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.
Why did’nt Biden then President released the Epstein files?
Executive summary
Public reporting says the Epstein files were not broadly released during Joe Biden’s presidency largely because the Justice Department treated parts of the material as linked to “ongoing criminal investigation[1],” which federal officials argued justified withholding under established rules — a rationale the Biden DOJ used in court and that Newsweek and other outlets cite [2] and investigators and reporters also describe [3]. Recent congressional action in November 2025 forced a near‑unanimous House vote to compel release and sent the measure to President Trump after the Senate approved it [4] [5] [6].
1. Why “not released” is not the same as “suppressed”: investigative status mattered
Journalists and DOJ filings cited in reporting say many Epstein-related records remained part of active or ongoing investigative processes during the Biden administration — a legal reason agencies routinely use to keep materials sealed until an investigation concludes; Newsweek reports that the Biden Justice Department relied on FOIA Exemption 7(A) arguing disclosure could “jeopardize an active Federal investigation” [2], and Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown told outlets that grand‑jury activity and continuing victim interviews made releasing files premature [3].
2. Congressional pressure and selective releases had already been underway
Congressional committees and members were not wholly passive: House investigators and both parties released material in stages. Democrats initially disclosed a few emails and the Republican Oversight chairman later released thousands of pages from the Epstein estate; the Oversight Committee itself released an additional 20,000 pages of estate documents in November 2025 [7] [8]. Those piecemeal disclosures complicate a simple narrative that “nothing was done” during the Biden years [7] [8].
3. Legal hooks and precedent limited executive discretion
Newsweek and other reporting note that the very exemption used by the Biden DOJ — to avoid harming ongoing probes — is echoed in the framework of the later congressional bill, which allows the Justice Department to withhold material that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation,” and requires written justifications for redactions [2] [9]. In short, the law and precedent provide a formal mechanism for delay when criminal investigations are live [2] [9].
4. Political narratives clashed over motive and timing
Republican critics in late 2025 argued Democrats could have forced release earlier and accused them of acting only now for political reasons; Representative Jim Jordan asked why Democrats “did nothing” during the Biden presidency [6]. Supporters of the new bill—bipartisan in votes—framed it as addressing long‑standing secrecy and as a response to survivor demands [6] [10]. Reporting shows both narratives were used by different actors to assign blame or claim credit [6] [10].
5. Practical and procedural limits: even new law has exceptions
Coverage emphasizes that the Epstein Files Transparency Act and similar measures include carve‑outs and administrative paths that allow the DOJ to hold back documents tied to active probes or to protect victims’ privacy, meaning congressional passage does not guarantee immediate, wholesale public release [9] [11]. The Washington Post stresses the legislation contains “major loopholes,” and CNN notes clear paths for the administration to try to hold some documents back [11] [9].
6. What reporting does and does not say about Biden personally
Available sources do not allege that President Biden personally ordered files kept secret; instead, they describe the DOJ’s legal posture and investigative realities during his administration [2] [3]. PolitiFact specifically debunks claims that Biden “made up” Epstein files, noting the investigations occurred under prior administrations and saying the claim is inaccurate [12].
7. Where accountability debates now focus
After the House’s near‑unanimous 427–1 vote and the Senate’s assent, attention shifted to how the executive branch will use permitted exceptions and to the political fallout from what is or is not disclosed; outlets report survivors pressing for transparency while others warn about names of potentially innocent people being exposed [4] [9] [10]. This framing shows the dispute is both legal (exceptions and investigations) and political (timing, narratives about who benefits).
Limitations: reporting in these sources centers on the legal justifications offered and on congressional actions; they do not provide internal DOJ memos or a line‑by‑line account of what specific documents were withheld during the Biden administration beyond general references to ongoing investigations and appeals [2] [3].