House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee released a 53-page report on Monday, 26 October 2026, calling on Attorney General Todd Blanche to appoint an independent special counsel to investigate President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein and what the report describes as a Justice Department cover-up. The report, released by Ranking Member Jamie Raskin of Maryland eight days before the 3 November midterm elections, is a Democratic staff document: it was not endorsed by Republicans on the committee, and its central claims are allegations, not findings of any court. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, has never been criminally charged with a sex crime, and both the White House and the Justice Department dismissed the report within hours — the White House calling its allegations untrue and the department calling it a last-ditch effort to mislead the public. USN sets out below what the report claims, what is established fact, and what both sides say, keeping those three things separate throughout.
The report, titled “‘We Have Certain Things in Common, Jeffrey’: The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging in the Epstein Files and DOJ’s Desperate Efforts to Cover it Up,” draws on interviews conducted by committee staff, survivor accounts, FBI records and documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act — the law Congress passed and Trump signed requiring the department to publish its Epstein files. Its authors conclude that, on the evidence they assembled, Trump and Paolo Zampolli, a modelling-industry figure who until recently served as a senior administration official and diplomat, “may have been co-conspirators” in Epstein’s trafficking operation in the 1990s. That is the report’s allegation, stated by its authors. No prosecutor has brought such a charge, and the report itself acknowledges, in the assessment of independent coverage, that it contains no direct documentary evidence establishing Trump’s participation in Epstein’s crimes beyond witness accounts and the material it cites.
What the Epstein special counsel demand asks for
The demand at the heart of the report is procedural, and it is aimed at the Justice Department’s conflict of interest, as the Democrats describe it. A special counsel, under federal law, is a prosecutor appointed by the attorney general with the same power to investigate and bring charges as a United States attorney, but operating outside the department’s day-to-day supervision — though the attorney general retains some disciplinary authority. The law contemplates such an appointment where the department investigating a matter itself would present a conflict of interest or other extraordinary circumstances, and the report argues that condition is plainly met: the department is led by Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney, and the report accuses the department and the FBI of having “protected Trump” rather than pursuing Epstein’s associates. The report also notes the department’s own longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president, which Democrats argue makes an independent prosecutor the only credible route. “At a minimum,” the report states, “DOJ and FBI’s efforts to protect Trump rather than pursue justice require the appointment of an independent special counsel.”
Alongside the special counsel demand, Judiciary Democrats called for the complete release of the files they say the law requires, and for full cooperation with state and foreign prosecutors seeking evidence. Raskin put the demands together in his statement releasing the report: “The women who survived Epstein deserve to be heard, Congress must have the complete files required by law, and an independent special counsel must investigate Epstein’s co-conspirators and DOJ’s cover-up and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice.” The Democrats acknowledged, however, that the department under Blanche is unlikely to appoint such a counsel — which makes the demand, in practical terms, as much a document for the public record and the election campaign as a realistic near-term legal step.
The allegations in the report — and what is actually established
The report details accounts involving 11 women. It says five women “have directly accused Trump of raping or sexually assaulting them in Epstein’s company or direct physical presence.” The most fully described new account comes from Beatrice Keul, a former Miss Switzerland, who told committee staff that Trump violently raped her at New York’s Plaza Hotel in 1993, when she was 24. According to the report’s account of her interview, Trump approached her at a press luncheon, spoke with her for more than 15 minutes and told her he could arrange a visa, admission to New York University and travel; Epstein then introduced himself to her as “Don’s best friend”; and Trump later invited her upstairs, where, she alleges, the assault took place, tearing her dress and causing bleeding and bruising. The report also repeats the allegation, previously made to the FBI, by a woman identified as “Katie Johnson,” who alleged that Trump and Epstein repeatedly raped her at Epstein’s New York residence in 1994, when she was 13. These are allegations reported by the committee from witness accounts. They have not been tested in court, no charges arise from them, and Trump denies them.
