Mark Epstein, the younger brother of the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has accused officials in Donald Trump’s administration of secretly altering government files about the case to remove the names of Republican figures, just as Congress has moved to force the release of those records.
In a phone interview with US cable channel NewsNation, Mark Epstein said he had been told that the so-called “Epstein files” were being edited before publication under new transparency legislation. “I’ve been recently told, the reason they’re going to be releasing the files and the reason for the flip is that they’re sabotaging these files,” he said, alleging that officials were “scrubbing the files to take Republican names out.” He added that the information came from what he described as “a pretty good source.”
His claims surfaced as the Epstein Files Transparency Act sped through Congress. The House of Representatives voted 427–1 to require the Department of Justice to release all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. The bill allows redactions to protect victims’ identities and certain sensitive information but bars officials from withholding material purely to avoid “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”
Within hours of the House vote, the Senate approved the measure by unanimous consent, sending it to President Trump’s desk. The legislation gives the Justice Department 30 days from enactment to make the files public in a searchable format. The rapid progress reflects intense public and political pressure that has built over years for full disclosure about Epstein’s dealings, associates and the circumstances of his death in federal custody.
Mark Epstein’s allegation goes to the heart of those concerns, suggesting that the forthcoming public release may already have been shaped behind the scenes. He did not provide documentary evidence for his claim and did not publicly identify the person who allegedly warned him about edits to the files. The Justice Department has previously said that any release would have to comply with legal protections for victims and ongoing investigations. There has been no public confirmation from the department or the Trump White House that partisan political considerations have played any role in preparing the documents.
In his remarks to NewsNation, Mark Epstein linked his allegation directly to a recent political reversal in Washington. For months, Trump and senior Republican leaders had resisted efforts in Congress to require the release of government records on Epstein, according to lawmakers involved in the push. That resistance crumbled after a bipartisan discharge petition forced a vote in the House and after pressure from conservative activists who had expected Trump to fulfil campaign-trail promises to “release the files.” Trump eventually urged Republican members to back the bill and said he would sign it.
Mark Epstein suggested that this change of stance was explained by behind-the-scenes editing of the material. In his telling, Republicans could now support transparency because, he believes, the most damaging information for their own party was being removed before the public ever sees it. His allegation plays into long-running suspicions across the political spectrum that powerful people from both parties may have had contact with Epstein or his network and might seek to shield themselves from scrutiny.
The interview also revived questions about Trump’s personal history with Jeffrey Epstein. In the same conversation, Mark Epstein claimed his brother had compromising information about Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. He said Jeffrey had told him that what he knew about the candidates could be serious enough to “cancel the election” and added, “Jeffrey definitely had dirt on Trump.” Mark did not specify what information he believed his brother possessed, saying only that Jeffrey did not share the details with him.
Trump and Epstein were socially acquainted in New York and Florida for years before Epstein’s downfall. Photographs show them together at events at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the 1990s and early 2000s, and Trump once described Epstein as a “terrific guy” in a magazine interview, saying he liked beautiful women “as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” Trump has since said he was “not a fan” of Epstein and has denied any involvement in or knowledge of his crimes. Court documents and flight logs have previously placed Trump among the many prominent figures who had contact with Epstein, although they have not, to date, accused him of criminal wrongdoing.
Jeffrey Epstein’s activities have been a source of public outrage for more than a decade. A wealthy financier who moved in elite social circles, he previously avoided federal prosecution in 2008 through a controversial non-prosecution deal over allegations of sexually abusing underage girls in Florida. In July 2019, he was arrested again, this time on federal charges of sex trafficking minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. Prosecutors accused him of operating a network that recruited and abused teenage girls at his homes in New York and Palm Beach and on his private island in the Caribbean. One month after his arrest, Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. The death was officially ruled a suicide, although it has fuelled persistent conspiracy theories and calls for further investigation.
The new legislation is intended to address those demands for transparency. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department must publish unclassified materials and provide unredacted lists of “government officials and politically exposed persons” named in the records to congressional judiciary committees. Information that could identify victims or compromise ongoing investigations can be withheld, but the law explicitly forbids redactions aimed solely at sparing public figures from embarrassment.
Even before Mark Epstein’s recent comments, some survivors’ advocates and lawmakers had questioned whether the government would fully comply with the spirit of the bill. They have argued that agencies had years to decide how to handle the material and could have already removed or reorganised documents before Congress forced their release. Supporters of the law say its detailed redaction rules and oversight mechanisms are designed to prevent politically motivated editing, but they acknowledge that only the eventual publication of the files will show how comprehensive the disclosure really is.
Mark’s new allegations add another layer of suspicion at a politically fraught moment. The Epstein scandal has touched figures from across global politics, business and royalty, including Britain’s Prince Andrew, who settled a civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers, without admitting liability. The possibility that some names could be removed from the US government’s files before they are made public is likely to intensify scrutiny from both critics and supporters of the Trump administration.
Social media reaction to Mark Epstein’s interview has been swift, with many users on platforms such as X and Reddit seizing on his remarks as confirmation of their suspicions that the upcoming document release will be incomplete. Others have questioned his credibility and motives, noting that he has himself come under scrutiny for his past business dealings with his brother. Online discussion has also reflected political divides, with some Trump supporters dismissing the allegation as an attempt to discredit the former president, while opponents have portrayed it as evidence of a wider cover-up.
At the centre of the controversy is a practical question that will only be answered when the files are released: how much of Epstein’s network, and the roles played by individuals within it, will actually be visible in the documents provided to the public. The law requires disclosure of flight logs, travel records and internal Justice Department communications related to Epstein and Maxwell, as well as information about investigations into Epstein’s death. The scope of material could run to tens of thousands of pages. Legislators behind the bill have said that any attempt to withhold or over-redact names can be challenged by Congress and, potentially, by the courts.
For survivors of Epstein’s abuse and their families, the political manoeuvring is less important than the hope that the files might finally reveal who helped enable his crimes and who may still face accountability. Advocates who gathered at the Capitol to support the bill described it as a necessary step, while warning that transparency alone will not guarantee justice. Many have argued that exposing the full extent of Epstein’s connections could deter future abuses by showing that even the most powerful figures can be named and scrutinised.
The Justice Department now faces a tight timetable to comply with the law once it is signed. Officials will have to sift through years of investigative material, decide what can be released, apply redactions that satisfy both the statute and privacy protections, and prepare the files for public access. Any perception that partisan politics has influenced those decisions could trigger legal challenges and renewed calls for independent oversight. Mark Epstein’s allegation that Republican names are being removed before the process even begins will form part of that debate, regardless of whether evidence emerges to support it.
For now, his comments remain uncorroborated assertions that highlight the deep mistrust surrounding the case. As Congress moves to compel disclosure and Trump signals his willingness to sign the bill, the focus is shifting from whether the Epstein files will be released to how complete and candid that release will be. The answer will determine not only how history judges Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and those who may have abetted them, but also whether the public believes that a system confronted with allegations of abuse at the highest levels is capable of telling the whole truth.