Which federal or state agencies had jurisdiction over Epstein files that remained sealed in 2021–2025?

1. The Department of Justice and the FBI were primary custodians of sealed federal materials

The Justice Department publicly maintained an “Epstein” library and began producing documents, indicating DOJ custody and ongoing review of files seized in federal inquiries, and DOJ memos and releases make clear the FBI recovered extensive digital and physical evidence that DOJ was tasked with reviewing and, in some periods, withholding from public release ^{[5] [1] [3] [6]}. Reuters reported DOJ documents showing the department planned a large review — millions of pages in some descriptions — and that the law enacted later aimed to compel DOJ disclosure, underscoring that the sealed federal records were under DOJ/FBI control in 2021–2025 ^[2].

2. U.S. attorney’s offices that prosecuted or investigated Epstein had operational jurisdiction over related sealed records

Materials gathered in prosecutions and grand jury matters were generated and maintained by the prosecutorial offices handling the cases — notably the Southern District of New York in the Maxwell prosecution and the South Florida federal office in earlier Epstein matters — and reporting specifically references a south Florida criminal investigation whose grand jury transcripts remained under seal ^{[7] [4]}. Those U.S. attorney offices, as components of the DOJ, controlled case files and made decisions about which materials to produce, redact, or seek to keep sealed ^{[1] [4]}.

3. State and territorial prosecutors held parallel files and could control state‑level seals

Coverage notes that material in the Epstein corpus stemmed from both federal and Florida state level investigative work, meaning state prosecutors in Florida (and the Virgin Islands in civil matters) possessed evidence and court filings subject to state or territorial court rules and sealing orders; BBC described a “separate investigation” at the Florida state level and Reuters and the New York Times detailed civil litigation in the U.S. Virgin Islands that generated court records ^{[3] [2] [7]}. Those state‑ or territory‑held documents were therefore under the jurisdiction of the respective local prosecutors and judges for unsealing decisions ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Courts — especially judges overseeing grand juries — legally controlled sealed material regardless of agency requests

Judicial orders, particularly grand jury secrecy rules, were decisive: multiple outlets explained that judges denied efforts to unseal grand jury transcripts and that grand jury secrecy is governed by the judiciary rather than by Congress, meaning sealed federal grand jury materials remained under the court’s control even when lawmakers sought disclosure ^{[8] [4]}. Reporting on federal rulings in 2025 explicitly states that a judge rejected attempts to release about 70 pages of grand jury records, demonstrating courts’ independent gatekeeping role over what DOJ or Congress could disclose ^[8].

5. Congress and House committees sought access but lacked direct custodial authority over sealed files

While the House Oversight Committee obtained and publicly released tens of thousands of pages provided by DOJ in 2025, and Congress later passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act seeking wholesale disclosure, those legislative efforts clashed with judicial seals and DOJ decisions; committee releases indicate congressional appetite and pressure but not direct jurisdiction to unseal grand jury or court‑sealed materials without court action ^{[9] [10] [2]}. Multiple reports document the tug of war between Congress, the executive branch and the judiciary over the files during 2025 ^{[9] [10] [2]}.

Conclusion: the sealed Epstein materials from 2021–2025 were principally under the custody and legal control of the Department of Justice and the FBI, with the relevant U.S. attorney’s offices (notably South Florida and SDNY) exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction; state and territorial prosecutors held separate sealed records where state or Virgin Islands matters applied, and federal and state judges — especially those supervising grand juries — ultimately controlled whether sealed pages could be disclosed ^{[1] [3] [4] [9]}.