What is established, separately, is the documented history around the two men. Trump and Epstein were known friends in the 1990s in South Florida and New York before a falling out; Epstein attended Trump’s 1993 wedding; and the president’s name appears repeatedly in the released files, which the Democrats’ report uses alongside emails, deposition transcripts, earlier statements, drawings and signatures to argue that Trump’s public accounts of the relationship do not match the documentary record. Epstein pleaded guilty to minor charges in the 2000s and registered as a sex offender; he was charged with sex trafficking in 2019 and died in jail before trial. His associate Ghislaine Maxwell is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for sex trafficking and related convictions. In a separate matter unrelated to Epstein, Trump was found liable in a New York civil trial for the sexual abuse of the writer E. Jean Carroll — a civil judgment, not a criminal conviction, and not an Epstein case. Survivors of Epstein have been touring the country in the final weeks of the campaign with a large graphic timeline of the two men’s relationship, keeping the issue in front of voters independently of the committee’s work.
The files fight: 3.5 million pages released, about 40 percent withheld
Running underneath the personal allegations is an institutional fight about the files themselves. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department has made public about 3.5 million files. It has withheld roughly 40 percent of what the government holds, according to the figures cited in coverage of the report, and the Judiciary Democrats argue that the release was incomplete and heavily redacted in ways that shielded information about Trump. Their report states that the department “has actively obstructed the Epstein investigation into any co-conspirators, attempted to prevent the release of the Epstein files, and then released an incomplete and heavily redacted set to the public — all while withholding key information about Trump in the process.” It further criticises Blanche’s two-day interview with Maxwell last year, alleging that he instructed her not to discuss a specific survivor whose account implicated Trump; Maxwell was subsequently moved to a minimum-security prison, a sequence the Democrats present as part of the pattern and the department has defended as proper.
The department rejects that characterisation outright. Spokesperson Katie Kenlein said the report “is nothing more than a last-ditch effort by House Judiciary Democrats to mislead the public,” stated that the department complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and added: “While we cannot talk about the existence of any ongoing investigations, the Trump administration is the only administration to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and make any of these documents available to the public, including the (House Judiciary) Committee.” The White House response was blunter. Spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “None of these allegations are true. This ‘report’ is nothing more than a desperate attempt by crazed Democrats to distract Americans from the surging Republican momentum driven by President Trump’s historic achievements.” Bis also said the president had kicked Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club “because he was a creep,” and that he “has been fully exonerated of anything related to Epstein” — a characterisation the Democrats dispute, noting that no investigation has issued such an exoneration. Readers should hold the two positions distinctly: the department says it complied with the disclosure law; the committee’s Democratic staff says the compliance was partial and protective. The withheld files themselves are the evidence that would settle the argument, and they remain withheld.
Why the demand is unlikely to be granted — and why it still matters
Three practical obstacles stand in front of the special counsel demand. The first is the appointer: the decision belongs to Blanche, the very official whose department the report accuses of a cover-up, and the Democrats themselves concede he is unlikely to act. The second is the department’s sitting-president policy, which the report cites as a reason for independence but which also shapes what any prosecutor could do while Trump remains in office. The third is the calendar: the report landed in the final stretch of a midterm campaign in which, according to AFP reporting, Democratic campaigns have spent more than 35 million dollars on Epstein-related advertising, and in which control of Congress — and with it, subpoena power — will be decided on 3 November. A Democratic House majority in January would not need the attorney general’s permission to investigate; it could compel testimony and documents itself. A Republican majority would almost certainly leave this report where it is. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is, separately, already running its own investigation into Epstein’s network, and the full House has held the billionaire Leon Black in contempt in that inquiry — evidence that Epstein oversight is not solely a Democratic project, even if this report is.
The significance of the 26 October report, then, is twofold. As a legal matter, it organises witness accounts, FBI records and released documents into the most comprehensive single Democratic account of the Trump-Epstein relationship to date, and formally requests the one investigative mechanism — an independent special counsel — designed for exactly the conflict-of-interest problem it describes. As a factual matter, its gravest claims rest on witness allegations that remain unproven and vigorously denied, and on files that have not been released. USN will report any decision by the attorney general on the special counsel request, any further file releases under the Transparency Act, and any court proceedings arising from the accounts in the report, with the same separation maintained here: what is alleged, what is answered, and what is established.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from USA Today, House Judiciary Committee Democrats and The Korea Times.