Related videos:
Less than 24 hours after its publication, at least 16 files related to the case of the mogul and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein disappeared from the website of the United States Department of Justice.
The incident was detected on Saturday, December 14, 2025, just one day after a batch of documents was made public as part of compliance with a recently passed law by Congress.
The disappearance was not accompanied by any announcement or prior warning.
Among the deleted documents is a photograph featuring President Donald Trump alongside Epstein, Melania Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell, as reported by the AP.
This unexpected omission has unleashed a new wave of suspicion surrounding the official handling of the Epstein case and the possible protection of powerful figures.
For many observers, this removal "without explanation from the government and without notice to the public" has been interpreted as a form of deliberate censorship.
“What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public”, the House Oversight Committee demanded through a post on X, directly referencing the missing image of Trump.
What did the deleted documents show?
Among the files that disappeared were images of artworks featuring nude women and a photograph taken inside one of Epstein's residences, showing a series of portraits arranged on a sideboard.
Inside a partially open drawer, the now-controversial image could be seen: Donald Trump alongside Epstein and two of his closest associates.
The disappearance of this material, which occurred just after the deadline set by Congress for the complete publication of the documents, not only reignited the scandal but also intensified the perception of institutional opacity.
So far, the Department of Justice has remained silent. No spokesperson has provided statements or clarifications, and the agency has not indicated whether the deletion was intentional, a technical error, or a temporary measure.
Revelations without depth and censored documents
Despite the expectations generated by the release of the material, the initially published files offered little new information about Epstein's crimes or the tax decisions that benefited him for years.
Instead of shedding light, much of the content -though substantial- turned out to be repetitive, out of context, or heavily censored.
Among the most notable gaps is the absence of FBI interviews with victims and internal memos from the Justice Department itself that could explain why, in 2008, Epstein was allowed to plead guilty to a single minor state charge related to prostitution, despite the existence of multiple testimonies from sexually abused minors.
Attorney Jennifer Freeman, who represents Maria Farmer—one of the key whistleblowers in the case—expressed regret that, even after years of pressure, transparency remains partial.
"It is a triumph and a tragedy. It seems that the government did absolutely nothing. Horrible things have happened, and if they had investigated, even just a little, they could have stopped it," he stated.
Trump, Clinton, and the Unequal Approach to Graphic Content
One of the aspects that drew the most attention in the initial disclosure was the significant difference in the graphic representation of political figures associated with Epstein.
While images of former President Bill Clinton were abundant—featuring previously unseen photos with celebrities like Michael Jackson and Diana Ross—images of Donald Trump were scarce, and the few that did appear, such as the one that has now been removed, were quickly deleted without any justification.
These are not photos with explicit legal relevance, but their presence documents social connections that have been minimized or denied for years. The selective removal of these images reinforces the perception of manipulation and control over the official narrative.
Truncated accusations and questioned decisions
Among the leaked documents were transcripts of sessions from an investigative grand jury dating back to 2007.
In them, FBI agents detail testimonies from girls and adolescents who described how they were recruited to engage in sexual acts in exchange for money.
One of them recounted that "for every girl I brought to the table, he would give me 200 dollars," adding that many of them were schoolmates and that, if they were underage, he would tell them to lie about their age.
In a subsequent interview, Alexander Acosta—the prosecutor who oversaw the case and later became Secretary of Labor under the Trump administration—acknowledged that his decision not to pursue federal charges was partly motivated by doubts about the credibility of the victims before a jury.
"I'm not saying it was the right perspective," he affirmed, adding that "there have been many changes in the way victim shaming is perceived."
A process that is still not convincing
The law that mandated the release of these files was driven by survivors and lawmakers who demanded accountability after decades of concealment.
However, the Department of Justice has argued that the publication will be "progressive," citing the necessity to protect identities and sensitive personal data. Nevertheless, this approach has been perceived by many victims as a new form of delay.
"I feel like the DOJ and the justice system are failing us once again," declared Marina Lacerda, one of the women who claims to have been abused by Epstein since she was 14.
Opacity continues: so far, no new date for the release of documents has been communicated, nor has an explanation been provided for why already available files were removed. Meanwhile, intrigue surrounding Epstein's connections to influential figures continues to grow.
Conclusion: Transparency or Cover-up?
The Epstein case remains a dark mirror reflecting the contradictions of the American judicial system. The mysterious disappearance of files—including a compromising photograph of Trump—only adds to the suspicions surrounding a process already marked by decades of institutional failures, secret deals, and uneven justice.
Instead of closing a chapter, the partial and censored release of documents seems to have opened another, even murkier one. In the words of attorney Jennifer Freeman: "If they had investigated, even just minimally, they could have stopped it." The question that lingers is: who is still being protected today?
Filed under: