Epstein Files: The scandal lives on
This article was originally published in German. The English version is an automatic translation and may contain errors. The German original is authoritative.
In late January 2026, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released millions of pages from investigation files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein under a new transparency law – including thousands of photographs and videos. The documents have once again sparked outrage, political debate and questions about abuse of power. The key facts are outlined here.
Background: The Epstein case
Jeffrey Epstein had built a network of power, money and sexual exploitation over decades. As early as the 2000s, US authorities had evidence of systematic abuse of underage girls. Nevertheless, in 2008 Epstein negotiated a deal with the Florida state prosecutor's office that has been heavily criticised ever since, which spared him a lengthy prison sentence. It was not until 2019 that he was charged again with human trafficking. A few weeks after his arrest, Epstein died in a New York prison cell. His death is officially classified as suicide. The circumstances – disabled cameras, neglected checks – are still regarded today as massive institutional failure.
After Epstein's death, the focus shifted to his circle. Civil lawsuits, journalistic investigations and court proceedings repeatedly brought new documents to light over the years: flight logs, emails, contact directories, witness statements. A legal turning point was the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's closest confidant, for aiding and abetting sexual abuse of minors. For the first time, it was judicially confirmed that Epstein did not act alone.
The "Epstein Files Transparency Act"
With the so-called "Epstein Files Transparency Act", the US government was obliged to systematically disclose unclassified investigative documents. According to the law, the files were to be made public by 19 December 2025. However, this deadline was significantly exceeded. At the end of January, the US Department of Justice published several million pages of documents, supplemented by thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images. The scope is historic – the gain in knowledge, however, is limited.
A central problem with the new publication lies less in its content than in its form. The files consist largely of raw material: internal notes, decontextualised emails, multiply filed documents and unverified witness statements. Whilst they do provide insights into communication structures, they rarely provide reliable evidence. The Department of Justice itself stated that, despite the evaluation, it had found no basis for new criminal charges against previously unindicted third parties. The FBI also emphasised that the material neither yields a clear "client list" nor a clearly substantiated circle of perpetrators.
Instead, the publication attracted attention primarily because numerous prominent names appear in the documents. Mentioned are, amongst others, former US President Donald Trump, entrepreneur Bill Gates, tech billionaire Elon Musk and British Prince Andrew, who had already been publicly linked to the Epstein complex beforehand. Individual documents also contain references to contacts with further politicians, entrepreneurs and members of European royal families. Legally, what is crucial is this: a mention in investigative files is not proof of guilt. In many cases, these are reports, correspondence or marginal notes without criminal relevance. However, this distinction is often lost in public debate.
What role did Donald Trump play?
The role of Donald Trump was particularly controversial. In social media and parts of the reporting, the claim circulated at times that his name appeared "thousands of times" or even "three to six thousand times" in the files. Serious evaluations suggest that Trump's name does indeed appear frequently, but primarily in repeated datasets, technical cross-references and metadata. A precise figure is scarcely possible to state reliably, as many documents are recorded multiple times or linked to one another.
Trump himself responded publicly with demonstrative composure. He explained on several occasions that he had not read the files himself, but had been informed by "very important people" that the published documents proved his innocence and did not contain what political opponents would have expected. The files, Trump suggested in essence, would show that there was nothing substantive against him. At the same time, he spoke of sensationalist and partly false claims. This account was supported to the extent that the Department of Justice also pointed out that the files contained unsubstantiated or contradictory statements without verified factual status.
200,000 redacted pages: What lies behind them?
Criticism, however, came not only from politics, but also from victim representatives and legal professionals. They criticised the fact that the publication was incomplete, heavily redacted (approximately 200,000 pages) and partly incorrectly redacted. At times, documents had to be taken offline again after sensitive victim data had been insufficiently redacted. For many survivors, this meant a renewed retraumatisation. Transparency, so the accusation went, was being confused here with mere data deluge.
In this environment, conspiracy theories persist stubbornly. They range from the assumption that Epstein was murdered to protect powerful individuals, to the notion of a global elite network that systematically covers up sexual abuse. These narratives are fuelled by real inconsistencies: the controversial 2008 deal, Epstein's death under questionable security conditions, redacted files (whereby protection is afforded more to perpetrators than victims) and contradictory statements from authorities. Substantive evidence for a targeted killing or a coordinated cover-up does not, however, exist to date.
The "Epstein Files", despite over three million pages, have not answered all questions. Prominent names attract attention, but provide no new evidence for charges. Criticism of redactions, technical errors and political instrumentalisation shows that the debate has become politicised, but is not yet legally concluded. For victims, the path to recognition and justice remains difficult. Jeffrey Epstein is dead – but the scandal continues to have an effect and remains a reminder of how difficult it is for democratic systems to consistently expose abuse of power.