Ask Onix
Congress reviews unredacted Epstein files amid transparency concerns
Members of Congress began examining unredacted versions of nearly three million pages of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents this week, accusing the Department of Justice (DOJ) of failing to comply with a federal transparency law.
Redactions spark outrage from lawmakers and survivors
Democratic Representative Ro Khanna told MS NOW that the DOJ had not adhered to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), claiming the FBI-under then-President Donald Trump-had scrubbed the files in March before transferring them to the DOJ. The law, passed nearly unanimously last November, mandates the release of Epstein-related records while protecting victims' identities.
Last week, lawyers for Epstein's victims condemned the DOJ after the latest batch of files included unredacted email addresses and nude photos, exposing potential victims to public identification. Survivors called the disclosures "outrageous" and demanded protection from further retraumatization.
The DOJ removed the flagged files, attributing the errors to "technical or human mistakes."
Lawmakers demand full disclosure of redacted names
After reviewing the unredacted documents, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Khanna (D-CA)-co-sponsors of the EFTA-revealed that a key document had redacted all names except those of Epstein and his convicted associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. Massie said six of the hidden names likely belonged to "rich and powerful men" implicated in the files.
"These names were inappropriately redacted," Khanna said, accusing the DOJ of defying the law's intent.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded on X, stating the DOJ had unredacted all non-victim names in the disputed document. He shared an updated version with only two names blacked out, citing legal protections for victims under the EFTA.
DOJ defends redactions, lawmakers push back
Blanche addressed two other files highlighted by Massie, asserting they contained no substantive obfuscations. However, Khanna insisted the DOJ's post-release corrections still violated the EFTA, which requires the FBI to remove redactions before transferring files.
Massie argued the DOJ's handling of the files showed a lack of due diligence, noting that "302 forms"-FBI interview reports-were redacted before reaching the DOJ, contrary to the law's requirements.
Controversial documents raise further questions
Among the flagged redactions was an email exchange between Epstein and an unidentified individual discussing a "torture video" and travel between China and the U.S. Massie speculated that a "Sultan" had sent the email and demanded the name be revealed. Blanche countered that the redacted text was an email address, protected under the EFTA's privacy provisions, and noted the Sultan's name appeared elsewhere in the files.
"Stop grandstanding," Blanche wrote in response to Massie's post.
Massie also pointed to a redacted name in an FBI document listing potential co-conspirators-a "well-known retired CEO." Within hours, Blanche announced the name had been unredacted, as it already appeared in other files, and reiterated the DOJ's commitment to transparency.
Lawmakers criticize limited access to files
Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO) were among those who reviewed the documents on Monday. Boebert suggested the files implicated additional individuals, while Raskin condemned the DOJ's review process as a "cover-up."
"The DOJ is giving Members of Congress just four computers in a satellite office to read the unredacted Epstein File of more than 3 million documents," Raskin wrote on X, estimating it would take Congress seven years to review them all.
