Are further formal investigations underway regarding accusations against trump in the Epstein files
Executive summary
The Justice Department says its document review under the Epstein Files Transparency Act is complete and has published more than 3 million pages, and the department maintains it did not withhold material to protect President Trump [1] [2]. At the same time, advocates and some members of Congress say documents remain withheld and multiple congressional oversight and legislative reviews are underway — but there is no public evidence in reporting that the DOJ has opened a new, parallel criminal investigation specifically charging or targeting Trump based on the newly released files [3] [4] [5].
1. DOJ says its review is done; releases 3–3.5 million pages
The Department of Justice publicly stated it completed a “very comprehensive document identification and review process” and published over 3 million additional pages responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, bringing total production to roughly 3.5 million pages, while explaining certain narrow categories of material were withheld under statutory or privilege rules [1] [6]. DOJ officials, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, told reporters the release marked the end of the agency’s internal review and denied that the department was protecting President Trump [3] [2].
2. The files contain numerous references to Trump but no public criminal referral
The newly released tranche includes hundreds of mentions of Donald Trump, earlier social ties to Epstein, and a summary compiled by FBI officials of more than a dozen tips involving Trump and Epstein — some unsubstantiated — yet reporting notes that Trump has not been publicly accused of specific criminal wrongdoing in connection with Epstein by federal authorities following the release [7] [8] [9]. News outlets emphasize that tips and allegations appearing in the files are not the same as substantiated evidence or formal charges [10] [5].
3. Congressional and partisan oversight, not a DOJ indictment, are driving fresh scrutiny
Members of Congress and oversight actors are mobilizing to review and press for additional disclosures: some Democrats on the House Oversight Committee and lawmakers such as Ro Khanna have said they will examine the newly available records and press DOJ for further access, and ranking Democrats have pledged investigations into how the files were handled and whether agencies protected powerful figures [2] [4]. At the same time, partisan dynamics are evident — President Trump has publicly directed scrutiny at Democrats mentioned in the files and some Republican-led panels are seeking testimony from other high-profile figures [11] [6].
4. Advocates say documents remain withheld; journalists warn of unvetted claims
Victim advocates and some journalists argue that the release did not include all responsive materials and that the government may still be withholding items, a charge DOJ disputes; the files themselves include material the department cautioned could contain “fake or falsely submitted” items, and outlets flag that sensational or unverified claims appear among the millions of pages [3] [8] [1]. Major newsrooms are continuing to sift the trove, and multiple outlets emphasize the difference between references in documents and proof of criminal conduct [10] [5].
5. Bottom line — public record: no new DOJ criminal probe of Trump disclosed; oversight and document reviews continue
Based on current reporting, there is no verified public indication that the Justice Department has opened a new criminal investigation focused on allegations against Donald Trump drawn from the Epstein file releases; instead, the immediate activity consists of DOJ’s mass release (which it calls complete), ongoing journalistic review, congressional oversight inquiries, and advocacy demands for more material [1] [10] [4] [3]. This assessment is limited to what has been reported publicly; non‑public law‑enforcement steps or sealed investigations, if any, are not visible in the available sources and cannot be confirmed here.