PART II: When Transparency Hurts — Balancing Truth and Survivor Safety
By Maggie Bego, Director of Education, Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center
The decision to keep portions of the Epstein files sealed was deeply disappointing for survivors and for the public seeking accountability. The need for transparency is urgent, yet releasing every file and every name is not a simple solution. In some cases, indiscriminate disclosure could cause real harm.
At the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center, justice is defined not only by truth and accountability but also by safety, dignity, and healing. The broad release of sensitive information risks retraumatizing survivors who did not choose to be identified. Their most painful experiences could be exposed without consent, leaving them vulnerable to public scrutiny or harassment.
Legal and ethical concerns further complicate the issue. As Lawfare noted, “No amount of disclosure will tamp down the conspiracy theories. Its appetite is totally unquenchable.” The article also cautioned that “every case is unique, and we have rules so that we don’t do things differently when we really want to make a loud statement.” Not all individuals named in investigative files are guilty of wrongdoing; some may be witnesses, bystanders, or individuals questioned and cleared. Releasing all names without context risks damaging reputations and spreading misinformation.
There are also legal protections, including federal grand jury secrecy rules, that exist to safeguard privacy, due process, and the integrity of investigations. These protections are essential to ensure accountability is pursued fairly, rather than through indiscriminate exposure.
Survivor advocates echo the importance of balancing transparency with safety. Elizabeth Smith, in a Northeastern University article, emphasized that survivors “deserve to have their stories told on their terms, not exposed indiscriminately.” Trauma-informed practices must guide decisions about public disclosure, ensuring survivors retain agency and protection throughout the process.
Some argue that full disclosure is the only way to restore trust and counter conspiracy theories. Yet history shows that partial or redacted releases often intensify speculation rather than resolve it. Transparency must be thoughtful and survivor-informed. It should focus on releasing relevant findings in a manner that holds systems accountable without inflicting new harm.
In cases like this, justice requires more than the release of names. It means:
Independent investigations that prioritize survivors’ voices and choices.
Transparent findings presented with care and respect.
A cultural shift that challenges the silence and power structures enabling abuse.
Accountability that centers healing rather than exposure alone.
Justice must be both honest and humane, revealing truth while protecting those most affected. At the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center, the commitment remains to advocate for a system that balances transparency with safety. Survivors deserve nothing less.
Sources: