Epstein Files Reveal State Protection of Elite Criminals

Analysis of: What else can be done to force Trump’s DoJ to release all the Epstein files? Legal experts weigh in
The Guardian | January 24, 2026

TL;DR

Trump's DOJ defies its own law to suppress Epstein files, revealing how the capitalist state protects ruling class criminals. The bipartisan failure exposes law as theater when elite interests are threatened.

The ongoing suppression of Jeffrey Epstein investigative files by Trump's Department of Justice reveals a fundamental truth about the capitalist state: it exists to protect the interests of the ruling class, even when that protection requires openly defying laws that the state itself enacted. Despite bipartisan congressional legislation mandating disclosure, despite court involvement, and despite overwhelming public demand, the files remain hidden—because their contents threaten powerful individuals across the political spectrum. This case demonstrates how the legal superstructure functions under capitalism. Laws are created, signed, and celebrated as victories for transparency and justice, yet enforcement mechanisms are deliberately omitted or rendered toothless. As attorney Mark Zaid notes, Congress 'failed to include any type of enforcement mechanism' in the legislation—a failure that appears less like oversight and more like design. The DOJ's refusal to comply exposes the contradiction at the heart of bourgeois law: it claims universal application while systematically exempting those who control the state apparatus. The victims—working-class women and girls trafficked by Epstein—continue to be retraumatized by a system that promises justice while delivering protection for their abusers. Attorney Spencer Kuvin's observation that 'transparency has never been given freely—it has always had to be dragged out through the courts' reveals the class character of information itself under capitalism. Truth becomes a commodity controlled by those with power, released only when forced by sustained struggle. The bipartisan nature of both the legislation and the obstruction demonstrates that protecting elite criminals transcends partisan theater.

Class Dynamics

Actors: Ruling class elites connected to Epstein's trafficking network, State apparatus (DOJ, federal courts, Congress), Working-class trafficking victims and survivors, Legal professionals serving different class interests, Corporate media selectively covering the story

Beneficiaries: High-profile individuals implicated in Epstein's activities, Political elites on both parties seeking to avoid exposure, The broader ruling class whose impunity is maintained, State institutions preserving legitimacy through selective enforcement

Harmed Parties: Trafficking victims denied closure and validation, Working-class families whose children were targeted, Public trust in legal institutions, Future potential victims as impunity continues

The state, theoretically a neutral arbiter, acts as the executive committee of the ruling class by protecting elite criminals from accountability. Congress creates symbolic legislation while deliberately omitting enforcement mechanisms. The DOJ openly defies law when compliance would harm ruling class interests. Victims must rely on individual litigation rather than state protection, revealing how justice under capitalism is a commodity accessible primarily to those with resources.

Material Conditions

Economic Factors: Epstein's role as financier connecting Wall Street to trafficking, Economic power enabling impunity and victim silencing, Legal industry profiting from prolonged litigation, Political economy of campaign financing and elite access

Epstein operated at the nexus of finance capital and political power, providing services—including access to trafficking victims—that reinforced ruling class social networks. The files likely reveal how economic relationships between financiers, politicians, and industrialists are maintained through shared complicity in exploitation. The trafficking itself represents an extreme form of commodification of human bodies, where working-class girls became products exchanged among elites.

Resources at Stake: Information as a form of capital protecting elite interests, Political careers dependent on non-disclosure, Institutional legitimacy of the DOJ and courts, Potential civil liability for implicated individuals, The principle of equal application of law

Historical Context

Precedents: Iran-Contra pardons protecting state criminals, CIA torture report suppression, Panama Papers revealing elite tax evasion with minimal consequences, Catholic Church abuse cover-ups spanning decades, Historical patterns of elite impunity in sexual exploitation

This case follows the established pattern of capitalist states protecting ruling class criminals while aggressively prosecuting working-class offenders. From the Gilded Age through the present neoliberal era, elite impunity has been a consistent feature of American governance. The current phase of monopoly capitalism, characterized by unprecedented wealth concentration and political capture, intensifies this pattern. The spectacle of bipartisan legislation followed by bipartisan obstruction reveals how both parties serve capital while maintaining the theater of opposition.

Contradictions

Primary: The capitalist state must maintain legitimacy through the appearance of universal law while simultaneously protecting the ruling class from accountability—a contradiction that becomes visible when elite crimes are too public to ignore entirely.

Secondary: Bipartisan cooperation on legislation versus bipartisan protection of implicated elites, DOJ as law enforcer being the target of legal non-compliance, Public demands for transparency versus elite need for secrecy, Victims seeking healing through disclosure versus perpetrators requiring concealment

Without mass mobilization, the most likely resolution is continued delay until public attention fades, followed by heavily redacted releases that protect key figures. The structural contradiction—law serving class interests—cannot be resolved within the capitalist framework. However, sustained pressure could force partial disclosures that further delegitimize state institutions, potentially contributing to broader consciousness about the class character of law.

Global Interconnections

The Epstein case connects to global patterns of elite impunity that characterize late capitalism. Epstein's network spanned multiple countries and included royalty, tech billionaires, and political leaders from various nations—revealing how the ruling class operates as an international formation with shared interests in mutual protection. The trafficking itself followed colonial patterns, with victims largely drawn from vulnerable working-class backgrounds while perpetrators enjoyed the protections of wealth and citizenship in imperial core nations. This case also illuminates the function of corporate media under capitalism. Coverage oscillates between sensationalism and silence, never sustained enough to force meaningful accountability but sufficient to commodify public outrage. The Guardian's framing—focusing on procedural legal questions rather than class analysis—exemplifies how even ostensibly progressive media naturalizes the boundaries of acceptable discourse, treating elite impunity as a technical problem rather than a systemic feature.

Conclusion

The Epstein files saga demonstrates that legal reform cannot fundamentally alter the class character of the capitalist state. Laws are only as meaningful as their enforcement, and enforcement serves class interests. For working-class people, this case offers a clear lesson: justice under capitalism is a weapon used against us and a shield protecting our exploiters. Real accountability requires building power outside legal channels—through organized labor, community defense, and ultimately the transformation of the state itself from an instrument of class rule into an organ of genuine popular power. The survivors' continued struggle, despite repeated betrayals, points toward the necessity of this broader transformation.

Suggested Reading

• The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the state as an instrument of class rule directly explains why the DOJ protects elite criminals—the state cannot be neutral when its function is managing class antagonisms in favor of the ruling class.
• Prison Notebooks (Selections) by Antonio Gramsci (1935) Gramsci's concept of hegemony illuminates how legal institutions maintain ruling class dominance through both coercion and consent, explaining the theatrical nature of legislation without enforcement.
• Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (1997) Parenti's accessible analysis of how capitalist democracies function to protect elite interests while maintaining democratic appearances directly applies to understanding bipartisan protection of implicated elites.
• Women, Race & Class by Angela Davis (1981) Davis's intersectional analysis of how race, class, and gender shape exploitation helps explain why working-class girls were targeted as victims while elite perpetrators remain protected.