DOJ seeks to enlist 400 attorneys to review more than 5M pages of Epstein records: Sources
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice is asking for help reviewing 5.2 million pages of unreviewed documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, seeking to enlist 400 lawyers total from its criminal and national security divisions along with the U.S. attorneys’ offices in Florida and New York, according to people familiar with the matter.
As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas in an interview earlier this month, the DOJ already had nearly 200 lawyers working to review the files.
But in recent days, department leadership has made clear to the workforce that more help is needed.
The New York Times was first to report the development.
The review of the documents is expected to take much of January, the sources said.
The reorienting of resources from both the criminal and national security divisions has already raised concerns among current and former DOJ officials given the department has already diverted many of those resources towards immigration enforcement, according to sources familiar with the matter.
At this point, the next release of documents is not expected until the end of next month, according to the sources.
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November mandating the release of the DOJ’s files on Epstein. The measure required the DOJ to release all of the documents, with certain exceptions like protecting victim privacy and ongoing investigations, by Friday, Dec. 19. Missing the deadline, the DOJ said it has been delayed by the vetting process to protect victims.
It’s not immediately clear why the Department of Justice is only now claiming that it has just discovered upward of 5 million pages of documents from its investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 in his jail cell awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi admonished the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York after she said they had only just alerted her to the existence of hundreds of thousands of documents that they had not previously provided to her office. It’s not clear why they are only now claiming to be alerted to this vast volume of alleged unreviewed material.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on November 18, 2025 in Washington, DC. Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — After months of anticipation, the House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a bill ordering the release of the Justice Department’s files on late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
It passed 427-1.
The bill will now head to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has tried to avoid holding a vote in the lower chamber on the Epstein matter. In late July, Johnson sent the House home a day early for August recess because the House was paralyzed in a stalemate over the Epstein issue.
The speaker also sent the House home for more than 50 days during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history — delaying the swearing in of Democrat Adelita Grijalva. After the shutdown ended last week, the Arizona Democrat became the 218th signature on the Epstein discharge petition, compelling the speaker to bring a bill co-sponsored by Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to the floor for a vote this week.
On Tuesday morning, Johnson accused Democrats of “forcing a political show vote on the Epstein files” but confirmed he would be voting to move it forward.
Ahead of the vote, Johnson said on the House floor that the vote is a “political exercise” and that the bill has “serious deficiencies.” Johnson said he hoped the Senate makes changes to it.
“[Trump] has nothing to hide,” Johnson said.
President Donald Trump had also mounted opposition to the measure, including what sources said was an attempt to dissuade GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert in the White House Situation Room from supporting the discharge petition to force a floor vote.
But faced with growing support for the measure in the GOP-controlled House, Trump suddenly reversed course over the weekend and said Republicans should vote yes on releasing the files “because we have nothing to hide.”
Pressed if he will sign the bill should it reach his desk, Trump on Monday said he would.
“I’m all for it,” Trump said.
The measure — called “The Epstein Files Transparency Act” — would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to make available all “unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials” in the Department of Justice’s possession related to Epstein.
The legislation seeks federal records on Epstein and his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as other individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s “criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity, plea agreements or investigatory proceedings.” Victims’ names and other identifying information would be excluded from disclosure, as would any items that may depict or contain child sex abuse material, according to the text of the proposed bill.
For months, Johnson has pointed at the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry — claiming that the panel’s probe is more far-reaching than the Khanna-Massie bill. Proponents of the bill argue that “the record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency.”
Trump does not need to wait for Congress to act — he could order the release immediately.
Even if the measure passes through the House and Senate and is ultimately signed into law by Trump, it’s unlikely the Justice Department would release the entire Epstein file, according to sources. Any materials related to ongoing investigations or White House claims of executive privilege will likely remain out of public view.
Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of trafficking young girls and women.
JD Vance speaks with ABC News on This Week. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President JD Vance confirmed to ABC “This Week” co-anchor George Stephanopoulos that Hamas has said they are holding 20 living hostages, and that those hostages are expected to be released in the next 24 hours as President Donald Trump was headed to the region later Sunday to mark the occasion.
“Well, they’ve been confirmed, George. Of course you don’t know until you see these people alive. But thank God we expect to see them alive here in the next 24 hours, probably early tomorrow morning, U.S. time, which will be later in the day, of course, in Israel,” Vance said.
