Julie K. Brown Blows Epstein Case Wide Open as DOJ Accused of Hiding Trump Links

The Epstein scandal has exploded back into public view, and this time the blast radius is wider than ever. Julie K. Brown, the journalist whose reporting helped bring Jeffrey Epstein back into the justice system, says recent Justice Department file releases are not clearing the air but muddying it.

How Julie K. Brown Reopened A Buried Case

Julie K. Brown first pulled Epstein back into the spotlight with her 'Perversion of Justice' series for the Miami Herald. Speaking on The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller, she explained that her work began almost accidentally, when Epstein's name resurfaced during Trump's first presidential run.

Brown recalled thinking, 'Whatever happened to this guy, and how did he get away with it?' Instead of relying on past coverage, she went back to original police files and court records. What she found, she said, was not a lack of evidence but a failure to act on it.

Her reporting triggered renewed federal interest. Internal DOJ emails later showed prosecutors reopening the case after linking directly to her articles. Epstein was arrested again in 2019, a decade after receiving a widely criticised plea deal. Brown's work reshaped the narrative from isolated misconduct to systemic failure.

Why The New Epstein Files Have Caused Outrage

The latest controversy centres on thousands of documents released by the DOJ over the holidays. Brown described the release as chaotic and careless rather than clarifying.

On the podcast, she said, 'They are throwing everything into a salad bowl and dumping it online.' Key records appear without context, while other documents are heavily redacted in ways that make patterns hard to follow.

One example involved a flight record that included Brown's own name. She explained it was an itinerary she booked for a victim she planned to interview, not evidence of personal involvement. Yet the document was published with her name exposed and little explanation.

Brown warned that this approach distracts the public. Instead of focusing on how Epstein secured such favourable treatment, attention is pulled towards isolated details that generate noise rather than understanding.

Trump-Linked Redactions Raise Suspicions

Among the most serious allegations is that the redactions appear unusually favourable to Donald Trump. Brown noted that photographs and names connected to Trump were obscured in some files, even when his identity could be easily inferred elsewhere.

She said, 'If I am struggling to understand these files, the public has no chance.' Brown believes the lack of clarity is not accidental. In her view, transparency would mean releasing documents in full sets, with explanations that allow the public to see how decisions were made.

The files also reignited debate about Epstein's wider network. Survivors, Brown said, have privately named numerous men they believe were involved. Yet few names have been formally acknowledged.

Fear plays a role. Brown explained that many victims do not trust the government to protect them. Epstein escaped accountability once before, and many believe powerful figures continue to be shielded.

A Rolling Cover-Up

Brown described the situation as an ongoing cover-up rather than a single failure. She pointed to confusing timelines, inconsistent explanations and selective denials from authorities.

On The Bulwark Podcast, she said, 'One way to be transparent is to actually explain what you are releasing and why. They are not doing that.'

The case of Ghislaine Maxwell adds to the unease. Brown questioned why Maxwell was moved to a more comfortable prison without explanation, and why officials were slow to justify the decision. She suggested Maxwell remains central to understanding Epstein's network and may hold information others want suppressed.

At its core, Brown argues the Epstein case is not about party politics but power. Sexual abuse, she said, crosses ideological lines, and accountability should too.

Her warning is simple but unsettling. Without a clear and honest reckoning, the public may never fully understand who was protected, who failed, and why justice was delayed for so long. In reopening the case once again, Julie K. Brown has not just revived old questions but exposed how many remain unanswered.