The Department of Justice is facing mounting congressional scrutiny over its handling of records related to Jeffrey Epstein, after lawmakers accused the agency of improperly redacting documents while simultaneously releasing sensitive information that exposed survivors of Epstein’s abuse. Members of Congress began reviewing unredacted versions of the files this week amid growing concerns that the Trump administration has failed to comply with a bipartisan transparency law designed to ensure public accountability in one of the most politically sensitive criminal cases in recent history.
At the center of the dispute is the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a law passed last fall after significant opposition from President Donald Trump, who nonetheless campaigned on releasing the Epstein files. The legislation requires the release of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” related to Epstein. Under the statute, those materials were supposed to be made public two months ago. Millions of files, however, remain unreleased, raising doubts among lawmakers about whether the administration has any intention of fully complying with the law.
At the same time, attorneys representing Epstein’s victims say recent document releases have caused serious harm. According to lawyers for the survivors, the Department of Justice improperly disclosed names, email addresses, and images belonging to victims of Epstein’s crimes. They estimate that as many as 100 people have had their lives “turned upside down” as a result of the disclosures.
In some cases, files reportedly included email addresses and nude photos in which the names and faces of potential victims could be identified. Survivors issued a statement calling the disclosures “outrageous” and said they should not be “named, scrutinized and retraumatized.” The Department of Justice said it removed all flagged files after the issue was raised and attributed the disclosures to “technical or human error.”
While victims’ identities were exposed, members of Congress say other parts of the files were improperly redacted in ways that appear to protect powerful individuals. The Epstein Files Transparency Act explicitly states that names may not be redacted to protect a person from embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.
Representative Ro Khanna of California, a Democrat who co-authored the law with Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, highlighted one example that lawmakers described as particularly alarming. Khanna said a released document included an email sent to Epstein describing, in disturbing terms, the attributes of a child who had “just arrived.” In the version released by the Department of Justice, the sender’s name was redacted.
“Concealing the reputations of these powerful men is a blatant violation of the Epstein Transparency Act we passed,” Khanna wrote on Facebook.
Massie echoed those concerns in a CNN interview, questioning both the pace and substance of the document release. “Where are the rest of the documents? Why did they release victims’ names? They took extra time, they said, to be safe, and what are these redactions?” he said.
Massie also criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying she “has no credibility on this.” He noted that Bondi had previously claimed the files were on her desk before later asserting that there was nothing new worth releasing.
Concerns about the handling of the files have spread beyond the law’s authors. Earlier this month, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, formally requested that the Department of Justice allow him and other lawmakers to review unredacted versions of the files already made public.
“We seek to ensure that your redactions comply with the Act’s requirement that materials be withheld only in narrow circumstances, such as protecting victims’ personally identifiable information, and not on the basis of ‘embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary,’” Raskin wrote.
The Department of Justice agreed to the request, allowing lawmakers to begin reviewing unredacted versions of the released files this week. Under the agreement, members of Congress must provide 24 hours notice before viewing the documents, may not bring electronic recording devices, and are allowed to take handwritten notes.
After reviewing some of the unredacted materials, Khanna and Massie told reporters they encountered a list of approximately 20 names in which every name was redacted except for Epstein and his convicted associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. Massie said six of the redacted names could belong to men who are “likely incriminated by their inclusion in these files.” He later posted a screenshot of the redacted document online and demanded an explanation from the Department of Justice.
“These names were ‘inappropriately’ redacted,” Khanna said on MS NOW.
In response to the lawmakers’ complaints, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on social media that “The DOJ is committed to transparency.” He later stated that the department had “just unredacted all non-victim names from this document,” adding that the Department of Justice was hiding nothing.
Blanche also addressed other files highlighted by Massie, saying they did not obscure any substantive information. In one instance involving an email exchange that referenced a “torture video” and travel between China and the United States, Blanche said the blacked-out text was an email address, which qualifies as personally identifiable information under the law. Responding directly to Massie, Blanche wrote, “Stop grandstanding.”
Khanna rejected the department’s explanation, arguing that the problem originated earlier in the process. “Trump’s FBI scrubbed these files in March,” Khanna said on social media. “The documents (the Department of) Justice [received] had the redactions that the FBI made back then.”
“They need to unscrub the FBI files so we know who the rich and powerful men are who raped underage girls,” he added.
Massie similarly argued that the errors point to systemic failures rather than isolated mistakes. He said the incorrect redactions show the justice department “need to do a little more homework,” noting that FBI 302 forms appeared to have been redacted before being transmitted to senior Justice Department officials, despite the law’s requirement that improper redactions be removed before release.
As lawmakers continue reviewing the unredacted materials, the dispute has raised broader questions about the enforceability of transparency laws when federal agencies are responsible for policing their own compliance. For survivors and their advocates, the controversy underscores how institutional failures can both retraumatize victims and obscure accountability for individuals accused of serious crimes.
COMMENTS