“We are on the cusp of true peace in the Middle East. Really, for the first time in my lifetime, certainly these 20 hostages are going to come home to their families, George. I think this is a great moment for our country. Our country should be proud of our diplomats who made this happen. It’s really a great moment for the world, too, which is why the president’s going to go over there and celebrate with these hostages. But it’s a great thing, and I’m very excited about it,” he said.
Trump is scheduled to leave for his visit to Israel and Egypt on Sunday afternoon and will meet with hostage families at the Israeli Knesset on Monday.
The Wall Street Journal was the first to report Hamas’ confirmation of the 20 living hostages.
With the U.S. Central Command establishing a coordination center in Israel to support and monitor the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, Vance said it was “misreported” that additional members of the U.S. military were being sent to the region — claiming that “We already have troops at Central Command.”
A U.S. official told ABC News that 200 troops are being sent to Israel, however, to specialize in transportation, planning, logistics, security and engineering. Vance also repeated claims from top officials that no U.S. troops are intended to go into Gaza.
“So, that story is actually misreported. We already have troops at Central Command. We’ve had them for decades in this country. They’re going to monitor the terms of the ceasefire. That’s everything from ensuring that the Israeli troops are at the agreed upon line, ensuring that Hamas is not attacking innocent Israelis, doing everything that they can to ensure the peace that we’ve created, actually sustains and endures,” Vance said.
“But the idea that we’re going to have troops on the ground in Gaza, in Israel, that that is not our intention, that is not our plan. There was a bit of a misreporting there, but we are going to monitor this peace to ensure that it endures,” he added.
(WASHINGTON) The Supreme Court on Friday will consider whether to take up the appeal of former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who has directly asked the justices to overturn the landmark 2015 decision that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide.
Davis gained international attention after she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple on religious grounds in open defiance of the high court’s ruling and was subsequently jailed for six days. A jury later awarded the couple $100,000 for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
In a petition for writ of certiorari filed in August, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.
She also claims the court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges — which rooted marriage rights for LGBTQ couples in the 14th Amendment’s due process protections — was “legal fiction.”
“The mistake must be corrected,” wrote Davis’ attorney Mathew Staver in the petition.
“If there ever was a case of exceptional importance,” Staver wrote, “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”
Davis’ petition will be discussed during the court’s weekly private conference when justices cast secret votes on which cases to accept for argument.
Four must agree in order for a case to be heard. The court typically releases outcomes from the conference on the following Monday.
The Davis petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent.
An attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the gay couple to which Davis’ owes damages, told the justices in a court filing that the former clerk does not make a convincing case that warrants being heard.
“Because Davis’s policy went beyond anything she arguably had a right to do, her First Amendment affirmative defense would fail even if such defenses are available to government officials engaged in state action,’ wrote attorney William Powell.
Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law.
“This is a relatively easy case that does not merit this Court’s review,” he wrote.
Lower courts have dismissed Davis’ claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot.
“Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention,” said Powell said in a statement to ABC News.
Davis’ appeal to the Supreme Court comes as conservative opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples pursue a renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent and allow each state to set its own policy.
At the time Obergefell was decided in 2015, 35 states had statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only eight states had enacted laws explicitly allowing the unions.
So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal.
Last month, Texas courts adopted new rules allowing judges statewide to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples if it would violate a sincerely held religious belief.
“Without this Court’s review, the First Amendment’s protections for public officials with sincerely held religious beliefs will continue to vary by jurisdiction,” Staver wrote to the justices Wednesday in a last-minute letter . “This case provides a suitable vehicle to establish the clear guidance that lower courts and government officials currently lack.”
Davis first appealed the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking to have the damages suit against her tossed out, but her petition was rejected. Conservative Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the decision at the time.
If the court were to accept the Davis case, it is far from certain that a majority of justices would undermine or overturn the Obergefell decision.
Several conservatives, including Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, have publicly signaled that same-sex marriage rights should not be rolled back.
If the ruling were to be overturned at some point in the future, it would not invalidate marriages already performed, legal experts have pointed out. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government and all states to recognize legal marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed in any state — even if there is a future change in the law.
There are an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., including 591,000 that wed after the Supreme Court decision in June 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. Nearly one in five of those married couples is parenting a child under 18.
