Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

FBI–DOJ Failure on 1996 Epstein Complaint Demands Congressional Accountability

Opinion

​A billboard in Times Square.

A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein Files on July 23, 2025 in New York City. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, telling him that his name appeared in the files.

Getty Images, Adam Gray

On Aug. 29, 1996, Maria Farmer reported her sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the New York Police Department. Ms. Farmer contacted the FBI as advised by the police. On Sept. 3, 1996, the FBI identified the case as “child pornography” since naked or semi-naked hard copy pictures existed.

It wasn’t until Nov. 19, 2025 when the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law whereby all files – including Farmer’s 1996 complaint -- were to be made public by Dec. 19. Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to release 100% of the files as mandated by law.


Obviously, Congress should question six individuals who had access to the original 1996 file during their tenure as FBI director: Louis French, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Wray and Kash Patel. Likewise, 10 managers of America’s DOJ since 1996 should testify before Congress as to their knowledge of the case: Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Merrick Garland and Pam Bondi.

Questions asked of the above FBI and DOJ leaders might include the following:

Establishing the factual record

When did you first learn of the 1996 Epstein-Maxwell complaint and through what channel (e.g., briefing, media report, internal audit, inspector general review, civil litigation, etc.)?

Second, what, if anything, did you do when you first became aware of the 1996 complaint?

Third, during your tenure was the 1996 complaint ever flagged, re-opened or re-reviewed in connection with later federal investigations of Jeffrey Epstein or related sex-trafficking and child-exploitation cases? If so, what did you do about the case? If not, why not?

Decisions or non-decision on the 1996 complaint

At any time during your leadership, did you review or order a review of the 1996 complaint to assess whether FBI and/or DOJ personnel mishandled allegations of child pornography, threats or child sexual exploitation, and if not, why not?

Systematic failures in child-sex-abuse cases

During your tenure, what changes were implemented to ensure that tips involving alleged child pornography and/or child sexual exploitation were: A) logged correctly, B) assessed by specialized child-exploitation units and C) reported to state, local and tribal authorities within the required time framework?

Director-level accountability

What do you think is the proper recourse for any FBI director or DOJ leader employed since 1996 who was negligent about the child pornography-related crimes alleged against Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators?

Culture, incentives and possible favoritism

At any time in your leadership role, did you have any evidence that the complainant, Maria Farmer, was disbelieved, minimized or discredited because she was accusing a wealthy, well-connected figure?

Second, during your tenure, was there any discussion by you and/or your associates about the risks of “rocking the boat” with politically connected targets in child-sex or exploitation investigations?

Remedies for survivors, FBI reforms and DOJ reforms

Will you support a bipartisan congressional investigation on the handling of the Maria Farmer complaint and all related leads since 1996, including naming responsible federal officials who failed their duty as well as disclosing to the public the names of individuals who were involved in child pornography, sex trafficking and child-exploitation?

Second, what concrete remedies should be offered to the approximate 1,200 female survivors whose abuse might have been prevented had the 1996 complaint been properly pursued, such as expedited victim-compensation and/or formal apologies from the FBI and DOJ?

Citizens’ clarion call

First, contact each of your three elected Congressional delegates and ask if they support a complete investigation as to why six FBI directors and 10 DOJ leaders – employed since 1996 – did or did not take proper action related to the Maria Farmer complaint as well as for the 1,200 females allegedly harmed by Epstein, Maxwell and other men.

Next, contact the following legislators who have major responsibility for general oversight of the relevant federal agencies related to the handling or mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and request in-depth congressional hearings of the matter: 1) House Representatives’ James Comer (R-Ky.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and 2) Senators’ Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Finally, request your three legislative representatives at the Capitol to take two additional actions: 1) eliminate the statute of limitations for criminal charges and civil lawsuits related to child pornography, sexual assault and sex trafficking and 2) revise the Epstein Files Transparency Act so that while protecting victims’ identities is crucial, the law should prevent broad redactions that shield powerful individuals or jeopardize the public interest.


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


Read More

 Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection. Back lit

From FIFA to federal agencies, politics is reshaping institutions once guided by expertise. How Trump v. Slaughter could redefine presidential power.

Aitor Diago/Getty Images

The Politicization of Everything

A red card is supposed to be one of the few things in public life a president cannot fix.

Not anymore, apparently. During the World Cup, U.S. striker Folarin Balogun received a red card and an automatic one-game suspension. President Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who lifted the suspension. Whether the decision was right or wrong is beside the point. Another line separating politics from ordinary life had been crossed.

Keep ReadingShow less
A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.

Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images

A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade

After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.

U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less