Which federal agencies or courts have custody of Epstein case files and what are their disclosure rules?

1. Who holds the files: federal investigators and the FBI’s case system

The Department of Justice and the FBI together have taken custody of investigative materials gathered during federal probes; reporting and DOJ statements describe those materials as stored in FBI case systems and as the product of DOJ/FBI reviews of hard drives, databases and physical evidence (DOJ officials say the FBI located “more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence”) ^{[5] [1]}. The DOJ publicly framed the FBI/DOJ set of records as the core “government” file that it reviewed before deciding on broader disclosure actions ^[1].

2. Congressional custody: House Oversight Committee’s tranche from the estate

Separately, the House Oversight Committee has obtained large document sets from Epstein’s estate and released substantial tranches to the public — including releases described as more than 20,000 pages and a total estate transfer of roughly 23,000 documents that the committee has reviewed ^{[3] [4] [6]}. Those congressional releases are not the same as documents that remained under DOJ/FBI control; rather they reflect records the estate provided to lawmakers and which the committee chose to publish ^{[4] [6]}.

3. The estate’s role: source of documents and selective releases

The Epstein estate itself has produced documents to Congress and other parties; Oversight Democrats note the estate released a trove of documents (reported as 23,000 items) that the committee is reviewing ^[4]. Media accounts treating “new” files often trace them back to estate disclosures and congressional publishing decisions rather than direct DOJ unsealing ^{[7] [6]}.

4. What the DOJ/FBI say about disclosure rules and limits

DOJ and FBI officials have said they conducted a comprehensive review and determined that “no further disclosure” from the government files would be “appropriate or warranted,” citing the sensitive nature of the materials — child sexual‑abuse evidence, victims’ identities, and grand‑jury and privacy protections — and explicitly saying they would not permit release of child pornography or materials that would expose innocent people to allegations ^{[1] [2]}. That assessment was presented as the rationale for resisting broader public disclosure of certain investigative records ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Court seals, grand‑jury secrecy, and judicial custody issues

Some documents remain under court-ordered seal; reporting notes federal judges denied requests to unseal grand‑jury transcripts in a South Florida probe, and courts remain gatekeepers for many exhibits and grand‑jury materials ^[5]. Where documents are lodged in active court dockets, judges and statutory protections (grand‑jury secrecy, victim privacy rules) govern whether and how materials can be made public — not DOJ unilateral action alone ^[5].

6. Competing perspectives on transparency vs. privacy/prosecution risks

The debate is polarized: DOJ/FBI frame continued sealing as a protection for victims and an avoidance of releasing illegal content, asserting a comprehensive internal review found no basis for further disclosure ^{[1] [2]}. Critics — including some members of Congress and public figures — argue the government is withholding documents that could shed light on powerful associates; the Oversight Committee’s releases from the estate reflect a congressional push for transparency ^{[4] [6]}. Media outlets report both the administration’s claim that no “client list” exists in government files and political actors’ insistence that more should be produced ^{[5] [2]}.

7. What’s been released so far and what’s still blocked

Published releases so far include DOJ’s February “first phase” declassification of files (largely materials previously leaked), large congressional releases from the Epstein estate (tens of thousands of pages), and various media outlets’ publishes of flight logs, emails and correspondence ^{[8] [3] [6]}. At the same time, DOJ/FBI retain files they say should stay sealed and courts hold some grand‑jury transcripts and exhibits under seal ^{[1] [5]}.

8. Limitations of current reporting and unanswered questions

Available reporting documents where significant troves are stored (DOJ/FBI case systems, the Epstein estate, and congressional custody of estate documents) and describes the legal rationales used to limit disclosure (victim privacy, grand‑jury secrecy, prohibition on distributing child sexual‑abuse material) ^{[5] [1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention a complete inventory of which precise documents remain exclusively with DOJ/FBI versus what the estate retains, nor do they provide a comprehensive, line‑by‑line accounting of what courts would or would not permit to be unsealed without additional motions (not found in current reporting).

Bottom line: custody is split — DOJ/FBI retained the investigative case files (hundreds of gigabytes) and assert legal limits on disclosure; the Epstein estate supplied large document sets to Congress, which has chosen to publish many pages via the House Oversight Committee. The legal boundaries that block release are described by DOJ/FBI as victim‑privacy and grand‑jury protections, and courts remain the formal arbiters for material lodged under seal ^{[5] [1] [3]}.