Rep. Thomas Massie Charges DOJ Release of Epstein Files Grossly Ignores Trump-Signed Transparency Law

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky reportedly fired off sharp criticism at the Justice Department on Friday for its handling of newly released Jeffrey Epstein files. He claimed the partial document drop by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche blatantly sidesteps a bipartisan law President Trump inked just one month prior.

The files in question tie back to the late financier and convicted s*x offender Jeffrey Epstein, whose web of high-profile connections fueled years of public demands for unfiltered access to federal probes. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna of California co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act to force the DOJ’s hand on disclosure, aiming to peel back layers of secrecy around Epstein’s 2019 death and prior investigations.

That legislation mandates the release of all unclassified records, complete with justifications for any redactions to shield sensitive details like victim identities or ongoing probes. Signed into law on November 19 amid bipartisan pressure, it set an initial deadline for full rollout by year’s end, reflecting a rare cross-aisle push to rebuild trust in federal handling of elite-linked scandals.

Lawmakers from both parties reportedly viewed the act as a corrective to past stonewalling, where Epstein’s plea deal in 2008 and later scrutiny drew accusations of favoritism toward powerful figures. The measure requires the DOJ to catalog and explain every withheld section, ensuring transparency without compromising legitimate security needs in a case that implicated figures across politics and business.

Reports confirm the DOJ’s Friday batch included hundreds of thousands of pages but fell short on the law’s core demands, with one full 119-page grand jury transcript blacked out entirely and no rationale provided. It is true that this setup violates the act’s explicit rules for redaction explanations, as verified by the lawmakers’ offices and initial reviews from oversight groups, though officials cited logistical hurdles in the rushed timeline.

Bipartisan lawmakers have since vowed to probe the lapses, with Khanna highlighting the missing justifications as a direct breach that undermines the law’s intent. While the administration points to the sheer volume of materials as a partial excuse, independent analyses show the redactions extend beyond clear privacy shields, raising questions about selective withholding in a politically charged probe.

Media reporting for this story: 48% Left | 22% Right | 23% Center | 7% Unrated

Will the DOJ meet the extended August 2026 deadline for full Epstein files release? YES or NO

FYI, I add facts to stories that often miss them. Join our newsletter for updates on Epstein files transparency or become a reporter and report any Epstein files transparency developments yourself.