A transparency regulation handed by Congress has pressured the launch of more Epstein files than ever earlier than, however some lawmakers and victims are exploring methods to push the Justice Department to reveal even more data from the voluminous trove that’s being withheld.
Some 2.5 million paperwork in the Justice Department’s investigative information on late convicted intercourse offender Jeffrey Epstein haven’t been publicly released, and many of the 3.5 million pages which were revealed are closely redacted, prompting questions on what’s being stored from the public.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are exploring new laws and nonetheless want to depose Attorney General Pam Bondi beneath oath about her dealing with of the Epstein information, which may present a window into what’s being withheld. Bondi met voluntarily with committee members behind closed doorways on Wednesday, nevertheless it erupted when Democrats stormed out of the room in frustration, saying she wouldn’t decide to complying together with her subpoena.
The push for Bondi’s testimony comes amid frustration and dissatisfaction with how the administration has complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act – and with the limitations of the regulation itself.
Reps. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat – the pair who led the bipartisan push to cross the laws in Congress late last 12 months – are weighing whether or not to hitch survivors of Epstein’s abuse in suing to achieve entry to more information.
Massie and Khanna acknowledged to NCS in a current interview that not together with an enforcement mechanism in the invoice has created some limitations to the regulation.
“If I knew the attorney general was going to break the law and you’d have to bring her into a court to adjudicate a plainly written law, I would do it,” Massie stated when requested why they didn’t embrace a bit in the invoice outlining what’s referred to as a “cause of action,” which means a authorized guideline on how somebody or Congress itself may go to courtroom to check the Justice Department’s compliance with the transparency regulation.
But they nonetheless argue public stress has been their biggest device.
The Justice Department has repeatedly agreed to repair redaction errors, together with the improper disclosure of victims’ names, whereas insisting officers should not hiding something. There is presently no authorized mechanism in play the place the division might be pressured by a choose to take away redactions or launch more filings.
A senior DOJ official just lately instructed reporters they’re hoping to maneuver on from the Epstein investigation, and that no extra fees are anticipated with none new data.
“We got smashed by lawyers and Congress and the public for making mistakes,” the official stated, arguing that some of the criticism has been unfair on condition that attorneys labored lengthy hours beneath deadline, with some reviewing more than 1,000 paperwork every week.
“There is always a ton of mistakes in document reviews,” the official stated, noting the division put new procedures in place as quickly as they realized there have been issues with the launch.
Under the regulation, the Justice Department was allowed to withhold or redact sure paperwork, resembling labeled data and depictions of youngster sexual abuse. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has instructed Congress the division went additional, additionally holding again some inside deliberations, attorney-client communications and grand jury courtroom proceedings.
The division moreover withheld Epstein information that have been written in international languages, Blanche stated, and some information couldn’t be uploaded to the public database as a result of of technical points.
The Bondi subpoena is the newest headache for the Justice Department and an instance of how Congress can proceed to use stress even with out new legal guidelines or litigation.
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee voted in a bipartisan method earlier this month to subpoena Bondi as half of its probe into Epstein, who died in jail in 2019. The inquiry into Bondi is particularly geared towards the division’s dealing with of the launch of the information – a sliver of the House’s Epstein investigation.
As half of that ongoing investigation, lawmakers and their employees have talked to high-profile figures who seem in the information, resembling former President Bill Clinton and, and others who have been in Epstein’s internal circle, together with co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
Bondi was despatched he subpoena earlier this week, however she is anticipated to seek the advice of with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel earlier than formally responding. In the meantime, Bondi and Blanche briefed lawmakers on the Oversight Committee behind closed doorways on Wednesday to reply questions on the division’s redaction course of and dealing with of the Epstein probe.
“I made it crystal clear, I will follow the law,” Bondi stated after the assembly.
Although House Oversight Chair James Comer stated he “personally” didn’t see a cause for Bondi to look for a deposition, he instructed NCS he plans to maneuver ahead with the subpoena given 5 Republicans on his committee supported it.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers are exploring laws that might attempt to maintain the DOJ and FBI accountable for any improper redactions and would compel the launch of the remaining paperwork.
