Lawmakers float rare ‘inherent contempt’ move after Epstein files raise transparency concerns

Politicians are criticizing the partial release of files relating to convicted sex offender Epstein's abuse after the DOJ released a trove of redacted files.

A group of U.S. lawmakers says it’s considering a rare step of pursuing “inherent contempt” charges against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, escalating a standoff over the partial release of long-awaited files tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie have publicly floated the idea recently arguing that the U.S. Justice Department failed to comply with a new law, the “Epstein Files Transparency Act,” requiring the disclosure of Epstein-related records.

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan“ on Sunday, Massie said, “The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi.”

The move comes after the department released thousands of pages last week that were heavily redacted, with some documents entirely blacked out - a move the U.S. Justice Department says was necessary to protect victims’ identities.

In November, Congress mandated the disclosure of all Epstein files with a deadline of Dec. 19.

What is inherent contempt?

Inherent contempt is a rare constitutional power that allows Congress itself - rather than the courts - to enforce compliance with its orders.

Unlike criminal contempt, which requires referral to the U.S. Justice Department, inherent contempt will allow the House to impose penalties directly including fines until an official complies.

“Members of Congress can tell the House or Senate sergeant at arms to detain or imprison the person in contempt until he or she honours congressional demands,” CNN reported in 2019.

No sense of transparency

Postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto’s department of political science Lewis Krashinsky told CTV’s Your Morning Monday that “there has been so much momentum built up around the idea that these files would finally bring clarity.”

“They’re still far away off from providing any sense of justice to people who’ve been following the story and to the many victims of Jeffrey Epstein,” he added.

Referring to the release deadline, Krashinsky said the U.S. Justice Department is already “in violation of what the letter of the law said which it had to be in 30 days.”

According to Krashinsky, while some newly released photos showed celebrities like Mick Jagger, Chris Tucker and Michael Jackson, he said they did not fundamentally alter the public’s understanding of Epstein’s activities.

Epstein who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges maintained relationships with politicians, business leaders and celebrities for decades.

The latest document dump has also raised political questions around Trump who spoke repeatedly during his election campaign against releasing Epstein-related files but later reversed his stance. Since the documents were made public, Trump has remained silent declining to address the release.

Krashinsky said the muted response from Trump is not a surprise."

“There’s maybe a communication strategy here of them wanting this story to die. But the fear is that this story really has legs. It’s been months and months and the slow drip of information, I think, makes it all the worse,” he said.

Krashinsky explained that one of the core beliefs among Trump supporters is that the government hides the truth.

“Here (Trump) is personally caught up in one of the most explosive scandals that the country has dealt with in many years, and hasn’t been completely transparent or forthright about what his involvement has been.”

It’s unclear when more file disclosures are expected, Krashinsky said.

“The longer this goes, the closer we get to the November midterms in 2026 ... Donald Trump gets closer and closer to being in a lame duck status,” he said.

“We might see more people in his party be willing to publicly break with him and use this story as maybe a justification of fears about his low polling numbers,” he explained.