Have we seen the last of the Epstein files? Lawmakers and victims want more released

A document that was included in the U.S. Department of Justice release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, photographed Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, shows a photo of Epstein on a inmate report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons . (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)

A transparency law passed by U.S. Congress has forced the release of more Epstein files than ever before, but some lawmakers and victims are exploring ways to push the Justice Department to disclose even more information from the voluminous trove that’s being withheld.

Some 2.5 million documents in the Justice Department’s investigative files on late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been publicly released, and many of the 3.5 million pages that have been published are heavily redacted, prompting questions about what’s being kept from the public.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are exploring new legislation and still want to depose Attorney General Pam Bondi under oath about her handling of the Epstein files, which could provide a window into what is being withheld. Bondi met voluntarily with committee members behind closed doors on Wednesday, but it erupted when Democrats stormed out of the room in frustration, saying she would not commit to complying 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 law itself.

Reps. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat – the pair who led the bipartisan push to pass the legislation in Congress late last year – are weighing whether to join survivors of Epstein’s abuse in suing to gain access to more files.

Massie and Khanna acknowledged to CNN in a recent interview that not including an enforcement mechanism in the bill has created some limitations to the law.

“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 said when asked why they didn’t include a section in the bill outlining what’s called a “cause of action,” meaning a legal guideline on how someone or Congress itself could go to court to test the Justice Department’s compliance with the transparency law.

But they still argue public pressure has been their greatest tool.

The Justice Department has repeatedly agreed to fix redaction errors, including the improper disclosure of victims’ names, while insisting officials are not hiding anything. There is currently no legal mechanism in play where the department could be forced by a judge to remove redactions or release more filings.

A senior DOJ official recently told reporters they are hoping to move on from the Epstein investigation, and that no additional charges are expected without any new information.

“We got smashed by lawyers and Congress and the public for making mistakes,” the official said, arguing that some of the criticism has been unfair given that attorneys worked long hours under deadline, with some reviewing more than 1,000 documents a week.

“There is always a ton of mistakes in document reviews,” the official said, noting the department put new procedures in place as soon as they realized there were problems with the release.

Under the law, the Justice Department was allowed to withhold or redact certain documents, such as classified information and depictions of child sexual abuse. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has told Congress the department went further, also keeping back some internal deliberations, attorney-client communications and grand jury court proceedings.

The department additionally withheld Epstein files that were written in foreign languages, Blanche said, and some records couldn’t be uploaded to the public database because of technical issues.

Attorney general subpoenaed

The Bondi subpoena is the latest headache for the Justice Department and an example of how Congress can continue to apply pressure even without new laws or litigation.

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee voted in a bipartisan manner earlier this month to subpoena Bondi as part of its probe into Epstein, who died in prison in 2019. The inquiry into Bondi is especially geared toward the department’s handling of the release of the files – a sliver of the House’s Epstein investigation.

As part of that ongoing investigation, lawmakers and their staff have talked to high-profile figures who appear in the files, such as former President Bill Clinton and, and others who were in Epstein’s inner circle, including co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.

Bondi was sent he subpoena earlier this week, but she is expected to consult with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel before officially responding. In the meantime, Bondi and Blanche briefed lawmakers on the Oversight Committee behind closed doors on Wednesday to answer questions about the department’s redaction process and handling of the Epstein probe.

“I made it crystal clear, I will follow the law,” Bondi said after the meeting.

Although House Oversight Chair James Comer said he “personally” did not see a reason for Bondi to appear for a deposition, he told CNN he plans to move forward with the subpoena given five Republicans on his committee supported it.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers are exploring legislation that would try to hold the DOJ and FBI accountable for any improper redactions and would compel the release of the remaining documents.

If Congress were to write a new bill, both Khanna and Massie said they would ensure it included the enforcement language left out of the current law, even though they maintain the current law is enforceable and has compelled the release of more documents than what anyone thought possible at the time it was enacted last year.

“We’ve gotten a release of over half,” Khanna said. “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 version of the files that are unredacted or, at least, have fewer redactions. The Justice Department has reminded lawmakers of their access, including in a recent letter, in hopes that the controversy over what’s blacked out in files will “die,” as the senior official put it.

Instead, lawmakers have emerged from viewing those files on computers inside a DOJ building with complaints that the department isn’t following the transparency law.

They said DOJ erred in blacking out the identities of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators and in withholding three FBI memos of interviews with a woman who alleged President Donald Trump had abused her when she was between 13 and 15 years old. The department responded by taking out the redactions and releasing the memos.

Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and a name appearing in the Epstein case files is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Lawmakers say they hope the public outrage over the handling of the Epstein investigation and release of the files keeps the pressure on the Justice Department.

“Public pressure is working right now,” Massie said.

“There has never been a law in modern American history that has exposed more of the global elite,” Khanna said. “It’s been a window into the Epstein class. Rich and powerful people who acted as though they were above the law.”

Giving the law teeth

That Congress is grasping for new tools to force the release of additional Epstein documents is in some ways a product of its own making.

The failure to include an enforcement mechanism in the Epstein transparency law “was one of the biggest self-owns by Congress in my lifetime,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer with extensive experience litigating government transparency matters.

“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 said.

When lawmakers were drafting the law, Khanna told CNN, there was a discussion with counsel about adding that specific language, but they ultimately decided any failure to comply with the law could be considered obstruction of justice by Justice Department officials, and Congress could ask for prosecutions in future administrations.

“In retrospect I would have probably added something explicit about a private cause of action as well,” Khanna said.

Earlier drafts of the bill also would have compelled other agencies, like the CIA, to release any Epstein-related documents. But that language was taken out to get the consensus needed to ensure final passage and Trump’s signature, as the president and his team had been pressuring Republicans not to sign 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 said.

Even though the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed DOJ for the Epstein files in August 2025, it wasn’t until Massie and Khanna’s law passed in November 2025 that DOJ began producing the most substantial documents.

Khanna and Massie recently tried and failed to convince a federal court in New York to bring in an outside lawyer to monitor the Justice Department’s release of the files.

They wrote to Judge Paul Engelmayer, who has been overseeing the effort to protect the identities of victims in the criminal case against Epstein accomplice 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 right to go to court to try to enforce 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 court.

Engelmayer largely agreed, ruling that the Maxwell criminal case wasn’t the venue for federal courts to supervise 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 noted late last month.

Even though the lawmakers failed in this effort, they said that Engelmayer gave them and survivors an opening to sue in their personal capacities.

“This issue is not going away until they release the files,” Khanna said.

By Annie Grayer, Paula Reid, Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, CNN