation was produced during the Biden administration, complicating the partisan blame game that has erupted around the files’ release.
Trump, for his part, has responded with characteristic defiance. On December 22, he dismissed the controversy as a “Democratic hoax,” insisting the focus on Epstein was a distraction from his own accomplishments. “I thought that was finished,” he complained, according to USA TODAY, adding, “There’s tremendous backlash. A lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein.” However, public anger appears to be directed less at Congress or the media and more at the DOJ for missing the legal deadline to release the files, as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act—legislation Trump himself signed into law on November 19, 2025, after months of trying to dissuade Republicans from supporting it.
Trump’s attempts to frame the outrage as partisan were quickly debunked. In reality, all but one Republican in Congress voted with Democrats to pass the transparency law. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, another former president whose name appears in the files, took a different tack. Clinton’s spokesperson, Angel Ureña, demanded full transparency, stating, “Someone or something is being protected. We need no such protection.” Clinton has insisted on the release of all documents, a marked contrast to Trump’s defensive posture.
The DOJ’s own handling of the files has been inconsistent, and at times, oddly partisan. When a photo of Clinton lounging in a hot tub appeared in the December 19 release, DOJ spokesperson Gates McGavick posted gleefully about the “Beloved Democrat President,” noting that a black box in the image was to protect a victim’s identity. The White House Press Secretary even reposted the image with an “Oh my!” and an emoji. But when documents mentioning Trump surfaced in the next release, the DOJ’s tone turned sharply defensive, declaring on social media: “Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”
This whiplash in official tone has only deepened public skepticism. Survivors of Epstein’s abuse, too, have voiced frustration. Some reported having no contact with the DOJ during the period when Ghislaine Maxwell received what appeared to be special treatment following an interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. One survivor, whose identity was revealed in the files despite her wishes, told CNN, “I fear for the little girl who’s calling the FBI right now and asking for help. I am so afraid for her, because if I have to do all of this right now … I have no words. I just have no words. It hurts my heart. It haunts me to my core.”
The DOJ’s credibility has been further undermined by the handling of tangential claims, such as a supposed Epstein letter to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar, which the department later deemed inauthentic. The uneven release of files, missed legal deadlines, and apparent double standards depending on whose name is mentioned have left both survivors and the public demanding answers.
As the final pages of the Epstein files are reviewed and prepared for release—conveniently during a holiday news lull—questions about transparency, justice, and political interference remain. Survivors and advocates argue that only a full, unredacted disclosure can provide the closure and accountability so long denied. With the eyes of the nation watching and trust in institutions at stake, the next week could bring revelations that reverberate far beyond the sordid world of Jeffrey Epstein.