Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by The Collegian or its editorial board. Guest columns reflect the view of a member of the campus community and are submitted to the publication for approval.
Transparency was the goal. Protection was the promise. For some survivors in the Jeffery Epstein document release, those commitments collided.
When the Justice Department published millions of pages under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the intention was clear: make government records public, allow people to evaluate government action and seek justice for the survivors.
However, almost immediately, reports flooded in that names, personal information and nude images had appeared without full redaction.
According to AP News, some survivors said their lives were “turned upside down.” One woman reported receiving death threats after numerous documents exposed her financial information, forcing her to shut down banking accounts. The Wall Street Journal later reported that 43 of the 47 survivor names were exposed, noting that the redactions were “unusual.”
Some of the 43 survivors had their names appear more than 100 times, including in an email titled Epstein Victim List. The original email document contained 32 survivor names with only one redacted. It has since been fixed.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche addressed these concerns by clarifying that every document with failed redactions was promptly removed and corrected, adding that such failures account for a small fraction of the 3.5 million total files.
Nonetheless, for the doxed survivors, the damage has already been done.
The World Health Organization defines sexual exploitation as abusing power, vulnerability or trust for sexual purposes and profit. At its core, it works by stripping away agency. For many survivors of sexual exploitation, the deepest injury is not only what happened, but it’s the moment control was taken away. Someone else decided what would be done, what would be believed and what would be shared. Recovery can mean reclaiming ownership over those choices.
This is why agency over anonymity is not just a side issue — it’s a crucial aspect of trauma recovery.
“Having agency, choice, freedom and trust in our decisions, … trauma or not, is important for us to feel that we’re not helpless,” said Sara Garvey, an instructor in Colorado State University’s psychology department.
Garvey also said that when people believe nothing they do has power, it creates what psychologists call learned helplessness.
Giving someone a choice can interrupt that cycle.
When anonymity is promised but not delivered, survivors can experience something chillingly familiar to the original harm: Someone else decides what happens to their story. And although moments of acknowledgement from government institutions can reinforce survivors’ sense of agency and control, their reticence can do the opposite.
At a Feb. 11 House Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked whether she would acknowledge and apologize to the survivors whose information had appeared. She turned instead to the department’s procedures and the scale of the review. No direct apology was offered. Bondi later called the hearing “theatrics.”
For many advocates and researchers, moments like this fit into a long-recognized pattern of how institutions respond to survivors. Scholars have documented how institutional reactions can intensify harm rather than repair it. Research shows that when women report abuse, they are frequently met with experiential discounts, credibility challenges and minimization of their experiences. This response can be so destabilizing that survivors may begin to question their own perceptions. As disbelief spreads, many withdraw from receiving help, and others watching may conclude that coming forward is unsafe. The result is a powerful barrier to healing, protection and justice.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act recognized this. The statute provided clear and strict guidelines for properly redacting files, as well as requiring broad disclosure, and explicitly demanded the protection of victim-related information and sexually explicit material. Transparency and safety were meant to co-exist.
Instead, the public conversation has gravitated toward political blame, liability and the high-profile figures listed in the documents. Speculation about investigations and consequences dominates headlines. Lost in that shift were those whose identities were exposed.
For survivors, the system meant to deliver justice quickly became another source of fear.
If institutions want people to report abuse, cooperate with investigations and trust legal outcomes, they must demonstrate that safety is their top priority. Otherwise, future survivors may look at what happened and decide that silence is the safest option.
Justice is not simply about what becomes public; it’s also about ensuring that those at the center of the case are protected from further harm.
Institutions created “for the people” cannot claim to pursue justice for survivors while acting in ways that strip them of agency, safety and privacy.
Moving forward, the Department of Justice must adopt stricter survivor-centered review processes, consult directly with advocates and ensure protections are in place before information becomes public. Lawmakers responsible for oversight should also examine how these failures occurred and require safeguards so that survivors are not put at risk again.
Lauren Jones, Colorado State University student and Ramspondents reporter
