BREAKING: Bill Clinton just called on Trump to release ALL the Epstein files, including documents mentioning both Trump and him. “Otherwise, confirm the suspicion that the DOJ’s actions are not about transparency, but about insinuation.”

Bill Clinton Demands Full Release of Epstein Files — And Sparks New Political Firestorm

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton has publicly pushed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and President Donald Trump to release every document connected to the federal records on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including materials that mention or depict both Clinton and Trump. Clinton’s call dramatically intensifies an already heated national debate over transparency, presidential accountability, and the public’s right to know.

Clinton’s spokesperson, Angel Ureña, said Monday that the DOJ’s partial release of Epstein-related material — including photographs and thousands of pages of documents — raises a troubling question: if there’s nothing improper to hide, why not release everything?

“The manner in which the Department of Justice has released these materials makes one thing clear: someone or something is being protected,” Ureña wrote in a statement. “We do not know whom, what, or why — but we do know this: we need no such protection.”

Clinton’s complaint specifically targets the incomplete release of documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act — a law signed by President Trump in November 2025 requiring the DOJ to make Epstein-related files public in a searchable format.

So far, the DOJ has uploaded tens of thousands of pages, but only a fraction of the estimated total documents are public. The department says it’s working through the backlog, redacting sensitive victim identities and other details.

The public disclosure of the Epstein files has already ignited fierce debate:
President Trump and Epstein were acquaintances in the 1990s and early 2000s, and documents released this month include flight records showing Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet more times than previously reported. The DOJ, however, has labeled some allegations “untrue and sensationalist,” and stressed there’s no evidence Trump knew about or participated in Epstein’s crimes.

Photos released also include Clinton in Epstein’s orbit in the 1990s, as well as images of others who had social or business contact with Epstein.

Injury to both Clinton and Trump — two of the most powerful figures in American politics — has magnified the stakes. Each claims transparency and fairness, yet both face persistent public suspicion and conspiracy theories tied to the broader Epstein case.

Clinton’s position — and that of some lawmakers and activists — rests on several arguments:
Public Trust Requires Transparency: If all files are released in full, regardless of whom they mention, it upholds democratic norms and public confidence in the justice system.

Equal Treatment: Supporters of full disclosure say selective release fuels partisan interpretations that the process protects powerful figures.
Legal Mandate: The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires comprehensive disclosure, and incomplete compliance could set a troubling precedent for future transparency laws.

Arguments Against Immediate Full Disclosure
The DOJ and some legal experts argue that:
Victim Protections Matter: Many documents contain highly sensitive information about Epstein’s victims and witnesses that cannot be made public without risking further harm.

Process Over Politics: Lawyers at the DOJ say releasing materials responsibly — even if slower than some want — is part of their duty to protect due process and privacy.
Incomplete Doesn’t Mean Secretive: Officials reject claims that missing documents are withheld to shield anyone from scrutiny, saying delays are procedural, not intentional.

Political Dynamics Intensify
As this controversy plays out:
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is preparing a resolution to pursue legal action against the DOJ for failing to comply fully with the transparency law.

Some Republican lawmakers have blasted Attorney General Pam Bondi for alleged selective redactions.

The Times
Do I Agree With Clinton?
Whether one agrees with Clinton’s call depends largely on how one balances transparency against privacy and legal caution:
✔️ In favor of full release: It would eliminate speculation about political influence, satisfy the clear letter of the law, and potentially reduce misinformation by letting the public see all the facts.
✖️ Against immediate full release: Complete openness risks exposing personal details of victims and could impede ongoing or future legal processes. Redactions and staggered releases may be prudent where sensitive content is involved.
Ultimately, full transparency is a laudable goal, but how it is achieved — responsibly, lawfully, and with respect for victims — matters profoundly. Complete disclosure without ample safeguards could do real harm even if well-intentioned.
Bottom Line: Clinton’s demand underscores a deep public desire for transparency and accountability. But ensuring justice — for victims and due process alike — may require careful handling rather than unfiltered dumping of every document. The debate over where that balance lies is likely to continue long after the files are finally published.