The U.S. Department of Justice has renewed its request for the unsealing of grand-jury materials connected to the criminal investigations of financier Jeffrey Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, citing newly enacted legislation that it says compels public release. The request comes amid persistent public and political scrutiny over what has been dubbed the “Epstein files” and the government’s handling of them.

In a filing on 24 November 2025, the Justice Department addressed a Manhattan federal court, urging the release of transcripts and exhibits from the grand-jury proceedings that led to Epstein’s July 2019 federal indictment and Maxwell’s subsequent prosecution. The submission, signed by New York U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton and signed off by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, referenced the recently passed Epstein Files Transparency Act, arguing it “manifests a congressional intent to override some of the underlying bases for grand-jury secrecy.”

That law — the Epstein Files Transparency Act — was introduced in mid-2025, passed both houses of Congress in November and signed by President Donald Trump on 19 November.

Clayton’s filing asked that a deadline be set for responses from Maxwell and the known victims, with the government’s reply to follow shortly thereafter, and a ruling to be scheduled.

The grand-jury materials in question are limited in scope. In prior filings, the government characterised the submission as comprising approximately 70 pages of transcript, a PowerPoint presentation shown to jurors, four pages of call-log exhibits and letters from victims and their attorneys.

In its filing, one judge previously described the lone witness before the Epstein grand jury as an FBI agent “who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay”.

Until now, three separate courts have rejected prior motions from the Justice Department to unseal such materials. On 11 August 2025 U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied a motion in the Maxwell case, ruling that the government’s premise that the grand-jury materials would “bring to light meaningful new information” was “demonstrably false.” He labelled the request a “diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such.”
Just over a week later, on 20 August 2025, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman rejected the motion in the Epstein case. He wrote that the government’s roughly 100,000 pages of Epstein-related investigatory files “dwarf the roughly 70 pages of Epstein grand-jury materials,” and characterised the motion as a diversion from the substance of those materials.

The renewed motion signals the Justice Department’s belief that the new statute changes the legal ground. Under the grand-jury secrecy rule (Federal Rule 6(e)), materials may be kept under seal except in “extraordinary circumstances”. The government now contends that the statute constitutes such a circumstance by requiring disclosure of “all unclassified documents and records … relating to Jeffrey Epstein.”

In a July 2025 filing, the department had acknowledged that while it had reviewed thousands of pages of Epstein-related evidence, it found no “client list” of associates who might be subject to prosecution and declared that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”
That announcement triggered a wave of criticism from supporters of President Trump, who had pledged during his campaign to “unseal the Epstein files.” Some critics accused the administration of suppressing information about powerful figures connected to Epstein. In response, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: “I have asked the Justice Department to release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to Court Approval” and added that “nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics.”

Maxwell, the British socialite who was convicted in 2021 of conspiring with Epstein to sexually traffic minors, is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence. Her conviction followed a years-long investigation into the abuse ring she and Epstein ran.
Epstein, meanwhile, died by suicide in a Manhattan federal jail on 10 August 2019 while awaiting trial. He had been indicted on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019.

The stakes for the release of these grand-jury materials are both legal and symbolic. On one hand, the government must navigate the competing obligations of transparency and victim privacy. Judge Berman’s opinion emphasised possible “threats to victims’ safety and privacy” in concluding the materials should remain sealed.
On the other hand, supporters of full disclosure argue that the statute texts and the high-profile nature of the case require that these records be opened. Legal observers note that while traditional grand-jury secrecy continues to apply, the statute may shift the balance.

The Justice Department’s renewed filing points out that the law gives a 30-day window for release, therefore urging prompt scheduling of a hearing. It argues the public interest “in this case of intense media attention and public concern” further justifies expedited review.

Victims’ advocacy groups remain cautious. While some have said they support transparency in principle, they emphasise that redactions and safeguarding of identities must be strict. Florida lawyer Brad Edwards, who has represented numerous Epstein accusers, told the Associated Press of the Maxwell ruling that “our only concern was that if materials were released, then maximum protection for the victims was essential.”

Despite the renewed motion, legal analysts caution that the chances of actual disclosure remain uncertain. Grand-jury secrecy remains the default, and judges may still conclude that the material does not meet the high threshold for release. In both the Maxwell and Epstein rulings, judges held the materials “redundant” or of minimal evidentiary value.

If the materials are released, the actual content appears limited. In the Maxwell case Judge Engelmayer observed that only two law-enforcement agents testified before the grand jury and found no new revelations of “client lists,” previously unknown wrongdoing, or significant new locations or methods of the abuse operation.

Nevertheless, the public and political pressure pressures persist. Congressional committees are conducting parallel inquiries. While the grand-jury transcripts represent only a slice of the government holdings, the Epstein Files Transparency Act also calls for broader disclosures from the departments of Justice and the FBI. Some lawmakers expect those broader materials to be released in the coming months.

For the Justice Department, finding a path to satisfy both legal secrecy rules and public demand for accountability is proving complex. The renewed motion gives the courts and litigants an updated framework under the new law, but it does not guarantee that any grand-jury material will ultimately be released. If it does happen, it will be closely scrutinised for what it reveals about Epstein’s network, Maxwell’s role, government investigations and whether previously hidden figures may appear.

The case remains a flashpoint in the broader debate over how to balance victim rights, government secrecy, and accountability in high-profile sex-trafficking prosecutions. Whether this particular motion triggers disclosure or gets stalled is likely to be seen as a test of the new statute’s impact.