Social media investigators are suggesting a peculiar theory regarding why the DOJ struggled with effectively redacting details in the Epstein files.
Recently, on December 19, the Department of Justice (DOJ) made public a collection of documents linked to the late billionaire and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. This release was in compliance with the federal law requiring the disclosure under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The documents quickly gained traction on social media due to the inclusion of several prominent figures. However, the DOJ faced significant criticism online for the extensive redactions present in the released information.
As individuals examined the released files more closely, some discovered that it was possible to see through the redacted portions. Tutorials demonstrating this oversight rapidly circulated online, raising concerns about the DOJ’s error, particularly as the department had claimed the redactions were intended to safeguard victims.
One of Epstein’s survivors has publicly criticized the department for failing to correctly redact her name. Meanwhile, a theory gaining traction on social media suggests a potential reason for the redaction slip-up.
A user on X referenced a June 25 Red Line News post stating: “DOGE canceled: “$4,192,431 GSA contract (General Services Administration Contract) for ‘Adobe Acrobat’.”
incredible https://t.co/yLkGP919sh pic.twitter.com/1nIXIg6isb
— c (@_chris_is_tired) December 25, 2025
Commenters on the post mentioned an alleged discussion with a former DOJ employee who claimed the department is hesitant to provide Adobe Pro subscriptions. The premium version of Adobe Acrobat is necessary for proper redaction, according to this individual.
If this theory holds true, earlier budget cuts may have prevented those responsible for issuing the redacted documents from utilizing the required software, leading to a loophole for online investigators to unveil supposedly redacted content.
— alendrel.bsky.social (@alendrel) December 23, 2025
Other social media users shared their experiences in various industries, noting difficulties in obtaining Adobe software for redactions. One user remarked: “This was my first thought when this story broke. When I first went in-house from a law firm, I had to mount a holy war to get the company to give us all licenses for acrobat DC w/ real redacting tools. Before that, folks were just black highlighting & lettin it rip.”
Another commented: “I’ve worked in state and local government for a long time and I absolutely believe this.”
A third added: “It’s quite possible. They got rid of anything that they deemed “extra” just because.”
The Department of Justice has been contacted for comment.