Epstein files still contain unredacted victim data, review finds

U.S. Department of Justice archives tied to Jeffrey Epstein still contain unredacted personal data that can identify survivors, witnesses and tipsters, an independent review of the released files has found. The analysis shows that months after the initial publication, names, photographs and contact details remained accessible in multiple documents and audio recordings.

DOJ said it would remove identifying information but gaps remain

A survivor who testified before U.S. lawmakers in May told Congress: "I cannot live without constantly looking over my shoulder," describing how her personal details were made public in January when the Department of Justice released hundreds of thousands of Epstein-related documents. "I can only imagine what long-term impact this mistake will have on my life."

Three days after the DOJ published the largest of twelve Epstein data sets on January 30, a Justice Department lawyer told a federal court that a "human or technical error" was among the reasons identifying personal information had appeared in the release. The department said it would remove, review and redact affected files before reissuing them.

An investigative team reviewed thousands of files from the DOJ’s Epstein library and found the archive was constantly changing: new files were added, others removed, and some altered files reappeared after brief absences. The review recovered more than 800,000 files from the initial library, but one archived snapshot used for comparison contained over 500,000 more files than the later DOJ collection.

To verify what had been initially published, analysts created a unique digital fingerprint, or hash, for each document and compared those hashes with files downloaded from the DOJ site roughly two weeks later. The comparison showed many documents had been removed, but it also flagged dozens that still contained sensitive data — including full names, photos and email addresses — that could be used to identify survivors and others connected to the cases.

Forensic audio experts examined more than 150 audio files after duplicates were removed from public archives. Using advanced tools, they detected production and editing traces that revealed inconsistent redaction practices. Milica Gerhart, an audio-forensics investigator, warned: "If you look at the content of these audio files, you can see that a large amount of personal information was not redacted."

In one example, two versions of the same recording existed in the same dataset: the edited file had a callers phone number obscured while the alternate version contained the callers full name and direct contact details. "They could and should have done a better job of the redactions," said Patrick Aichrot, head of the Media Distribution and Security group at the Fraunhofer Institute, who consulted on the audio forensics. "There is a reason this material is handled so carefully in court proceedings. Once sensitive or identifying information is revealed, the harm cannot be undone."

The investigative team sent its findings to the DOJ and pointed to specific files where identifying data remained available in the official Epstein library. The department did not respond to the questions posed. In April, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General opened a review of the departments compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In July, several lawmakers proposed a follow-up bill, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, which would allow survivors and state governments to sue the DOJ if it fails to follow the redaction rules established in the original law.

Survivors whose information was published without redaction say they have experienced harassment, humiliation and even physical threats since January. With unredacted files still accessible on public platforms and, in some cases, on the DOJ site itself, the consequences continue to disrupt their lives. One survivor told lawmakers: "While the rich and powerful remain protected behind redactions, my name was exposed to the whole world." She added: "The evidence is right here... yet those in power would rather allow us to be destroyed socially, emotionally and physically than acknowledge their own responsibility."

Photo: press material from the event