Institute for Primary Facts Launches Controversial Epstein Files Reading Room

The Institute for Primary Facts opened a “reading room” displaying the Department of Justice’s release of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files. The exhibit features bound volumes, 1,400 battery-powered candles, and a staged backdrop.

The Guardian

In February 2026 NPR reported that the DOJ’s 3.5 million-page release omitted 2019 FBI interview transcripts in which a woman alleged abuse by Epstein and former President Donald Trump. Justice Department gave no explanation, despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s disclosure requirement. The story faded after Trump’s February 28 launch of a war against Iran.

The Guardian

Garrett, a wine entrepreneur, wrote the first check and leads the Institute. The board includes Democratic strategist Jenna Lowenstein and Mary Corcoran, co-founder of an anti-Trump PAC. Investigative journalist Emma Best, co-founder of Distributed Denial of Secrets, and volunteers behind JMail.world and EpsteinExposed have criticized the exhibit. Former Republican George Conway attended the opening.

The Guardian

The reading room holds 3.5 million files in 5-lb bound volumes, lit by 1,400 candles. Organizers cite a “low six-figure” budget, which critics say could have funded archivists. The DOJ still withholds 2.5 million pages of Epstein documents.

The Guardian

Garrett told the Guardian his motive is “concern with what we consider to be the erosion of democracy” and insists the exhibit is non-partisan. He added that if Trump obeyed the rule of law he would not be involved. The DOJ declined comment on the missing transcripts, and Trump issued blanket denials of any wrongdoing.

The Guardian

Emma Best called the bound format “foolish” and said it makes the files “less readable and much harder to update.” She argued that six-figure funding would have supported research to identify individuals. Volunteers have rebuilt the email archive into searchable formats, underscoring the exhibit’s limited utility.

The Guardian

The DOJ has not explained why the 2019 FBI interview pages were omitted, creating a gap in the public record. The institute’s funding sources remain opaque, as its public filings disclose little about donors.

The Guardian

• “The fact that the files are bound especially seems foolish,” — Emma Best, investigative journalist

The Guardian

• “Six figures would pay for a lot of research which could be used to identify people in the files and contextualize their presence,” — Emma Best

The Guardian

• “It could be that Donald Trump has never done anything wrong in his life, but just the mere fact that he’s interfering in and impeding the investigation … that’s the kind of corruption that can ruin a democracy.” — Garrett, founder, Institute for Primary Facts

The Guardian

• “For me, the purpose of this is attention,” — Garrett

The Guardian

The reading room stays open as the 2026 midterms approach, with Democrats hoping the exhibit shapes public views of Trump’s alleged interference. Advocacy groups plan further digitization of withheld documents, while calls for DOJ transparency grow.

The Guardian