Lawmakers Clash With Justice Department Over Redactions in Epstein Files

By Staff Writer
February 14, 2026

WASHINGTON — A contentious battle over access to documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein intensified this week, as members of Congress accused the Justice Department of withholding key materials and failing to comply fully with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, described reviewing what he called a heavily redacted set of records at a secure Justice Department facility. According to Mr. Raskin, the materials available to lawmakers consist of roughly three million pages — many of which were previously redacted and then partially unredacted for congressional inspection, though additional redactions remain.

Among the documents Mr. Raskin said he reviewed was an email sent by Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell that included a forwarded summary of communications between attorneys connected to Epstein and lawyers associated with President Donald Trump during a 2009 investigation.

Mr. Raskin said the email appeared to quote Mr. Trump as stating that Epstein had not been a member of his Mar-a-Lago club but had been a guest and “had never been asked to leave.” The passage was redacted from publicly released materials, though visible to members reviewing the files on-site. Mr. Trump has previously said he cut ties with Epstein and barred him from the club after learning of alleged misconduct. The White House has denied any wrongdoing by the president and has characterized renewed scrutiny as politically motivated.

Representative Dan Goldman pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi during a recent Judiciary Committee hearing about the redactions, questioning the legal basis for withholding the email. Ms. Bondi declined to commit to releasing an unredacted version and cited privilege concerns without elaborating. The Justice Department has not publicly issued a privilege log explaining specific redactions, a step commonly used in civil litigation to justify withholding documents.

Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Congress required the Justice Department to release records related to the investigation, subject to redactions protecting victims’ identities. Lawmakers say approximately 200,000 pages within the three million released remain redacted. They also contend that an additional three million or more documents have not been produced at all.

Justice Department officials have said some materials are duplicative or nonresponsive to the statute’s requirements. However, Mr. Raskin and others argue that the absence of a detailed report explaining withheld documents undermines the law’s intent.

Complicating matters further, members of Congress learned that their review sessions at the secure facility were monitored and logged. A photograph taken during the hearing appeared to show a document labeled with a lawmaker’s “search history,” prompting concerns from Democrats about oversight interference. Department officials have described the monitoring as standard protocol for handling sensitive materials.

Legal experts note that the statute does not clearly provide a private right of action, meaning it is uncertain who — if anyone — could sue to compel broader disclosure. Lawmakers have floated the possibility of legislative amendments to create an enforcement mechanism.

The dispute highlights broader tensions between Congress and the executive branch over separation of powers and access to investigative records. It also underscores ongoing public interest in Epstein’s associations with prominent political and business figures.

Advocates for survivors have urged transparency while emphasizing the need to protect victims’ privacy. Mr. Raskin said that some survivors have reported difficulty locating records related to their own interviews within the released files.

For now, the Justice Department maintains that it has complied with the law’s requirements. Members of Congress say they will continue pressing for fuller disclosure.

As the political fight unfolds, one fact remains clear: despite legislative efforts at transparency, the Epstein case continues to generate as many questions as answers.