Alan Dershowitz—long a lightning rod in debates over due process and free speech—warned that the current rush to judgment around the Epstein files resembles a modern-day McCarthyism, where accusation substitutes for evidence and reputations are shredded in public. His insistence that courts must release materials with appropriate redactions stems from a belief that secretive suppression breeds rumor and injustice, not clarity. It is a warning conservatives should heed: transparency must not become a vehicle for character assassination.
Dershowitz has repeatedly pushed back on the idea that there exists some neat “client list” compiled by Epstein naming powerful figures as co-conspirators, arguing instead that what exists are interview notes, flight logs, and court redactions that judges placed for victim privacy. He argued that selective leaks and mysterious redactions create the appearance of a cover-up and that a full, responsibly redacted release would allow the public to separate truth from political theater. Whether one trusts his motives or not, his core legal point—that disclosure with protections is the path to credibility—is hard to dismiss.
The Department of Justice did release a so-called “Phase 1” batch of Epstein materials on February 27, 2025, but the roll-out disappointed many who had been promised bombshells; the released binders largely rehashed flight logs, previously known documents, and heavily redacted lists. Reporters and independent analysts noted that much of the content had already leaked into the public domain, and the initial reveal failed to live up to the sky-high expectations stoked by political actors. The result was predictable: a public hungry for answers was handed a stack of redactions and left angrier, not wiser.
Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly accused the FBI’s New York office of sitting on “thousands of pages” of material and demanded those materials be delivered for review and appropriate declassification. The tension between the Justice Department and field offices, and the back-and-forth over what should be public, has made this a fight over jurisdiction as much as transparency, feeding the narrative that powerful institutions are protecting elites at the expense of truth. If the DOJ is sincere about transparency, it will follow through without spectacle and with adequate protections for victims.
Conservative influencers who were invited to preview the Phase 1 binders expressed frustration when the promised revelations failed to materialize, underscoring a broader problem: political hype has raced ahead of sober legal process. That hype does a disservice to victims and the public alike by encouraging conspiratorial thinking when the sober path should be careful, evidence-based disclosure and prosecution where warranted. The administration’s theatrical handing out of documents at the White House only amplified the feeling that this was more political show than genuine accountability.
This episode exposes two critical lessons for conservatives who care about both justice and liberty: first, never surrender the presumption of innocence by treating unproven allegations as verdicts; second, demand real transparency from institutions that have long shielded elites. Dershowitz’s broader point—that a climate of fear and public shaming can chill legal defense and honest inquiry—resonates with anyone who believes in due process, even while victims must be heard and protected. The right response is not partisan grandstanding but principled insistence on full, vetted disclosure that protects victims’ privacy while exposing any genuine criminal networks.
If Americans want answers, they should press the courts and the DOJ to finish what they began: unseal responsibly, release the material that can be released, and let evidence, not innuendo, guide accountability. Political opportunists on both sides will try to weaponize whatever comes out; conservatives should refuse that temptation and insist on the rule of law. Only then can the country move beyond rumor and toward real justice and healing.
