Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have previous attorneys general responded to Epstein file requests?
Executive summary
Previous and former U.S. attorneys general have been repeatedly asked to produce or explain Department of Justice files related to Jeffrey Epstein; the recent push includes subpoenas and depositions for a string of past attorneys general including Merrick Garland, William Barr and others [1]. The Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly released a first tranche of documents in February 2025 after saying it received roughly 200 pages but later learned thousands more existed, prompting Bondi to direct the FBI to deliver additional materials and investigate why all documents had not been produced [2].
1. The immediate past response: Bondi’s “Phase 1” release and demand for more
When President Trump and others pressed for transparency, Attorney General Pam Bondi coordinated a February 2025 release described as a “first phase,” in which the DOJ and FBI made public files that were largely previously leaked but had not been formally published; Bondi said the Department initially received about 200 pages and later learned thousands more existed and ordered the FBI to deliver the remaining documents and investigate the shortfall [2]. That release sparked criticism that it was partial and sometimes redundant with already-public material, and Bondi framed the effort as following a White House pledge of transparency [2] [3].
2. Congressional pushback: subpoenas and depositions of former attorneys general
Congressional investigators—particularly the House Oversight Committee—responded by subpoenaing the DOJ and seeking depositions from a string of former attorneys general across multiple administrations, naming figures such as Merrick Garland, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales for questioning about the files and decisions in Epstein-related matters [1]. The committee also issued subpoenas and later released large document troves it had obtained from the DOJ and from Epstein’s estate, further escalating pressure on the DOJ to produce fuller records [4] [5].
3. A partisan tug-of-war over what should be public
Lawmakers and political actors are sharply divided on scope and motive: some Republicans pushed for wholesale release to demonstrate alleged connections between Epstein and political figures, even attempting procedural maneuvers in the House to force votes or compel production [6] [7]. Democrats and some advocacy groups have emphasized victim privacy and legal limits—particularly around grand jury secrecy and redactions—while also supporting fuller accountability; the DOJ has said it will redact victim identities and child sexual abuse material as it provides records [4] [8].
4. Former AGs have been asked to explain past decisions, and some are being deposed
Beyond requests for files, the Oversight Committee has sought explanations about prior prosecutorial decisions: for example, William Barr was scheduled to be deposed as investigators probed the origins and handling of key deals and memos in the Epstein investigation [9]. The committee also published letters and communications from former attorneys general such as Eric Holder and Merrick Garland as part of its public record collection [7].
5. DOJ’s balancing act: transparency claims vs. legal constraints
The DOJ under Bondi asserted a transparency posture—promising “full and complete files” while relying on the FBI to produce responsive materials—yet the initial “Phase 1” release was criticized for incompleteness and for consisting largely of material that had surfaced elsewhere [2] [7]. At the same time, DOJ actions such as seeking to unseal grand jury transcripts or interviewing key witnesses (e.g., Deputy AG Todd Blanche’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell) show the department operating within legal constraints that have so far limited full public disclosure [8].
6. Oversight releases have filled some gaps but raised new questions
Congressional releases—most notably the Oversight Committee’s publication of tens of thousands of pages received from the DOJ and Epstein’s estate—have expanded the publicly available record [4] [5]. Those releases have answered some public queries (flight logs, contact lists, memos) but simultaneously provoked further demands for explanation about redactions, withheld grand jury material and prosecutorial choices, making the dispute ongoing rather than settled [7] [10].
7. Competing narratives and the limits of available reporting
Reporting shows two clear, competing narratives: one emphasizing executive-branch-driven transparency and the release of files by the DOJ under Bondi, and another stressing congressional skepticism that has sought to compel fuller production and to depose former senior officials [2] [1]. Available sources do not mention detailed outcomes of all requested depositions or whether every former attorney general has complied with or been compelled to hand over additional documents beyond the public letters and partial releases already noted (not found in current reporting).
Final note: The record in the supplied reporting documents repeated requests, partial DOJ releases, and an active congressional campaign to obtain and publicize far larger document sets; however, limits such as grand jury secrecy, redactions for victims and ongoing investigations remain central legal barriers cited by DOJ and appear to be a key reason previous AG responses have mixed production with restraint [4] [8].