US President Donald Trump has signed into law a directive that the Department of Justice (DOJ) release the full files from its investigation into convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his longtime confidante Ghislaine Maxwell.
On our live blog of the bill's passage through Congress, we received a lot of questions about whether what does eventually come out can be trusted.
"How can anyone be sure that [the Epstein files] haven't been edited or tampered with before release?" — Dianne
"Are there measures in place that ensure the integrity of the original source material? What guarantees are there that any incriminating documents haven't been tampered with or destroyed already?" — Mark
"If Trump signs the bill, could the files still be heavily redacted or delayed?" — Brittany
Here's a look at what the directive has ordered, and how it could be enforced.
First, catch me up
Both chambers of Congress — the House of Representatives and the Senate — almost unanimously passed a bill that would force the DOJ to release its files on Tuesday, local time.
Republican Representative Clay Higgins was the only one to vote against the bill.
The president signed the bill into law on Wednesday, local time, triggering a 30-day timer for the DOJ to release its files.
Those records total around 100,000 pages, according to a federal judge who has reviewed the case.
Will we get absolutely everything?
No.
The bill stipulated that the identifying details of victims and information about ongoing investigations should be redacted.
But the department would not be allowed to exclude information to avoid "embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity".
The bill also requires the DOJ to produce reports on what materials it withheld, as well as redactions made, within 15 days of the release of the files.
The clause permitting redactions was one of the reasons Mr Higgins offered for voting against the bill — he felt it didn't go far enough to protect victims' identities and would "absolutely result in innocent people being hurt".
That was a criticism several of his GOP colleagues made before they ultimately supported the bill.
There's also the matter of Mr Trump recently ordering a federal prosecutor to investigate political foes linked to Epstein — including former president Bill Clinton and former Treasury secretary Larry Summers — days before Congress voted on the bill to release files.
Those ongoing investigations could tie up chunks of documents for some time.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Attorney-General Pam Bondi was not drawn to comment on whether this would be the case.
However, the directive specifies "such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary", so they’ll need to be brought to light at some point.
Ms Bondi repeatedly said the department would "continue to follow the law with maximum transparency".
How would the transparency requirements be enforced?
There are a few bodies that could step in to oversee the release of the DOJ's Epstein files.
Ensuring all required documents are released would first fall to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
The bipartisan panel of politicians is the main investigative authority of the House of Representatives.
It has broad powers to investigate government operations through hearings and the subpoenaing witnesses and documents from government departments, including the DOJ and FBI.
The oversight committee has previously investigated government dealings, including the government's suppression of data on climate change in the early 2000s and its role in triggering the 2008 global financial crisis.
Harry Melkonian, an honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre, said the committee would likely be motivated to be very active in overseeing the release of DOJ files.
"They're all elected politicians and they are all up for re-election next year — every single one," he said.
"It doesn't matter where they're from, what their party is — they don't want to be seen as obstructing this investigation."
The fight over the Epstein files has taken a toll on Mr Trump's public approval, which fell to its lowest point this year, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll concluded on Monday.
It found just 44 per cent of Republicans thought the president was handling the situation well.
Another 60 per cent of Americans believed the government was hiding information about Epstein's death and 70 per cent believed it was doing so for people involved in his sex crimes.
The majority of Republicans shared those suspicions.
"It's so uniting an issue, I don't think there's anyone on the side that it shouldn't be brought to light," Dr Melkonian said.
If documents are released with heavy redactions, they could become the subject of court challenges.
"It would have to be justified by the government," Dr Melkonian said, adding that a judge could request to see the original document privately to make a determination.
He said the DOJ would be required to identify any documents withheld from release, making it possible for people to make legal challenges even about documents they don't have access to.
Are the investigations Trump called for likely to result in arrests?
It's difficult to say.
A DOJ memo in July said authorities had no evidence "that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties".
Ms Bondi said on Wednesday the investigations were prompted by "new information", though she would not elaborate on what that might have been.
Some pundits, as well as former Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene, have suggested the investigations were merely a ploy to withhold key documents from the public.
"Will the Department of Justice release the files, or will it all remain tied up in investigations?" she asked on Tuesday.
Still, Republican representative Tom Massie, who co-sponsored the bill, said "there's no way they can have enough investigations to cover" all of the people he believes are implicated in Epstein's abuse.
"And if they do, then good," he added.
Could a client list be released?
It's unclear whether a list of Epstein's clients even exists.
In July, the DOJ said the financier never maintained a list of his clients, and that it therefore did not have such a document.
But not everyone believes that.
Democrats have pointed to comments made by Ms Bondi in February, when she appeared to confirm a client list was among documents on her desk.
The attorney-general has since said she meant the entire Epstein file, not a client list.
This confusion became the centre of a political tussle between Ms Bondi and FBI deputy Dan Bongino in July.
ABC/AP/Reuters
