In a moment that quickly reverberated across social media, Vice President Kamala Harris offered a defense of the continued non-disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein files that many viewers found both startling and revealing. Speaking with measured seriousness during a televised appearance, Harris argued that the Biden administration’s handling of the records demonstrated the Department of Justice’s “sacred independence” from political influence. Instead of reassurance, however, the response intensified public skepticism, reinforcing the belief that transparency had once again been sacrificed in the name of institutional protection.
The irony was difficult to miss. Harris presented the withholding of the Epstein files as evidence of professional restraint, yet the Epstein case remains one of the most corrosive symbols of public distrust in federal institutions. Its unresolved questions—elite connections, alleged sex trafficking, sealed records, and a death that still invites scrutiny—have turned it into a litmus test for accountability. For many Americans, continued secrecy does not signal caution or integrity; it suggests a bipartisan shield erected to protect powerful interests.
This reaction reflects a broader crisis of confidence that has defined the mid-2020s. Harris’s insistence on DOJ independence rang hollow to critics who see the department as anything but neutral. They point to controversial enforcement actions and prosecutorial decisions they view as politically selective, arguing that the DOJ’s restraint appears highly situational. Against that backdrop, invoking “independence” as an explanation for secrecy felt less like principle and more like deflection.
Continue reading on the next page…