United Stated (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for South Florida and later Secretary of Labor under President Trump, was cleared by GOP lawmakers of any direct wrongdoing related to Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta emphasized that Trump was never involved in the investigation or decision-making, while acknowledging the plea deal with Epstein was imperfect but a strategic choice given prosecution challenges.
Background of Alex Acosta’s Role in the Epstein Case
Alex Acosta was the U.S. Attorney who negotiated the controversial 2008 plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, which has been widely criticised for allowing Epstein to serve a relatively lenient sentence despite serious sex trafficking allegations. The plea deal saw Epstein sentenced to just 13 months in jail with work release privileges, causing public outrage over its perceived leniency and secrecy. Acosta later served as Labor Secretary in the Trump administration but resigned amid backlash related to the plea deal.
Acosta’s Testimony and GOP Defence
In a six-hour deposition with House Oversight Committee investigators on September 19, 2025, Acosta provided detailed explanations for the choices made during the Epstein prosecution. As reported by New York Post and Politico, Acosta described the case as a “crapshoot” given the lack of cooperating victims willing to testify. He defended the plea deal as a pragmatic solution that ensured Epstein was jailed, registered as a sex offender, and gave victims a chance for recovery.
Acosta explicitly stated that there was no evidence linking Donald Trump to Epstein’s case and denied any direct involvement or knowledge by Trump, a key point raised by Republican lawmakers supporting Acosta. GOP members hailed Acosta’s testimony as absolving Trump of wrongdoing related to Epstein, contrasting Democratic allegations of preferential treatment.
Criticism from Democrats and Continued Controversy
Democratic lawmakers on the Oversight Committee described Acosta as “not credible” and argued that the investigation left more questions than answers. They faulted Acosta for poor judgment in allowing the non-prosecution agreement, criticised the secrecy, and noted failures to notify victims. Rep. Robert Garcia and others stressed that despite Acosta’s defences, the deal was a “sweetheart arrangement” that diminished justice and deserves further scrutiny.
The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that, while Acosta’s plea deal involved “poor judgment,” there was no evidence of corruption or improper influences such as Epstein’s status or wealth. This official report highlights the complexity of the case and leaves room for continued debate over prosecutorial discretion.
Challenges of Prosecuting Epstein
Acosta’s testimony outlined prosecutorial difficulties, especially the lack of victim cooperation and aggressive legal tactics from Epstein’s defence team, which included established attorneys like Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr. According to Acosta, these factors made a federal trial risky and uncertain. His office attempted to ensure Epstein’s incarceration as a priority to prevent further offenses.
Impact on Trump and Legal Narratives
The GOP’s narrative, supported by Acosta’s statements, portrays Trump as uninvolved in Epstein’s legal matters, attempting to distance him from one of the most controversial cases linked to the late financier. This contrasts with public and media speculation about Trump’s broader connections to Epstein. The clearing of Trump from wrongdoing by Acosta aids Republican efforts to counteract damaging political claims during election cycles.
Continuing Legal and Political Fallout
The Epstein case remains a flashpoint with ongoing appeals by Ghislaine Maxwell and lawsuits by Epstein victims. Congressional investigations continue to probe related issues, including lobbying and cover-ups. Acosta’s testimony is part of a broader effort to clarify and assign responsibility within the protracted scandal.
Brussels Morning is a daily online newspaper based in Belgium. BM publishes unique and independent coverage on international and European affairs. With a Europe-wide perspective, BM covers policies and politics of the EU, significant Member State developments, and looks at the international agenda with a European perspective.
