Could Trump destroy the Epstein files?

WASHINGTON— Donald Trump, who is in political exile at his mansion in Florida and is under investigation for having highly classified documents, called his lawyer for an important speech in 2022. A folder had been compiled containing 38 documents that had to be returned to the federal government. But Trump had other ideas.

Making a breakout move, Trump suggested his lawyer Evan Corcoran remove the most incriminating material. “Why don’t you take them with you and take them to your hotel room, and if there’s something really bad in there, you know, take it out,” Corcoran recalled in a series of notes unsealed during the criminal trial.

Trump’s alleged willingness as a private citizen to conceal evidence from law enforcement is raising concerns on Capitol Hill that efforts to block the release of Justice Department files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation could lead to similar obstructive efforts, this time using the powers of the presidency.

Since taking office in January, Trump has opposed the release of federal investigative files into the conduct of his former friend, an alleged sex offender and sex trafficker believed to have molested more than 200 women and girls. But bipartisan enthusiasm grew with the case; MPs from different parties are expected to unite behind a bill on Tuesday that would require the release of the documents.

Last week, facing mounting public pressure, the House Oversight Committee released more than 20,000 files from Epstein’s estate that referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

These files, which included emails sent by Epstein himself, showed that the notorious financier believed he had intimate knowledge of Trump’s criminal behavior. “He knew girls,” Epstein wrote, referring to Trump as a “dog that didn’t bark.”

Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), a member of the oversight committee, noted that Trump could order the release of Justice Department files without any action from Congress.

“The fact that he has not done so, combined with his long and well-documented history of lying and obstructing justice, raises serious concerns that he is still trying to stop this investigation,” Min said in an interview, “either by trying to persuade Senate Republicans to vote against release or through other mechanisms.”

A spokesman for Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said altering or destroying portions of the Epstein files “would violate a wide range of federal laws.”

“The Senator is absolutely concerned that Donald Trump, who is being investigated and charged with obstruction, will continue to stonewall the U.S. government to prevent the full release of all documents and information in its possession, even if the legislation is passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,” the spokesman said.

After the bill titled was voted in the Parliament Epstein Files Transparency ActThe measure would need bipartisan support in the Senate to pass. Trump will then need to sign it into law.

Trump encouraged House Republicans to support it over the weekend after enough GOP lawmakers broke ranks last week to force the vote, overriding the House speaker’s opposition. Still, it is not clear whether the president will support the measure when it comes to the table.

On Monday, Trump said he would sign the bill if it passes. “Let the Senate look at it,” he told reporters.

The bill prohibits the attorney general, Pam Bondi, from preventing, delaying, or redacting the release of “any record, document, communication, or investigative material, including that of any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary, on the basis of embarrassment, disrepute, or political sensitivity.”

But the bill’s caveats could give Trump and Bondi loopholes to keep records about the president secret.

“It is far from certain that a vote to disclose the ‘Epstein files’ would include documents belonging to Donald Trump, since the DOJ possesses and controls these files,” said Barbara McQuade, who served as the United States attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 to 2017, when Trump demanded multiple resignations from U.S. attorneys.

Last spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to work with hundreds of agents to comb through all the files in the investigation and instructed them to redact references to Trump, citing Trump’s status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the investigation was first launched in 2006. Bloomberg reported In that case.

“It would be inappropriate for Trump to order the destruction of documents, but Bondi could redact or remove some in the name of grand jury secrecy or privacy laws,” McQuade added. “As long as there is a criminal investigation pending, I think it could either block the disclosure of the entire dossier or prevent the disclosure of people who have not been charged, including Trump.”

Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, professor emeritus at the University of Edinburgh and FBI historian, said destroying the documents would be a longer task and would “require a loyal secretary or equivalent.”

Jeffreys-Jones recalled that J. Edgar Hoover’s assistant, Helen Gandy, spent weeks at her home destroying the famed FBI director’s personal file on the dirty secrets of America’s rich and powerful.

Scientists say that would be illegal, pointing to the Federal Records Act, which prohibits anyone, including presidents, from destroying government documents.

After President Nixon attempted to assert executive authority over the collection of incriminating tapes that would eventually end his presidency, Congress passed the Presidential Records and Materials Protection Act, asserting that government documents and presidential records were federal property. Courts have repeatedly upheld the law.

Although presidents are immune from prosecution for their official conduct, ordering the destruction of documents resulting from a criminal investigation would not fall within the scope of a president’s duties, legal experts said, adding that Trump would face obstruction of justice charges if he did so.

“Many federal laws prohibit anyone, including the President or those around him, from destroying or altering materials contained in the Epstein files, including various federal record-keeping laws and criminal statutes. But that doesn’t mean Trump or his cronies won’t consider trying,” said Norm Eisen, who served as President Obama’s chief ethics attorney and counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

The Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit co-founded by Eisen, has sued the Trump administration for all Trump-related records from the Epstein investigation, warning that “court oversight is necessary” to ensure Trump does not try to circumvent a legal order to release those records.

“Perhaps the biggest danger is not altering documents but accidentally hiding them or producing and editing them,” Eisen added. “These are both issues we can address in our case and are issues where court review may be valuable.”

Jeffreys-Jones also said Trump may attempt to make corrections based on national security claims. But “this may not be convincing for two reasons,” he said.

“Trump was not yet president at the time,” he said, “and if the corrections had not worked in the case of President Clinton, it would have raised additional questions.”

Last week, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to Democrats such as Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn and a major Democratic donor.

He made no request for the department to similarly investigate Republicans.

Times writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.