The Brief

During the 2024 election, President Donald Trump promised to release the Epstein files as part of a campaign message arguing the government was run by powerful people hiding the truth from Americans.

At the start of 2026, many people agree — and believe that he is now one of the powerful few keeping the public in the dark.

In the two weeks since the Justice Department failed to fully meet a legal deadline to release its expansive tranche of files on Jeffrey Epstein, old conspiracy theories about his life and death have subsided and new ones have taken shape. The late financier was a convicted sex offender and accused of sex trafficking minors while associating with top figures in politics, academia and other influential industries.

Both supporters of the president and his opponents have criticized the rollout of documents, often heavily redacted and shared without any clear organization or context. Included in the roughly 40,000 pages of new information published in the last week are unvetted tips from the public — and a complaint made to the FBI more than a decade before Epstein was first criminally charged.

There could be well over a million files still unreleased, along with potentially terabytes-worth of data seized from Epstein's devices and estate, according to 2020 emails between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York included in the most recent batch of files.

On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on social media that lawyers were working "around the clock" to review documents but did not specify the scope or scale of the remaining work.

"It truly is an all-hands-on-deck approach and we're asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain," Blanche said. "Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released. The attorney general's and this administration's goal is simple: transparency and protecting victims."

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is threatening to take action against the Justice Department for failing to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed in November, but the law itself contains no penalties or enforcement mechanism.

Politically, the Epstein files saga caps off a rocky first year for an administration facing record-low favorability ratings and a president whose grasp on his base is appearing to slip. Trump spent most of 2025 downplaying the significance of the files, at times lashing out against Republicans who demanded the release of information about other potential perpetrators.

Congress' demands to release the files are unusual

Jeffrey Epstein abuse survivor Danielle Bensky and National Director of World Without Exploitation Lauren Hersh embrace after receiving word that the U.S. Senate unanimously approved passage of the House's Epstein Files Transparency Act on Capitol Hill on Nov. 18, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(

Heather Diehl

/

Getty Images

)

The Epstein Files Transparency Act gave a deadline of Dec. 19 for the disclosure of "all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys' Offices."

Congress gave limited exemptions for redacting and withholding files, including identifying information, photos and videos of victims, child sexual abuse materials and images that depict death, physical abuse or injury.

The law also allows the attorney general to withhold or redact anything classified "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy" or details that would "jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary."

It is highly unusual for federal law enforcement to release the entirety of its investigative file for a case, even one that has garnered heavy public interest — let alone be directed to do so by Congress.

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, for example, is a 16-page law that set out a 25-year timeline for the release of records related to his assassination and established a review board to identify relevant records with explicit guidelines and directions. Similarly, the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998 and Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure Act of 2000 set out a process for evaluating and releasing more than 8.5 million pages.

More recently, presidents have used executive orders to release files related to high-profile events. Former President Joe Biden signed an executive order in 2021 leading the FBI and DOJ to declassify and release roughly 4,000 files related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's January 2025 executive orders related to the assassinations of JFK, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. led to the release of close to 400,000 pages.

The 2025 Epstein law is less detailed in its requests and does not provide any additional funding for the Justice Department to complete the process of reviewing and releasing the files.

What we know about the files made public

The vast majority of the roughly 250,000 documents that are now available about Epstein are from public court dockets, Freedom of Information Act requests from state and federal agencies, and records turned over to the House Oversight Committee by Epstein's estate.

That includes communications between Epstein and a vast web of influential figures in politics, academia, business and more, even after he registered as a sex offender.

Trump, who had a decades-long friendship with Epstein before a falling out in the early 2000s, is mentioned frequently in both old and new Epstein files by Epstein himself. Trump has not been credibly accused of wrongdoing in connection to Epstein's alleged crimes.

In one newly released email from 2020, a prosecutor whose name is redacted flags that "Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported (or that we were aware)." At the same time, Epstein's own emails reveal a near-obsession with Trump's presidency and mock his time in office.

One email sent by federal agents after Epstein was arrested in 2019 for allegedly sex-trafficking minors mentioned 10 possible co-conspirators, including Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for sex-trafficking minors and other charges. Most of the other names on that list are redacted.

Some emails released in the files detail challenges that federal prosecutors faced obtaining, processing and organizing more than a million documents taken from Epstein's estates, as well as more than 60 devices and other evidence accumulated in the investigation into Epstein and Maxwell.

What we don't know about the remaining files

The Justice Department hasn't indicated how many files remain, how many will be released or whether any information it does release will be factually accurate.

Some of the investigative files released in the last two weeks include unverified fantastical claims about Trump, Epstein and others, including a fake video purporting to show Epstein's death by suicide in his federal prison cell. There was also a forged letter that appeared to be from Epstein to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar that alleged Trump shared a "love of young, nubile girls."

The Justice Department posted on social media last week that the Nassar letter was fake, citing inconsistencies with handwriting and other aspects of its construction.

"This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual," the DOJ X account stated.

Before the president's second term, Trump and top allies like now-FBI Director Kash Patel amplified conspiracy theories about Epstein and his death, which were embraced by their supporters.

Trump's about-face on releasing the files and the trickle of information have spawned new conspiracy theories by some Trump opponents who have seized on salacious and unverified claims released in the document dump. Others have shared previously published redacted court filings out of context to claim that the administration is doctoring files to benefit Trump.

There are also several types of files that lawmakers and victims of Epstein's abuse say exist and should be made public. California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna said on NPR's All Things Considered last week that FBI witness interviews are among those he is looking for.

"I know from survivors and survivors' lawyers that when they had these conversations with FBI agents, they specifically named other men who they were trafficked to or who showed up at the island or who covered up for this abuse," Khanna said. "There were lawyers of the survivors present there. There are dozens of these interview memorandums. The DOJ has not released a single one."

What's next in the Epstein saga?

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-K.Y. (center); speaks alongside Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., during a news conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 18, 2025.

(

Heather Diehl

/

Getty Images

)

It's unclear what steps Congress may take to try to compel faster or more complete production of files from the Justice Department, or if Khanna and others follow through on proposed "inherent contempt" proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi. Lawmakers have been on recess for the holidays and return to Washington next week.

Trump himself continues to fan the flames, including in a Dec. 26 Truth Social post where he appeared to suggest the Justice Department should focus on releasing names of Democrats mentioned in the files and move on.

"When do they say NO MORE, and work on Election Fraud etc.," Trump wrote. "The Dems are the ones who worked with Epstein, not the Republicans. Release all of their names, embarrass them, and get back to helping our Country! The Radical Left doesn't want people talking about TRUMP & REPUBLICAN SUCCESS, only a long ago dead Jeffrey Epstein - Just another Witch Hunt!!!"

But the dump of files is expected to continue, as the tail of the political fallout grows longer heading into the 2026 midterm elections in November. Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is set to resign from the House Jan. 5 after Trump repeatedly attacked her over her lobbying to release the files, shrinking an already-tenuous majority for House Republicans.

Have information or evidence to share about the Epstein files and the Department of Justice's release of documents? Reach out to the author, Stephen Fowler, through encrypted communications on Signal at stphnfwlr.25.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.