Lead
On Feb. 26, 2026, newly posted court records tied to Jeffrey Epstein revealed internal notations that identified seven detainees with the phrase “proffer at 500,” signaling they had met or sought to meet with prosecutors at the federal courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan. At least three of the seven were later confirmed to have cooperated with federal investigators, according to reporting that prompted the Justice Department to remove and then re-post the files with redactions. The initial public release came amid an expedited effort to make millions of pages in the Epstein files available, and the disclosure raised immediate safety, legal and policy concerns. Officials say some redactions were later added, but the episode illustrates tensions between transparency and protecting sensitive information.
Key Takeaways
- Seven detainees were marked with the notation “proffer at 500” on two 2019 internal documents released in the Epstein files; at least three were later confirmed to have cooperated with prosecutors.
- The documents were made public on Feb. 26, 2026, as part of a rapid disclosure of millions of pages tied to the Epstein investigation and related proceedings.
- The records listed names of people then held at the Manhattan jail where Epstein awaited trial, raising safety concerns for those individuals.
- After The New York Times notified the Justice Department that some named individuals had cooperated, officials temporarily removed the files and restored them with the cooperative names and notations redacted.
- A Justice Department spokeswoman told reporters that the shorthand “proffer” “did not necessarily mean cooperator,” a statement the department used to justify the initial posting.
- Legal and security experts warned that revealing cooperation status can endanger witnesses and deter future cooperation, potentially hindering complex criminal investigations.
Background
The Epstein litigation produced an unusually large trove of records over many years, spanning civil suits, state and federal inquiries, plea negotiations and victim claims. In early 2026, courts and the government accelerated the release of these files to satisfy growing public and journalistic demand, producing an online archive that contained millions of pages. Historically, prosecutors and courts routinely redact names and notations that would disclose witness status or cooperation to protect safety and investigative integrity. The sudden scale and speed of the Epstein file disclosures created pressure on redaction workflows and led to several high-profile oversights.
Proffer sessions—proceedings in which a suspect speaks to prosecutors under limited protections—are commonly used in federal practice to evaluate potential cooperation or to elicit information. The notation “proffer at 500” refers to such sessions at 500 Pearl Street, home to the Southern District of New York. When notation of cooperation or potential cooperation appears in public records, it can carry practical repercussions: corrections of records after release do not erase the initial publication and the information may already have been copied or shared. Stakeholders in this case include federal prosecutors, defense counsel, detainees at Manhattan Correctional Center, victims’ advocates and press organizations pushing for transparency.
Main Event
The two 2019 documents in question contained internal lists that paired detainee names with short phrases used by prosecutors and staff. Among those phrases was “proffer at 500,” which indicated that the individuals had taken part in, or were scheduled for, proffer meetings. At least three people whose names appeared with that notation later engaged in cooperation with the government, according to reporting that verified their participation. The named detainees were being held at the Manhattan jail where Jeffrey Epstein had been in custody while awaiting federal charges; the files therefore linked detention status and potential cooperation in a way that safety experts found troubling.
When notified about the inclusion of the names, Justice Department officials initially maintained the documents on the public database and said the shorthand did not necessarily equal a cooperating witness designation. Following confirmation from a news organization that multiple people listed had indeed cooperated, the department briefly removed the files and then re-uploaded them with targeted redactions removing the names and notations linked to cooperation. The department has not characterized the lapse as intentional and said it would review release procedures in light of the error.
The episode unfolded against an unusually publicized effort to make Epstein-related materials available quickly. Journalists and civil-society groups had pressed courts to unseal records; the speed of disclosure amplified the chances that sensitive internal notations could slip through standard redaction checks. Once material is posted online, it can be archived, copied and propagated beyond the control of the original publisher, creating persistent exposure even after corrections are made.
Analysis & Implications
The immediate implication is operational: revealing that a detainee is cooperating can create credible safety risks inside detention facilities and beyond. Correctional institutions have documented patterns of retaliation against cooperative witnesses, and defense and security officials view inadvertent disclosure as a real harm rather than a purely procedural lapse. The fact that several cooperating individuals were identified in publicly accessible records increases the exposure window and complicates mitigation once the information is disseminated.
Beyond physical safety, there is a systemic consequence for law enforcement. Courts and prosecutors rely on the willingness of suspects and witnesses to meet with investigators under varying degrees of protection. If potential cooperators fear that documentation of their interactions will become public, they may decline to provide information that could be critical to prosecutions of higher-level targets. That chilling effect could make complex financial or trafficking investigations—where insider testimony is often decisive—harder to prosecute.
The incident also strains the balance between transparency and confidentiality in high-profile cases. Public access to court records serves democratic oversight and supports victims’ rights, but the episode shows how large-scale releases can outpace safeguards designed to protect individuals named in records. Policymakers and court administrators may need to reassess redaction protocols, staffing and timelines used when publishing voluminous archives so that transparency does not unintentionally undermine safety or justice objectives.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Count/Detail |
|---|---|
| Documents released (approx.) | Millions of pages (archive-wide disclosure, 2026) |
| Notations “proffer at 500” in the two 2019 records | Seven names; at least three later confirmed cooperating |
The table above summarizes the scale of the archival release and the specific notation at issue. While the entire corpus spans millions of pages, the problematic entries were limited to two internal documents from 2019. That contrast illustrates how a small number of overlooked markings in a massive dataset can have outsized consequences. It also underscores the technical challenge of reviewing vast digital repositories with precision before public posting.
Reactions & Quotes
News organizations and privacy advocates pressed officials for clarity about why the names were not redacted initially and what steps would be taken to prevent recurrence. The Justice Department framed its initial posture as cautious but pointed to the need for a review of release protocols once the issue was flagged. Public defenders and rights groups emphasized the real-world stakes for persons in custody.
“Proffer at 500”
Internal court document notation
The phrase appears as shorthand on internal lists and was interpreted by reporters and lawyers as indicating proffer sessions at the courthouse address. That shorthand is familiar within federal practice but is not ordinarily published in public-facing filings without redaction. In this case, the notation’s appearance in the public archive was the proximate cause of concern.
“[The shorthand] did not necessarily mean cooperator.”
Justice Department spokeswoman
The department used this line when first asked about the appearance of the notation next to detainee names. After a news outlet reported that multiple people listed had cooperated, officials removed the files and then re-posted them with specific redactions. The spokeswoman’s statement reflects the department’s initial effort to limit the inference drawn from the shorthand while it evaluated the reporting.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the initial inclusion of the names was due to human oversight, automation error, or deliberate policy choice remains under review and has not been publicly confirmed.
- The full number of individuals whose cooperation status might have been exposed beyond the seven listed has not been independently verified.
- It is unconfirmed whether any of the identified individuals suffered direct retaliation as a result of the disclosure; no official incident report has been cited publicly.
Bottom Line
The Justice Department’s brief exposure of cooperating witnesses in the Epstein files highlights a critical friction point between the public’s right to know and the duty to shield individuals whose cooperation could endanger them. Even a small number of notations released in a massive archive can cause harm because digital disclosure is effectively permanent and easily propagated. Authorities will face pressure to strengthen pre-publication review procedures, but fixes must be balanced to avoid undue secrecy that undermines transparency.
For stakeholders—courts, prosecutors, defense counsel and civil-society groups—the episode is a reminder that procedural safeguards matter as much as policy priorities. Expect congressional and internal reviews to probe how redactions were managed and whether staffing, automation or policy changes are necessary to prevent similar exposures in future large-scale releases.