The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has just over three weeks to release documents tied to the investigation of disgraced, late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The deadline follows President Donald Trump signing a bipartisan bill into law that requires the DOJ to make the files public despite months of calling the controversy a Democratic hoax.

RELATED STORY | These loopholes in the Epstein file law could block full release of records

Congress moved swiftly to pass the measure, which mandates the DOJ to provide all records, with redactions only if necessary. Under the law, each redaction must be accompanied by an explanation for why the information is withheld.

Bipartisan Concerns Over What Could Be Revealed

Members of Congress from both parties are voicing uncertainty about the potential fallout. FBI Director Kash Patel recently said the agency is reviewing what can be made public, but Rep. Thomas Massie criticized Patels comments as deflective.

Some Democratic sources allege the White House is engaged in a cover-up claiming President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi are directing efforts to limit disclosure. The House Oversight Committee recently sent Bondi a letter reminding her of an existing subpoena that requires the DOJ to turn over unredacted Epstein files to the committee, including classified materials.

Grand Jury Testimony Dispute Resurfaces

The long-running battle over grand jury testimony in the case is also back in focus. Earlier this year, judges in New York and Florida ruled against releasing such testimony, saying the content was minimal and already included in other case files.

Now, in light of the new law, the DOJ is formally asking those judges to reconsider their rulings so the testimony can be included in the document release.

Victims and Maxwell to Weigh In

In a new court filing Tuesday night, a New York judge ordered convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and his victims to submit letters by Dec. 3 outlining any concerns about the release including requests for specific redactions. The judge emphasized the urgency of the process, given the 30-day deadline set by law.

The release of the Epstein files, including any grand jury testimony, is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched disclosures in recent years with implications that could reach the highest levels of government.

The U.S. Coast Guard has issued updated guidance about the display of swastikas and other hateful iconography, following reports that it appeared to have eased its rules around hate symbols.

The Washington Post on Thursday reported that Coast Guard policy had been altered to describe such hate symbols as "potentially divisive," changing its definitions from 2019 versions, which noted they were widely identified with oppression or hatred and said their use could be a potential hate incident.

RELATED STORY | Neo-Nazi targeting kids online, teaching them to hate and prepare to kill

Later on Thursday, the Coast Guard amended its policies to clarify.

Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited, the policy now reads. Such symbols include a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups.

This is not an updated policy but a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols, the agency said in a press release.

Coast Guard policy now bans the display of any such symbols in all agency locations, strengthening the language from Thursday's initial policy change that said commanders could remove symbols that were in public view and and said the restrictions did not apply to private spaces.

Display of the Confederate flag remains banned outside of certain educational contexts, according to the latest policy.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill requiring the Justice Department to release the so-called Epstein files, paving the way for related documents to be made public within 30 days.

However, the legislation contains exceptions that allow the DOJ to redact certain information. Officials are expected to remove details that could identify victims, material related to child sexual abuse, any graphic content and descriptions, and information that could threaten national security, foreign policy or ongoing investigations.

RELATED STORY | Trump signs new law requiring DOJ to release Epstein files

Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi said investigators had found no evidence to justify probing third parties essentially declaring the case closed. However, Trump said last week he wanted the DOJ to investigate former President Bill Clinton and other high-profile men, including former Harvard President Larry Summers, as well as institutions such as JP Morgan Chase. That means the DOJ could withhold more information from the Epstein files due to the ongoing probe.

Scripps News spoke with criminal defense attorney Jeremy Saland, who said the department still could release most of the material but might exclude content related to certain individuals or organizations.

If a particular Democrat or Republican is being investigated and you have direct or collateral evidence ... maybe that gets taken back and that gets held back or redacted, Saland said. But not the wholesale entirety of what is in that file.

RELATED STORY | The Epstein emails that pushed Larry Summers out of Harvard

Observers note Trump may have inadvertently protected some of the men he singled out including Clinton because the DOJ cannot release information tied to an active investigation.

That could mean no public files relating to Clinton, other high-profile figures or targeted institutions. Conversely, because Trump is not under investigation, the DOJ could potentially release files containing his name.

Arizona Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva is expected to be sworn into the House of Representatives as early as Wednesday, more than 7 weeks after recall vote won that special election to replace her late father.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to swear in Grijalva until the government shutdown is over. With a bipartisan deal to fund the government now in the works, the House will be reconvening and a first order of business will be to bring Grijalva into the chamber.

Grijalva's vote as early as Wednesday could be a deciding factor on whether the Justice Department releases files relating to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

RELATED STORY | House to resume legislative business for first time since September amid shutdown

Typically the Speaker of the House is the one who brings votes to the floor, but in this case Johnson elected not to hold a vote on the Epstein files.

Instead, the House of Representatives needs to gather at least 218 signatures to enforce what's known as a discharge petition, which would force the bill into consideration.

Until this special election, Democrats in the chamber only had 217 members willing to sign on to the petition, including the four Republicans supporting the release of the Epstein files.

The last time the House was fully in session was Sept. 19. Since then, the chamber has only been open for so-called pro forma sessions, when no roll call votes are taken.