The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing significant scrutiny following the release of case files that contain travel records of a prominent journalist known for her work in exposing Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking crimes. Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown discovered her American Airlines flight details from July 6, 2019, were included in documents made public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This revelation has raised pressing questions regarding how her personal information ended up in federal investigative materials.
Brown’s investigative reporting has been instrumental in rekindling federal interest in Epstein’s network, which ultimately led to his re-arrest. Upon noticing her flight itinerary in the released records, Brown took to social media platform X to highlight the situation, underlining the potential implications for press freedom and privacy rights.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act was passed in November 2025 with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by President Donald Trump shortly thereafter. This legislation mandates the DOJ to release all unclassified records related to the Epstein investigation within 30 days. The Attorney General is required to disclose various investigative materials that include flight logs, travel records, and documents naming individuals associated with Epstein’s criminal dealings to ensure transparency.
As of December 19, 2025, the DOJ had complied partially by publishing an initial batch of hundreds of thousands of files. However, officials have admitted millions more pages remain under review and subject to redaction, largely to protect sensitive victim information. Early criticisms of the release pointed to extensive redactions and incomplete documents, which some argue compromise the transparency the law intended to promote.
The discovery of Brown’s travel records coincides with ongoing public discussions regarding the implications of releasing the Epstein files. The documents disclosed in December 2025 feature numerous references to notable public figures, including Donald Trump, with assertions that he flew on Epstein’s private jet multiple times during the 1990s. The DOJ clarified that such mentions do not imply criminal wrongdoing, and some items in the released cache were flagged as false or unverified, underscoring the necessity for critical examination of the materials.
Critics from both sides of the political spectrum, including Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), have expressed dissatisfaction with the DOJ’s handling of the disclosures, suggesting potential legal action against Attorney General Pam Bondi for not meeting legal deadlines.
The decision to retain and later release Brown’s travel information by the DOJ remains unclear, prompting civil liberties advocates and lawmakers to voice their concerns. The inclusion of a journalist’s data in governmental files does not inherently suggest any misconduct; however, it does raise critical questions about procedural integrity and the protection of journalists’ rights.
The implications surrounding the release of these files stretch beyond just journalistic privacy, becoming a significant point of contention in ongoing conversations about government accountability and transparency. This situation may lead to increased oversight from Congress or further judicial inquiries aimed at understanding the full scope of the DOJ’s actions. The intersection between a journalist’s investigation into one of modern history’s most notorious criminal cases and governmental practices highlights the ongoing struggle for transparency in the face of complex legal and ethical challenges.