Analysis Suggests Only 2% of Epstein Files May Have Been Released

An analysis by Channel 4 News has raised fresh questions about the scale of the material released in the Jeffrey Epstein investigations, suggesting that what the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has made public may represent only a small percentage of the evidence originally collected. While officials have pointed to millions of pages and hundreds of gigabytes of data as proof of transparency, internal communications reviewed by investigators indicate the true volume of seized material may be vastly larger.

The Scale of the Seizures

Federal raids on Epstein’s properties in Florida, New York, and his private island produced an enormous quantity of digital and physical evidence. Investigators reportedly removed dozens of computers, servers, hard drives, and other electronic devices, catalogued them, and transported them to FBI facilities for examination.

Emails reviewed by Channel 4 News show early internal estimates placing the data haul at 20 to 40 terabytes, with total device capacity reaching up to 50 terabytes. Even years later, long after the main investigations concluded, correspondence still referenced approximately 14.6 terabytes of archived data under government control.

In practical terms, that figure equates to nearly 15,000 gigabytes. By comparison, officials have released roughly 300 gigabytes publicly, which amounts to about 2 percent of the total data volume discussed internally.

Pages Versus Data

DOJ attorneys have stated that they reviewed millions of pages under legal requirements to identify responsive material connected to Epstein, his networks, and alleged crimes. Officials cited the identification of around six million pages, including duplicates, and the release of more than three million pages.

However, the Channel 4 findings highlight a disconnect between page counts and raw digital storage. Terabytes of video files, emails, and archived drives do not translate neatly into page figures. Meaning the publicly cited numbers may give an incomplete picture of the true scope of seized evidence. Survivors and observers argue that the released totals sound substantial, it only represent a narrow slice of what exists.

Internal Struggles and Missing Pieces

The emails also reveal internal challenges faced by investigators in handling the data. Messages describe files too large to open, archives that appeared inaccessible, and an overall lack of organization in the evidence pool. One communication compared the process to dumping the contents of 100,000 filing cabinets into a single pile, with stapled documents separated and larger files rendered unreadable.

Survivors interviewed by Channel 4 expressed frustration, stating they believe additional material remains undisclosed. Some pointed to the existence of surveillance footage allegedly recorded inside Epstein’s properties. They question why such material has not surfaced publicly. Their concerns are compounded by official statements suggesting the formal review process has concluded, even as calls for fuller disclosure persist.

Accountability and Transparency Questions

During a congressional oversight hearing on the Epstein files, officials faced questions about transparency and survivor engagement. Pam Bondi addressed the room and spoke about economic topics while survivors waited for answers about disclosure and meetings with the Department of Justice. Representative Pramila Jayapal then asked how many survivors had still not been invited to meet DOJ officials. Every person in the room raised a hand. The moment exposed a sharp divide between public messaging and personal experience.

That exchange reflects the wider tension surrounding the Epstein document releases. Authorities continue to cite millions of pages as proof of openness. Yet the public still does not know the full scale of the material investigators originally seized. Officials have not clearly explained how much data remains unreadable, inaccessible, or withheld. Large numbers alone do not create clarity without context.

For survivors, the argument is not about terabytes or page counts. It is about accountability after decades of allegations and limited criminal outcomes. Internal emails referenced massive data volumes. Public releases represent a much smaller share. This contrast continues to fuel skepticism that the full record has not surfaced. Officials say reviews are complete, but many questions remain unanswered.