Last week, former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman penned a guest essay in the New York Times, titled “The Epstein Files should never have been released.” The gist of Richman’s argument is that law enforcement agencies have unique powers to invade privacy, making public only what is relevant to a specific criminal case. You cannot blanketly release millions of private emails, even if they came from someone as despicable as Jeffrey Epstein. 

As an aspiring civil libertarian, I sympathize with Richman’s point: public intrigue does not justify industrial-grade privacy violations. Where Richman falls short is his treatment of the Epstein Files as just another scandal, a “swirling mix of gossip, casual association and possible criminal misconduct.” In reality, Epstein’s emails contain references to murder-for-hire plots with the subject line “he was passed away,” alongside evidence of torture videos and sex trafficking. One individual asked Epstein if he wanted “a little baby brought back for [him],” clarifying whether he preferred boys or girls. 

Since the Department of Justice under both Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump was unwilling to act on these findings, it is only fair for Congress to compel their release and shed light on Epstein’s network. Failure to release the full tranche of files (save for the identities of victims) will lead to further impunity for the so-called Epstein class and greater mistrust in government. Transparency is the only answer.

That said, Richman got something right: people do not trust the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate Epstein’s orbit. A Reuters poll found nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe the Epstein Files “show that powerful people in the U.S. are rarely held accountable for their actions.” Richman pins the blame on the Trump administration and argues that they should re-delegate authority from political appointees to career bureaucrats. However, this incorrectly assumes the problem lies exclusively with current DOJ leadership. While I am no fan of Attorney General Pam Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel, they are merely continuing the Biden administration’s Epstein-blindness. Proper delegation of authority will not lead to a wave of prosecutions. 

Transparency, however, is beginning to yield results. Last month, English authorities arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the first British royal arrested since 1646, citing revelations from the Epstein Files. Days later, former U.K. ambassador Peter Mandelson was also arrested due to his connections to the disgraced financier. Despite years-long public speculation against both men, justice only came with the release of these most recent files. 

While the United States is moving more slowly, there is some hope. Last month, former Obama White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler resigned from her current post as Goldman Sachs’ top attorney. Days later, House Democrats interviewed Les Wexner, the billionaire owner of L Brands and an alleged Epstein co-conspirator. It’s unclear whether prosecutors will take legal action against Ruemmler, who accepted numerous luxury gifts from Epstein, or Wexner, who granted Epstein power of attorney over his estate. Still, even these small measures of accountability would not have occurred had the files remained sealed. 

Prosecutors tried Richman’s preferred business-as-usual approach for decades. As early as 1996, there were complaints about Epstein to the FBI. Law enforcement sealed those complaints and promptly ignored them. A decade later, when Epstein was facing 45 years in prison for sex crimes, he landed a 13-month sentence that included work release. Even up until his apparent suicide in 2019 — amid camera mishaps, sleeping guards, and redacted video footage — Epstein faced minimal accountability.

Instead of looking the other way, Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Washington) and Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) acted. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed almost unanimously by Congress and signed by the President, does not threaten future law enforcement information-gathering, as Richman suggests, but is a rare instance of democracy working to compel transparency. The idea that these releases will further harm trust in the DOJ need not apply — they already lost that. 

Jack Verrill is a Young Voices Contributor from Falmouth, Maine. A Sophomore at the University of Michigan, Jack can be reached at jverrill@umich.edu or on X @jack_verri11.