Raskin’s Epstein Evidence-Sharing Inquiry: New Mexico, Britain and DOJ’s Response
Snapshot
| Document | Jamie Raskin’s four-page letter on DOJ cooperation with state and foreign Epstein investigations |
|---|---|
| Letter / announcement | October 21, 2026 / October 22, 2026 |
| Recipients | Attorney General Todd W. Blanche and Vaughn A. Ary, Director of DOJ’s Office of International Affairs |
| Requested records | Foreign mutual legal assistance requests and records of DOJ decisions to deny or oppose state or local investigative assistance |
| Response deadline | November 4, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The letter does not specify a time zone. |
| Central distinction | A congressional demand for information about evidence sharing, not a criminal charge, subpoena, or judicial finding |
Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has asked the Justice Department to account for its handling of requests for Epstein-related evidence from investigators outside the federal government. His October 21 letter focuses on New Mexico’s investigation of possible crimes at Zorro Ranch and British investigators examining Peter Mandelson. The committee Democrats announced the inquiry on October 22.
The letter alleges obstruction and political protection. Those are Raskin’s conclusions. What the document directly establishes is the scope of his oversight request, the records he seeks, the sources he cites, and the deadline he set.
What Raskin Asked DOJ to Produce
Page 4 contains two requests. They reach beyond the two investigations used as the letter’s principal examples.
- Foreign assistance requests: all records and correspondence concerning Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests from foreign countries seeking DOJ assistance in investigations of potential Epstein co-conspirators. Raskin also seeks records sufficient to identify the individuals or investigations involved.
- State and local assistance decisions: all records and correspondence concerning DOJ decisions to deny or oppose requests for documents, information, or other cooperation from state or local law-enforcement bodies investigating potential Epstein co-conspirators.
The first request concerns international evidence-sharing channels; the second concerns cooperation inside the United States. Neither request is limited to publicly released Epstein files. The language encompasses correspondence about requests and decisions, potentially allowing Congress to examine how the department handled them as well as what material was sought.
Raskin asks for a response by November 4 at 5:00 p.m. This is a deadline in congressional correspondence. The letter does not announce a hearing or specify sanctions for a missed response, and it is not itself a subpoena or court order. Jim Jordan, the committee’s Republican chairman, is copied on the letter; the document is signed by Raskin alone.
Why New Mexico Is Central
Raskin’s New Mexico discussion draws on the state’s August 5 federal complaint, State of New Mexico v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-02762, in the District of Columbia. The state seeks access to unredacted federal investigative material to support its investigation of potential crimes at Zorro Ranch.
The complaint alleges that federal prosecutors persuaded New Mexico to stand down in 2019 and promised later cooperation. Paragraphs 27–29 describe a July 23, 2019 call and the state’s subsequent transfer of its investigative file. Raskin cites these passages to argue that the current dispute concerns an unfulfilled undertaking, not simply a new demand for federal records.
New Mexico says it reopened its investigation in February 2026 and searched Zorro Ranch on March 9. Its official lawsuit announcement says the requested materials could help identify witnesses, corroborate evidence, and establish the scope of possible crimes. The state asks for production or, alternatively, lawful reconsideration under DOJ’s procedures.
The underlying records case is covered separately in New Mexico Sues the Justice Department Over Zorro Ranch Epstein Files. It should not be confused with New Mexico’s separate October civil-enforcement action against Epstein’s attorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn.
DOJ’s Position and the Privacy Dispute
DOJ has disputed New Mexico’s account. In an August 5 statement reported by the Associated Press, the department said federal court orders restrict disclosure of victim-identifying information and that the state had not supplied a lawful basis for the breadth of disclosure requested. It said it remained available to assist consistently with law and binding orders.
Raskin challenges a Privacy Act argument that he attributes to DOJ’s October 12 motion in the records case. His footnote 13 cites pages 17–18 of ECF 8-1 and 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7). That subsection allows certain disclosures for authorized civil or criminal law-enforcement activity when the requesting agency’s head submits a written request identifying the particular records and purpose.
The statutory exception matters, but its existence does not by itself decide whether any particular request satisfies its conditions, overrides another restriction, or requires production. Raskin’s characterization of DOJ’s argument is not a ruling on the motion. The October 12 brief is cited in the letter; this article does not independently reconstruct its complete reasoning.
There is also a practical distinction between confidential transmission to authorized investigators and unrestricted public release. Reporting on the dispute need not reproduce survivors’ identities or other protected material to explain why investigators are seeking access.
The British Investigation and Foreign Requests
The letter’s British section concerns Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States. On pages 3–4, Raskin cites Telegraph reporting from April, May, and August about British efforts to obtain Epstein-related evidence and the possible effect of delayed cooperation on the Mandelson investigation.
Raskin alleges that DOJ’s handling of the British request reflects a wish to protect President Trump politically. The letter’s allegation of motive relies on cited reporting; it is not an independently established finding about why individual assistance decisions were made.
The letter addresses Vaughn Ary in his capacity as director of DOJ’s Office of International Affairs. Its international demand asks for the record of foreign requests, including the investigations to which they relate. That is broader than asking for an update on Mandelson alone.
Readers should keep separate three questions: whether investigators requested assistance, whether DOJ supplied it, and whether any person under investigation committed an offense. Evidence of a request or a delay does not answer the third question.
How the Letter Builds Its Case
The four-page letter combines an oversight demand with a broader critique of federal handling of the Epstein investigation. Pages 1–2 discuss the July 2025 DOJ–FBI memorandum, Blanche’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, her prison transfer, congressional testimony by FBI Director Kash Patel, and investigations in other countries. Page 3 turns to the New Mexico litigation and British requests; page 4 sets out the two document demands.
These supporting references have different evidentiary roles. The DOJ–FBI memorandum records the agencies’ stated assessment. New Mexico’s complaint records the state’s allegations and requested relief. Earlier congressional letters document lawmakers’ questions and assertions. News reports supply attributed accounts of events. Their inclusion in a congressional letter does not transform each underlying claim into a judicial finding.
The new development is therefore the demand for an accountable record of intergovernmental cooperation. The letter does not disclose a newly produced set of MLAT files or identify a newly charged person.
What to Watch Next
- A DOJ response: whether Blanche or Ary answers the two requests and explains any withheld categories.
- The New Mexico litigation: whether a court rules on the records dispute or the parties agree to a lawful production process.
- Documented assistance: whether domestic or foreign authorities confirm receipt of material, rather than relying on speculation about the contents of sealed requests.
- Follow-on oversight: whether Raskin publishes correspondence, narrows the requests, or announces another formal step.
As of October 22, 2026, no response to this particular letter was located in the sources reviewed for this article. The requested deadline is not proof that DOJ has already failed to respond.
Sources
Related EpsteinWiki coverage: the New Mexico federal records lawsuit and the separate Indyke–Kahn civil-enforcement case.
- Jamie Raskin to Todd Blanche and Vaughn Ary, October 21, 2026. Four pages; requests and deadline on page 4, New Mexico and UK discussion on pages 3–4.
- House Judiciary Committee Democrats announcement, October 22, 2026. Official publication context and link to the letter.
- New Mexico’s filed complaint, August 5, 2026. No. 1:26-cv-02762, ECF 1; particularly paragraphs 3, 27–29 and 44–77.
- NMDOJ announcement of the records lawsuit.
- Associated Press report on the lawsuit and DOJ’s response, August 5, 2026.
- 5 U.S.C. § 552a, especially subsection (b)(7).
- The Washington Post, September 9, 2026.