A shocking revelation has emerged from the recent release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files by the U.S. Department of Justice. One survivor, who has always chosen to remain anonymous under the pseudonym “Jane Doe”, discovered that her real name appeared multiple times in the documents without redaction. She said she was “mortified” by the oversight, which has reignited global debate about victim protection and government accountability.
The Epstein files, released in December 2025, were intended to shed light on decades of secrecy surrounding the disgraced financier’s crimes and associations. Instead, they have sparked outrage due to what victim advocates describe as sloppy redaction practices. While many pages were heavily blacked out, the failure to protect survivors’ identities has been widely condemned.
Jane Doe explained that she had repeatedly asked the Justice Department to correct the error, but her requests were unsuccessful. For survivors of sexual abuse, anonymity is not just a preference but a safeguard against retraumatization, harassment, and unwanted public exposure. The lapse has left her feeling vulnerable and betrayed.
Jess Michaels, an Epstein survivor and a lead writer of the group statement, said the DOJ’s handling of the release represents “the opposite of transparency.” She said survivors were never consulted before the files were made public. “There was no one that approached us and said, ‘Hey, we want to do the right thing by survivors. Let’s have a conversation about this,’” Michaels said. “It’s that black and white. It’s: the Department of Justice broke a law signed by the president, period.”
Asked for comment on the survivors’ statement, DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin defended the department’s approach. “As the Attorney General has stated, the Department of Justice has been in contact with victims, their lawyers, and victims groups,” he said. “The DOJ and SDNY are undergoing an arduous effort to protect victims through redactions as documents are released, and the Attorney General encourages victims or their attorneys to come forward with concerns or additional information that could be helpful in the ongoing investigation.”
Critics argue that the DOJ’s failure undermines the very purpose of releasing the files. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated disclosure, was designed to promote accountability and public trust. Instead, the unredacted names have raised questions about whether the government prioritized secrecy around powerful figures over the safety of survivors.
Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, said on X that “the DOJ must stop protecting rich & powerful men who were not charged or those who sabotaged the prosecution.” Khanna called on the DOJ to release FBI witness interviews that name other men, as well as Epstein’s emails seized from his computer.
International observers have noted the irony that while references to high‑profile individuals were scarce or omitted, the name of a survivor was left exposed. This imbalance has fueled accusations of selective redaction and favoritism toward influential figures.
Victim advocacy groups have condemned the oversight as a “serious breach of trust.” They argue that the DOJ’s handling of the files reflects a lack of sensitivity and competence in protecting vulnerable individuals. For many survivors, the incident is a painful reminder of how institutions often fail those they are meant to protect.
As the fallout continues, Jane Doe’s and Jess Michaels’ stories serve as stark reminders of the human cost behind bureaucratic errors. The Epstein files were meant to illuminate the truth about a powerful predator and his network. Instead, they have exposed the vulnerabilities of survivors who trusted the system to protect them. For an international audience, the lesson is clear: transparency must never come at the expense of justice, dignity, and safety.
