Why were the epstein files not released under Joe Biden's term?
Executive summary
The Epstein investigative files remained largely unreleased during President Joe Biden’s term primarily because they were part of active criminal investigations, subject to grand-jury secrecy, and entangled in legal and privacy constraints—not because of a simple political decision to conceal them, according to reporting and statements from journalists and officials [1] [2] [3]. Political fights over the files intensified later, with critics accusing the Biden DOJ of inaction while defenders pointed to prosecutorial independence and ongoing legal processes as the central reasons for nonrelease [4] [5].
1. Active investigations and appeals prevented routine disclosure
Investigative reporters and legal observers noted the files were tied up in live criminal processes during much of the Biden years: grand juries were active, Maxwell’s prosecution was ongoing and on appeal, and victims continued to provide information to prosecutors—circumstances that routinely bar public dumping of investigatory materials [1] [6]. Journalists who pursued Epstein’s story emphasized that law enforcement does not “open a case file when it’s under active appeal,” a normal doctrine intended to preserve prosecutions and protect evidence [1] [6].
2. Volume, privacy and legal redaction obligations complicated release
The government held a vast trove of material—reporting cited more than 100,000 pages covering digital records, grand-jury testimony and physical evidence—which raises substantial redaction work and privacy obligations before anything public can be posted [2]. News outlets and the DOJ alike have pointed out that agencies must navigate victim privacy, classified or national-security equities, and other legal limits before releasing documents, which slows any wholesale public disclosure [2] [7].
3. DOJ independence and political accusations collided
Senior Democrats defended the decision not to force an immediate release as a matter of DOJ independence and resisting political vendettas, with Vice President Kamala Harris saying the department “would make its decisions independent” and should not be pressured into premature disclosure [4]. Republicans countered that Democrats had access to the documents during the Biden years and “neither released them nor uncovered information damaging to” political opponents, framing the inaction as selective transparency [5]. Both claims reflect political agendas: one emphasizing institutional norms, the other seeking political advantage.
4. Judicial unsealing and congressional pressure created mixed public access
While the Biden administration did not broadly publish investigatory files, federal judges unsealed significant civil-case documents during his term, meaning some materials became public through the courts rather than DOJ action [3]. That piecemeal unsealing, combined with later congressional pressure and legislation mandated under a subsequent administration to force a fuller release, shows the split between judicial, congressional and executive routes for obtaining material [3] [7].
5. Alternative explanations, misinformation and political theatre
Some political leaders and commentators framed nonrelease as deliberate concealment—most prominently former President Trump’s repeated claims that the Biden administration “did not turn over a SINGLE file,” an assertion fact-checkers and journalists called misleading given the legal context and the existence of court-unsealed documents [6] [3]. Other actors pushed the narrative that a “client list” or deliberate cover-up existed despite DOJ and FBI statements from later reviews asserting they found no such list; those competing narratives have served partisan objectives as much as informational ones [2] [8].
Conclusion: law and process, not a single executive choice
The aggregate reporting indicates the principal reasons Epstein files were not fully released under Biden were legal—active investigations, grand-jury secrecy, victim privacy and the sheer scale of material requiring redaction—backstopped by officials’ claims of preserving DOJ independence rather than a straightforward political decision to hide documents, even as partisan actors used the situation for political attack and defense [1] [2] [4] [5].