Kash Patel Claims Court Orders Block Epstein Files Release—But Judges Disagree

FBI director Kash Patel testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. – September 17, 2025 - FBI Director Kash Patel faced a barrage of bipartisan scrutiny during back-to-back congressional hearings this week, where he repeatedly claimed that court orders prevent the release of additional Jeffrey Epstein files, only for lawmakers and judges to push back, asserting that the restrictions are far narrower than Patel suggests and that the FBI holds the power to disclose vast troves of non-grand jury materials.The contentious exchanges, which stretched over nine hours across the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, highlighted simmering frustrations over the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case, including unfulfilled promises to declassify records tied to the late financier's sex-trafficking network.

Patel, a staunch Trump loyalist confirmed as FBI director earlier this year, testified that the bureau has released "all credible information" legally permitted, pointing to protective orders stemming from Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement and subsequent rulings as insurmountable barriers. "Do you know how court orders work?" Patel snapped at Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) during a heated House exchange, defending the FBI's decision not to disclose witness interviews, videos from Epstein's residences, or other investigative materials. But critics, including Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and even some Republicans, accused Patel of misdirection, noting that federal judges have explicitly ruled the government possesses far more releasable information than the limited grand jury transcripts at issue.

Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing set the tone, with Patel labeling the 2006 Florida prosecution under then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta as the "original sin" of the Epstein saga—a "get-out-of-jail-free card" that limited search warrants and imposed enduring protective orders. He insisted there is "no credible information" Epstein trafficked victims to anyone besides himself, a claim that drew skepticism from Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), who pressed for full disclosure of FBI-held files. "We will release everything we are legally permitted to do so," Patel pledged, but Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) countered that the administration's July announcement halting further releases contradicted pre-appointment promises of full transparency.

The House hearing on Wednesday escalated the drama. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) grilled Patel on whether he'd reviewed the full Epstein files—Patel admitted he hadn't—and accused him of shielding evidence in the "largest sex trafficking case the FBI has ever been a part of." When asked if President Trump's name appeared in the documents, Patel reiterated that "all credible information" had been released, including instances involving Trump, but dodged specifics on his review process.Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a vocal critic, revealed that Epstein victims had provided the FBI with names of co-conspirators, demanding to know if investigations had been launched—Patel offered no clear answer.

Raskin branded Patel's responses "all misdirection," pointing out that the House Oversight Committee had already released thousands of pages from Epstein's estate, including unredacted "black books" and flight logs—materials Patel claimed were fully disclosed. "You're hiding the Epstein files. You are part of the cover-up," Goldman charged, prompting Patel's retort about court orders.

Patel's core argument hinges on three federal judges' rejections of DOJ requests to unseal grand jury materials from Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell probes—limited transcripts prosecutors themselves described as containing "little information that was not already public." But U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, in denying one such request, explicitly called it a "diversion" from the "breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government’s possession," stating that grand jury snippets "pale in comparison" to the FBI's full trove and that "the government is the logical party" for comprehensive disclosure.

Legal experts echoed this: The protective orders from Epstein's 2008 plea deal do not blanket the entire case file, and materials like victim interviews and seized videos fall under FBI purview without judicial barriers.

Forbes analysis labeled Patel's claims "misleading," noting the administration's backtrack from Trump's campaign vow to "release everything" on Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial.The DOJ's July halt on further releases has fueled conspiracy theories among Trump's base, with some on X accusing Patel of perjury.

The hearings come amid Epstein-related turbulence, including the UK firing Ambassador Peter Mandelson over Epstein ties and lawsuits from fired FBI officials alleging retaliatory purges.Trump dismissed the controversy as a "dead issue" on Truth Social, praising Attorney General Pam Bondi for an "unbelievable job." Yet even allies like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged full release of non-classified files.Civil liberties advocates warned that invoking court orders to withhold FBI-controlled documents risks eroding public trust, especially in a case implicating elites.

Patel vowed continued cooperation with Congress on subpoenas but maintained, "I'm not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity." As one lawmaker put it, the "buck stops at the top"—leaving Patel's credibility, and the Epstein saga, hanging in the balance.