Justice Department Publishes Missing Epstein Records Detailing Unverified Claims Against Trump
Washington, Friday, 6 March 2026.
Amidst rising political pressure and a House Oversight Committee subpoena targeting Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has released thousands of previously withheld Epstein documents. Officials attribute the initial omission of these files—which contain uncorroborated sexual assault allegations against President Trump—to a clerical coding error, sparking further debate over the integrity of the public archive.
The Nature of the “Clerical Error”
On March 5, 2026, the Justice Department released the additional records, stating that the files had been “incorrectly coded as duplicative” during an earlier review phase [1]. These documents detail interviews conducted by the FBI in 2019 with a woman who contacted authorities shortly after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest [1]. The accuser alleged that she was raped by Epstein in the 1980s in Hilton Head, South Carolina, and subsequently transported to the New York or New Jersey area [1]. In a follow-up interview, the woman claimed she bit Donald Trump after he allegedly attempted to sexually assault her during an encounter arranged by Epstein [1]. Federal agents interviewed the woman four times, but she eventually ceased contact and declined to provide further details regarding her alleged interactions with Trump [1]. The Justice Department noted that there is no indication Epstein ever lived in South Carolina, and it remains unclear if Trump and Epstein were acquainted during the timeframe in question [1].
Congressional Oversight and Bipartisan Rebuke
The release of these specific files occurred just one day after a significant escalation in congressional oversight. On March 4, 2026, the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi regarding the department’s handling of the Epstein archives [2][6]. The committee voted 24 to 19 in favor of the subpoena, a margin of 5 votes [5][6]. Notably, this move was not strictly partisan; five Republican members broke ranks to join Democrats in rebuking the Attorney General [1][6]. Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, led the push for the subpoena, asserting that the record is clear that the DOJ has not released all files as mandated [5][6]. This vote has been characterized as a sharp rebuke of Bondi, who now faces the prospect of a deposition to explain the department’s compliance—or lack thereof—with transparency laws [5][6].
The Scale of Redactions and Missing Records
Central to the dispute is the discrepancy between the volume of documents held by the Justice Department and those available to the public. While the department has released approximately 3 million pages, officials acknowledge that this represents only 50% of the 6 million pages in its possession [4]. Furthermore, scrutiny intensified after news organizations reported that files specifically related to allegations against President Trump had been removed from the public website [4]. The Justice Department confirmed that as of March 2, 47,635 files were taken offline for further review to redact sensitive information [4][5]. However, an analysis by CBS News suggested the scope of the removal was larger, estimating that roughly 65,500 pages had been pulled from the archive [4]. The Department maintains that no files have been permanently deleted and that documents will be repopulated once they comply with victim protection standards [4].
Legislative Mandates vs. Privacy Concerns
The conflict highlights the tension between the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the release of all investigatory files, and the DOJ’s operational need to protect victim identities [4]. Department officials have stated they are working “around the clock” to address victim concerns and redact personally identifiable information [4]. However, critics like Rep. Mace argue that significant materials, including videos, audio, and logs, remain missing entirely [6]. The recent admission regarding the miscoded Trump-related files has fueled skepticism about the efficacy of the DOJ’s review process, with the Trump administration facing criticism since December 2025 for its handling of the archives [1]. As the subpoena forces a confrontation between the executive and legislative branches, the Department has pledged to release the temporarily removed files by the end of the week [4].