WASHINGTON, February 27, 2026 — 11:40 A.M. ET
BY CUBUI

It wasn’t just another document dispute — a new statement from the U.S. Department of Justice has ignited fresh controversy over the handling of records tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and references to President Donald Trump.

In a social media post this week, the DOJ said that all responsive documents under the Epstein Transparency Act have been released “unless a document falls within one of the following categories: duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing federal investigation.” That final clause — “ongoing federal investigation” — has triggered sharp questions from congressional Democrats and legal observers.

The “Ongoing Investigation” Question

Some lawmakers are now publicly asking whether the DOJ is asserting that materials related to allegations involving Trump are being withheld because of an active investigation. The department has not confirmed that any such investigation exists. However, critics argue that invoking the possibility of an ongoing probe could serve as legal justification to delay or restrict document disclosure.

House Oversight Democrats, including Rep. Robert Garcia, have pointed to what they describe as missing FBI “302” interview summaries — internal reports that document witness and victim statements. According to a document manifest circulated by lawmakers, several interview entries appear in indexing records but are not currently visible in the public release.

The DOJ maintains that no records have been deleted and that any temporary removals would be for redactions related to victim privacy, classified material, or ongoing investigative concerns.

Dispute Over Privilege Claims

Another point of contention centers on whether the department is asserting legal privileges not explicitly listed in the Epstein Transparency Act. A January 4, 2026 internal memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — who previously served as Trump’s defense attorney — outlines review protocols for responsiveness and redactions.

While the Act permits withholding in limited categories, including personally identifiable victim information, active investigations, and classified national security material, it does not explicitly list “deliberative process privilege” or “attorney-client privilege” as standalone withholding grounds.

Legal analysts note that federal agencies traditionally assert such privileges in document disputes, but opponents argue that the Transparency Act was designed to narrow those exemptions in this specific context.

Missing FBI Interview Records

Major outlets including The New York Times and CNN have reported that dozens of FBI interview summaries referenced in evidence logs do not appear in the DOJ’s online database. Some of those reportedly relate to a woman who alleged abuse by Epstein and made accusations involving Trump during her interview with federal agents.

The allegations referenced in reporting remain unverified, and no criminal charges have been filed against Trump related to those claims.

The DOJ said in a follow-up statement that it is reviewing flagged documents and will republish any materials that were “improperly tagged” during the review process, consistent with the law.

Broader Political Context

The dispute unfolds amid heightened partisan tensions surrounding the Epstein case. Republican lawmakers have pursued depositions of former officials, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while Democrats argue that the administration should focus on ensuring full transparency of DOJ-held materials.

At the heart of the debate is a legal gray zone: whether the executive branch has discretion to interpret the Transparency Act’s redaction and withholding provisions without judicial review. In prior court filings, DOJ attorneys argued that the Act does not create a private right of action allowing courts to supervise document production in the same way as traditional discovery disputes.

For now, the department says its review is ongoing and that any responsive documents will be published if consistent with statutory guidelines. Lawmakers on both sides signal that additional oversight hearings — and potentially further legal challenges — could follow.

As scrutiny intensifies, one question remains central: are the missing records the result of routine redaction and procedural tagging, or does their absence signal a deeper legal confrontation over the limits of executive discretion under the Transparency Act?