Donald Trump signed the Epstein files bill. Will he actually release them all?

Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN

Both chambers of Congress passed legislation this week forcing the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, after President Donald Trump capitulated and blessed the bill. Trump said Wednesday night he had signed it.

Now the question has quickly become: Will the Trump administration actually release everything the Justice Department has? Plenty of supporters of the legislation, including Republicans, have been quick to caution that this isn't the end of the matter - that the White House might still have ways to get around that.

"The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files?" Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said Tuesday. "Or will it all remain tied up in investigations?"

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky - the co-sponsor of the effort in the House to force a vote on the issue - has warned of a "last-ditch effort" by the administration to block the release of the files.

These lawmakers have good reason to worry, based on the administration's actions and comments. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday declined to provide assurances beyond saying the administration would "follow the law."

But it's also difficult to see how the administration could not follow through with releasing the files - at least without risking yet another major political fiasco.

The administration's suspicious moves

First, some background. There is a clear path for the administration to try and hold some documents back.

It goes like this:

• The Epstein files bill allows the Justice Department to withhold information if it "would jeopardize an active federal investigation."
• On Wednesday of last week, it became clear the bill would pass.
• On Friday, Trump directed Bondi to investigate several prominent people whose names had turned up in recently released communications from Epstein's estate.
• Bondi quickly agreed to investigate, thereby creating new "active federal investigations."'
• Bondi launched these investigations despite the FBI having said back in July that it had conducted an "exhaustive" review and that it "did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties."
• That's a very convenient progression of events if your goal is to try and withhold documents.

Suddenly an investigation that was completely exhausted and needed to be closed has some supposedly juicy new leads that are worth pursuing. And this happens right at the time when Trump needs just such a pretext to keep avoiding full disclosure.

There are certainly other reasons for Trump to want those investigations - including making it look like it's other people (ones often associated with Democrats) who have Epstein problems, and not him. (Neither Trump nor the people he asked to be investigated have been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.)

The administration has played games on this before

There are other reasons to be suspicious about how the administration might handle this.

For one, it's already been shown to be playing games on Epstein disclosures.

When the situation first blew up in its face in July, the administration's first big effort to quell the backlash was to push for judges to release grand jury materials. But as plenty of experts quickly noted, that was unlikely to actually shed much light for a host of reasons.

Sure enough, it did not shed much light. But not only that; two judges suggested the administration was proactively creating a "diversion." One said the move appeared "aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such."

Both noted the government had much more extensive information at its fingertips that it could release whenever it wanted to.

Given this, it wouldn't seem ridiculous to ask whether the administration might play games with whatever discretion it has - say, by releasing information that's politically advantageous but withholding other information using the available justifications.

Why Trump and Co have said they didn't want full disclosure

And then there are the many things Trump and top officials have said warning about the dangers of full disclosure.

Trump has repeatedly cited the need to protect "innocent" people - not just victims, but also people whose names turn up in the documents who did nothing wrong. Just corresponding with Epstein, for example, would not be a crime.

"You got a lot of people that could be mentioned in those files that don't deserve to be," Trump said in August, "because (Epstein) knew everybody in Palm Beach."

The FBI's July memo that announced it wouldn't be releasing any new documents cited a desire "to protect victims" and "not expose any additional third-parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing."

FBI Director Kash Patel in September testimony to Congress and elsewhere has suggested that part of the reason the administration has resisted full disclosure was to guard against releasing pornography. He also suggested that releasing more information could violate court orders.

"I'm not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity," Patel told a House Democrat.

And House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday argued that the Epstein bill could hurt people whose "names may be in these files, and they had nothing to do with this." The Louisiana Republican also made an impassioned case that the bill did not adequately prevent the release of child sexual abuse material, despite a clause intended to do that.

Johnson ultimately voted for the bill, saying he hoped the Senate would amend it. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune apparently didn't share his concerns, allowing the bill to pass by unanimous consent without amendment.

Given all of this - and given Trump's clear reluctance for months to grant such disclosure, right up until the moment the battle appeared lost - you could see how the administration might want to at least preserve its options.

Trump said Sunday that Congress "can have whatever they are legally entitled to," but the phrase "legally entitled to" certainly looms large, for the reasons mentioned above.

But not releasing would be a huge risk

Even if the administration is reserving its options or intends to withhold significant documents, it's hard to see how doing that could pass muster politically.

For one, the legislation requires the withholding of documents related to active investigations to be "narrowly tailored and temporary." Trump has more than three years remaining in his presidency; it's difficult to see the administration withholding significant information for that long citing active investigations.

For another, anything that's redacted or withheld must include a written justification, and the administration must notify Congress about these categories of documents within 15 days. The legislation also requires the administration to give Congress an unredacted "list of all government officials and politically exposed persons" included in the materials.

In other words, it could be pretty easy to piece together if the administration is hiding extensive amounts of information. What's more, attempting to do that could risk an even bigger backlash than the administration has already seen, from even its own base.

That doesn't mean the administration wouldn't attempt to withhold documents. Its handling of this matter has been baffling throughout.

But if it did, that would be among the most desperate and politically risky things the administration has done - and at a time when it can't really keep taking such hits.

- CNN