Which specific documents from the 2024 Epstein releases were later corrected or withdrawn by the DOJ?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Justice Department’s staggered unsealing of Epstein-related material in late 2024 and subsequent releases in 2025 produced a small but conspicuous set of items that were either removed from public access or further redacted after initial posting: primarily a subset of photographs (reported as 15 images), multiple pages and audio files that the DOJ later said were incomplete or required additional review, and whole pages of grand‑jury testimony described as entirely redacted in the public tranche (including a documented 119 pages). These actions were acknowledged by news organizations reviewing the DOJ site and by DOJ statements to Congress [1] [2] [3].
1. What was actually pulled — photographs taken during FBI searches
Investigations by NBC and other outlets found that photographs posted in the DOJ’s initial public directory were no longer available within a day, with NBC reporting specifically that 15 photographs were removed and noting that one of the missing images was a photograph of a table with framed pictures of Epstein with well‑known people [1]. The removed items that reporters flagged were largely among the roughly 4,000 files described by the DOJ as “DOJ Disclosures,” most of which were photographs taken during FBI searches of Epstein properties [4] [1].
2. Redactions, “incompleteness,” and audio files the DOJ said it would fix
Beyond photos, the DOJ told Congress that the public tranche was incomplete and that additional drops and corrections were expected, citing the need to protect victims and to finish a large review of materials; news reporting summarized DOJ comments that several pages and audio files were redacted or withheld pending further review [2] [5]. Axios and AP both reported that the department informed lawmakers the initial publication lacked certain pages and audio and that more material would be released after redaction review [2] [4]. The department framed these removals and redactions as necessary to avoid exposing victim identities or child sexual‑abuse material [5] [2].
3. Full‑page redactions: grand‑jury material called out by multiple outlets
News outlets flagged large swaths of entirely redacted pages within the release; CNN identified whole pages and entire documents removed or blacked out, citing “119 pages of grand jury testimony” as an example of material returned in redacted form in the public set [3]. AP likewise emphasized that grand‑jury subpoenas and then pages of heavy redactions followed in the printed release, underscoring that some court‑protected material remained inaccessible [4].
4. How the DOJ and outside actors described the removals and corrections
DOJ officials, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in media interviews and congressional correspondence, characterized the adjustments as part of a continuing production intended to balance transparency with legal protections for victims and grand‑jury secrecy; the department told Congress it expected to finish production by year’s end and to make corrections where necessary [2] [5]. Oversight critics, including the bill’s sponsors and some members of Congress, pushed back, saying the initial release failed to comply with statutory intent and pressed for explanations or remedies [1] [5].
5. What can be documented — and what cannot
Based on contemporaneous reporting, the concrete, documented corrections/withdrawals are the removal of at least 15 photographs from the DOJ’s posted files and the reclassification/redaction of multiple pages and audio files pending further review; reporting also documents whole‑page redactions including a noted batch of 119 grand‑jury pages [1] [2] [3]. Public records and reporting show DOJ statements promising additional, corrected releases, but available sources do not provide a definitive, itemized list of every corrected or withdrawn file by DOJ file name or ID in the public record reviewed here [2] [4]. If an authoritative, item‑by‑item DOJ correction log exists, it is not included in the sources provided.