Truth Buried in Plain Sight
Trump signs the release order, but the coming document dump is a curated truth, engineered delays, and a fight that Congress, the courts, and the public won’t avoid.
|
Guest article by Michael Cohen. Remember to follow him on Substack for more by clicking here. Michael is also racing to 500K followers on YouTube! Subscribe today for free here.
 |
There are moments in American politics where something that looks like progress is actually the first move in a much larger game. President Trump’s signing of the bill requiring the Department of Justice to release the Epstein investigation files is one of those moments. On the surface, it reads like a long-awaited step toward transparency in a case that has cast a shadow over institutions, administrations, and public trust for nearly two decades. But anyone who has sat inside a federal investigation knows that what is written in the law and what happens behind closed doors are rarely the same thing.
Trump had opposed the bill until days ago, warning allies that releasing internal investigative documents could harm the presidency. Then the political math shifted. The votes were there. Bipartisan. Forceful. Guaranteed. Trump signed the bill and immediately reframed it as a necessary act to expose the truth about certain Democrats and their past associations with Epstein.
And last night, in a long and highly circulated Truth Social post, he made the point even more explicit. “The Epstein Files will show the world what the Democrat Elite don’t want anyone to see,” Trump wrote. “They used Jeffrey Epstein for YEARS, and they tried to blame it all on ME because they’re terrified of what’s coming. This release will be very bad for them—VERY. People will be shocked when they see who was involved and how deep it went.” The statement continued in the same direction, concluding with, “It’s time for complete transparency. Democrats have hidden this for too long, and now the truth comes out.”
The messaging was clear: this release, in Trump’s view, is a political reckoning aimed squarely at his opponents.
But the underlying reality has not changed: the release of Epstein’s files will be complicated, selective, and inevitably incomplete. Not because anyone intends to hide the truth in full—though that risk exists—but because the law itself contains escape hatches that ensure the public will see only part of the story.
The Department of Justice now has thirty days to release its Epstein-related documents. In theory, thirty days sounds like a swift path to clarity. In practice, it is an impossible timeline for a collection of more than 300 gigabytes of material: emails, internal memos, interview transcripts, grand jury exhibits, travel logs, investigative notes, communications between federal prosecutors, and documents spread across multiple jurisdictions and administrations. Anyone who believes such a volume can be responsibly reviewed, vetted, redacted, and released in a single month simply does not understand how federal investigations function.
The law mandates that the DOJ withhold the names and identifying details of victims, which is absolutely necessary. It also instructs the department to hold back any information that could unfairly harm individuals the DOJ deems to be uninvolved. Anything tied to an ongoing investigation must remain sealed. And material that could compromise law enforcement techniques, sources, or methods must also be kept from public view. These categories are rooted in legitimate legal concerns, but they are broad enough for prosecutors to justify withholding enormous swaths of material.
Inside the DOJ, the first step will be an intensive review of every name that appears in any document: victims, witnesses, subjects, third parties, incidental contacts, public figures, political figures. Each one must be evaluated before even a single page is released. After that, the documents will be split into two categories: those that can be released quickly without legal or political blowback, and those requiring further internal review. Documents containing high-profile names—Trump’s among them—will immediately fall into the latter category. That isn’t necessarily about protection; it’s the nature of due diligence within the federal system. Any reference to a sitting president triggers additional layers of review because one incorrect release can have consequences far beyond the courtroom.
The initial release will likely be enormous. Tens of thousands of pages. Enough to dominate headlines for days. And much of the material will involve people already scrutinized, charged, or publicly tied to the Epstein orbit—many of them Democrats, critics of Trump, or figures already known to the public. These are the easiest documents to release because they’ve already passed through legal processes or have been referenced in prior cases.
But the omissions will be louder than the disclosures.
Those gaps will tell a different story: of investigations still underway, of internal disagreements about what can safely be made public, of politically sensitive material held back not necessarily to protect individuals but because it could compromise cases, trigger litigation, or ignite political upheaval.
And this is precisely where Trump’s Truth Social post becomes part of the legal and political landscape. By insisting the release will “hurt Democrats” and “expose their involvement,” he has set an expectation for his supporters and framed the upcoming release as a partisan reckoning. That framing will collide directly with whatever DOJ actually delivers—and with whatever it withholds.
Once that happens, the real battle begins.
Congress will demand fuller, less redacted sets of documents. Lawsuits will pile up as journalists, victims’ attorneys, and advocacy groups challenge DOJ’s interpretation of the law. Federal judges will be asked to rule on what the public has a right to see. And the Justice Department—under pressure from the White House, from Congress, from victims, and from the public—will argue that the law ties its hands.
All of this will unfold as Americans’ trust remains deeply fractured. Only 20 percent approve of Trump’s handling of the Epstein matter. Seventy percent believe the government has hidden information. That belief isn’t born from conspiracy; it comes from years of secrecy, unexplained decisions, and powerful people who appeared to move in and out of Epstein’s orbit with no accountability.
This release, partial as it will be, won’t restore trust. If anything, it may intensify suspicion. Because no matter how many files are published, the public will know—instinctively and immediately—that they are not seeing the full picture.
The Epstein documents are not just about names. They reveal patterns: decisions made and reversed, cases pursued and abandoned, pressure applied and lifted. Those patterns won’t surface in the first wave of disclosures. They will emerge over months, maybe years, as legal battles force pieces of the truth into daylight.
Trump may hope this release clarifies matters or shifts political narratives. Others may hope it exposes abuses of power long concealed behind sealed filings and non-disclosure agreements. But transparency is not an event. It is a slow, grinding process.
And that process begins the moment those documents hit the public.
The important question is not what gets released on Day 30.
The important question is what remains withheld on Day 31.