If Congress have been to jot down a brand new invoice, each Khanna and Massie stated they might guarantee it included the enforcement language unnoticed of the present regulation, despite the fact that they keep the present regulation is enforceable and has compelled the launch of more paperwork than what anybody thought attainable at the time it was enacted last 12 months.
“We’ve gotten a release of over half,” Khanna stated. “Could the law have been better by 20%? Sure, but most of this is just blatant non-compliance with the law as is.”
Members of Congress can see a model of the information which can be unredacted or, at the very least, have fewer redactions. The Justice Department has reminded lawmakers of their entry, together with in a current letter, in hopes that the controversy over what’s blacked out in information will “die,” as the senior official put it.
Instead, lawmakers have emerged from viewing these information on computer systems inside a DOJ constructing with complaints that the division isn’t following the transparency regulation.
They stated DOJ erred in blacking out the identities of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators and in withholding three FBI memos of interviews with a lady who alleged President Donald Trump had abused her when she was between 13 and 15 years previous. The division responded by taking out the redactions and releasing the memos.
Trump has persistently denied wrongdoing in reference to Epstein, and a reputation showing in the Epstein case information is just not proof of wrongdoing.
Lawmakers say they hope the public outrage over the dealing with of the Epstein investigation and launch of the information retains the stress on the Justice Department.
“Public pressure is working right now,” Massie stated.
“There has never been a law in modern American history that has exposed more of the global elite,” Khanna stated. “It’s been a window into the Epstein class. Rich and powerful people who acted as though they were above the law.”
That Congress is greedy for brand spanking new instruments to pressure the launch of extra Epstein paperwork is in some methods a product of its personal making.
The failure to incorporate an enforcement mechanism in the Epstein transparency regulation “was one of the biggest self-owns by Congress in my lifetime,” stated Bradley Moss, a nationwide safety lawyer with in depth expertise litigating authorities transparency issues.
“In effect, the statute was little more than a ‘please do the right thing’ law, ordering DOJ to release additional records without actually creating a direct legal means to ensure DOJ did that very thing,” Moss stated.
When lawmakers have been drafting the regulation, Khanna instructed NCS, there was a dialogue with counsel about including that particular language, however they finally determined any failure to adjust to the regulation might be thought of obstruction of justice by Justice Department officers, and Congress may ask for prosecutions in future administrations.
“In retrospect I would have probably added something explicit about a private cause of action as well,” Khanna stated.
Earlier drafts of the invoice additionally would have compelled different businesses, like the CIA, to launch any Epstein-related paperwork. But that language was taken out to get the consensus wanted to make sure last passage and Trump’s signature, as the president and his workforce had been pressuring Republicans to not signal onto the effort.
“When you get a bill like this passed, you can’t go back and say, ‘Oh we should have added this’ because if you added that, it probably wouldn’t have gotten off the ground,” Massie stated.
Even although the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed DOJ for the Epstein information in August 2025, it wasn’t till Massie and Khanna’s regulation passed in November 2025 that DOJ started producing the most substantial paperwork.
Khanna and Massie just lately tried and didn’t persuade a federal courtroom in New York to herald an out of doors lawyer to watch the Justice Department’s launch of the information.
They wrote to Judge Paul Engelmayer, who has been overseeing the effort to guard the identities of victims in the felony case in opposition to Epstein confederate Ghislaine Maxwell, that “we have urgent and grave concerns about DOJ’s failure to comply with the [Transparency] Act.”
The Justice Department argued that the House members had no proper to go to courtroom to attempt to implement the act.
“With no standing and no cause of action, the Representatives are unable to seek the relief they request, and, respectfully, the Court is without authority to issue it,” US Attorney Jay Clayton wrote in courtroom.
Engelmayer largely agreed, ruling that the Maxwell felony case wasn’t the venue for federal courts to oversee DOJ’s compliance with the act.
“The Representatives are also, of course, at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools available to Congress,” Engelmayer famous late last month.
Even although the lawmakers failed on this effort, they stated that Engelmayer gave them and survivors a gap to sue of their private capacities.
“This issue is not going away until they release the files,” Khanna stated.