Which DOJ Epstein file IDs or dataset numbers currently contain references to Janet Mills, and how can they be accessed?
Executive summary
The only source in the provided reporting that explicitly says Janet Mills’ name “surfaced” in the Department of Justice Epstein materials is a partisan local outlet, The Maine Wire, which reports that newly released SDNY/DOJ documents reference allegations involving Mills [1]; the Justice Department’s public Epstein portal lists multiple “data set” pages (including a Data Set 12 page) and a general disclosures hub where those released files are published [2] [3] [4]. The available reporting and the DOJ’s public portal show how to access the released data sets, but none of the supplied sources contains a primary DOJ file ID or document number that can be cited here as definitively naming Janet Mills. (Limitations: no DOJ file ID for Mills is present in the provided sources.)
1. What the reporting actually says about Janet Mills and the DOJ release
A single report in the supplied material — The Maine Wire — states that “Janet Mills’ name has surfaced in the latest U.S. Justice Department release” and that the newly released materials “explicitly reference” longstanding allegations about cocaine trafficking and other accusations tied to Mills [1]. That article frames the appearance of her name as part of a tip or allegation included among the voluminous DOJ disclosures; it does not reproduce a DOJ file identifier or link to a specific document on the DOJ site in the snippets provided [1]. No mainstream outlet or the DOJ press materials in the provided set corroborate a specific file ID that names Mills.
2. Where the DOJ publishes Epstein records and the structure of “data sets”
The Justice Department built a public Epstein library and a “DOJ Disclosures” portal where released materials are organized into discrete data sets; the department has posted pages for individual data sets (for example, “Data Set 12 Files”) and an overarching disclosures index that aggregates releases under the Epstein Files Transparency Act [2] [3] [4]. DOJ public statements say the 3.5 million pages released came from multiple case sources and that the department made “reasonable efforts” to redact victims’ personal information while complying with the statute [5] [4].
3. How to search the releases for an individual name (and practical workarounds)
The official route is to consult the DOJ Epstein landing page and the “DOJ Disclosures” or individual data set pages (e.g., Data Set 12) and use any on-page search or downloadable files to run name searches locally [2] [3] [4]. Journalistic and archival tools have already harvested the releases into searchable databases — such as the Pinpoint/Google Journalist Studio collection and other newsroom repositories that compiled DOJ data sets (notably Data Sets 1–8 and 12 in that third‑party index) — which can make name queries faster than manual browsing of millions of pages [6]. The public reporting also notes that the DOJ periodically removes or re-redacts items flagged by victims, so a document that once appeared may be pulled and later reposted in redacted form [7] [8] [9].
4. Why there’s ambiguity about precise DOJ file IDs for Mills in public reporting
The department’s corpus is enormous — DOJ officials say more than six million pages were identified as potentially responsive and roughly 3.5 million pages have been posted after review — and the releases are grouped into many discrete data sets with tens of thousands of files, some of which have been taken down or re-posted after redaction [10] [5] [11]. The provided material contains no DOJ-sourced screenshot, file ID, or direct link proving a specific dataset/file number that references Janet Mills; the only direct claim is from The Maine Wire and thus requires independent verification against the DOJ’s searchable disclosures or third‑party indexes [1] [2] [4] [6].
5. How to verify and access the underlying documents now
The defensible verification path is to (a) search the DOJ Epstein portal and its “DOJ Disclosures” and individual data set pages (including Data Set 12) for the name “Janet Mills” and any document metadata or file IDs [2] [3] [4], and (b) use third‑party compiled, searchable repositories such as the Pinpoint/Google Journalist Studio collection noted by reporters, which has indexed several DOJ data sets and can reveal file IDs or direct document copies faster [6]. Given ongoing redactions and removals flagged by victims and the DOJ’s own remediation work, any hit should be timestamped and cross‑checked because documents may be taken down for further redaction [7] [9].
6. Alternative perspectives, motivations, and cautionary notes
Because The Maine Wire is a partisan outlet and the broader DOJ release has been politically explosive — with both criticism that DOJ withheld too much and criticism that it failed to protect victims’ identities — readers should treat single‑source claims of high‑stakes allegations cautiously and verify against primary DOJ documents or neutral archival indexes [1] [11] [8]. The DOJ itself has warned the public that the released corpus may include unvetted or falsely submitted material and has withheld or redacted hundreds of thousands of pages under legal privileges and victim‑protection rules [4] [12]. Absent a direct DOJ file ID in the supplied reporting, the only honest statement is that the claim exists in media reporting and that the proper way to confirm it is to search the DOJ data sets or independent repositories for specific file identifiers.