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.
Biden doj epstein foia requests
Executive summary
The Biden Justice Department withheld Epstein-related records during its term, telling a court it used FOIA Exemption 7(A) to protect an “ongoing criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and others” [1]. Congress and others later pushed for wider public release: the House Oversight Committee received and released thousands of pages from DOJ in 2025 (33,295 pages) while separate legislative efforts in November 2025 moved to force the DOJ to publish remaining files [2] [3].
1. How the Biden DOJ explained non‑release: an “ongoing investigation” rationale
The clearest, repeatedly cited explanation for why materials weren’t released under the Biden administration is legal: DOJ told a court it was invoking FOIA Exemption 7(A) because disclosing records could harm an “ongoing criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and others,” including potential co‑conspirators [1]. Newsweek’s legal framing notes the department used the standard investigative‑harm rationale rather than a blanket secrecy policy [1].
2. What Congress and oversight committees actually obtained and released
House Oversight’s public release in September 2025 shows DOJ did turn over substantial material: the Oversight Committee published 33,295 pages of Epstein‑related records that DOJ provided and said it would continue producing records while redacting victim identities and child sexual‑abuse material [2]. That tranche demonstrates some internal DOJ records became public despite earlier withholdings [2].
3. Political context: bills and votes to force a full release
In mid‑November 2025 momentum built on Capitol Hill: the House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act directing DOJ to release all files, sending the measure toward the Senate and the president’s desk [4] [3] [5]. Coverage from Politico and Fox News describes bipartisan energy to compel disclosure and notes that the effort followed contested document dumps and new committee releases [6] [7].
4. Competing narratives about why files stayed sealed earlier
Two competing explanations appear in the reporting. One is the DOJ’s legal posture: active investigations and privacy protections justified withholding under FOIA [1]. The other is political critique: some Republicans and commentators have argued prior administrations (including Biden’s) could have released more and politicized the decision; conversely, Democrats and survivor advocates point to investigative integrity and redaction needs as legitimate constraints [4] [2]. News outlets also record partisan claims that the files were “made up” by prior officials — a claim that fact‑checkers have questioned [8].
5. How later DOJ actions and disclosures complicate the picture
The Bondi Justice Department publicly declassified and released a “first phase” of files in February 2025 after obtaining documents from the FBI, saying there were thousands of pages and committing to further redacted releases to protect victims [9]. At the same time, Oversight Committee releases and the November 2025 legislative push indicate that the DOJ’s earlier withholdings did not equal permanent secrecy: substantial material reached Congress and, from there, the public [9] [2].
6. What remains contested or unclear in available reporting
Available sources document the DOJ’s invocation of Exemption 7(A), the release of tens of thousands of pages to Congress, and later legislative votes to force broader disclosure [1] [2] [3]. However, they do not comprehensively list every document still withheld, the full internal chain‑of‑custody decisions inside DOJ, or whether specific investigative leads identified during the Biden term remain open — those specifics are not found in current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting).
7. Why survivors and redaction issues matter to the timeline
DOJ and lawmakers repeatedly cite the need to redact victim identities and remove child sexual‑abuse material before public release; that concern is stated as a substantive reason for staggered, partial disclosures rather than wholesale publication [2] [9]. Oversight committee releases suggest DOJ prioritized protecting victims while complying with subpoenas and requests [2].
8. Bottom line for readers evaluating competing claims
The factual record in reporting provided shows DOJ under Biden relied on FOIA Exemption 7(A) to withhold files because of ongoing investigations, yet also produced large document sets to Congress and began phased public releases [1] [2] [9]. Political actors then sought legislation to compel fuller disclosure, reflecting both transparency demands and the tension between investigative secrecy and public accountability [3] [5]. Where sources disagree — over whether the DOJ could have released more sooner — readers should weigh the legal claim of investigative harm against the substantial, documented document transfers to Congress [1] [2].