DOJ “Unredacted” Epstein Files Still Censored

After Congress was promised “unredacted” Epstein files, lawmakers say the Justice Department still blacked out names of men “likely implicated”—forcing yet another showdown over whether federal bureaucrats can slow-walk the truth.

Quick Take

Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna said DOJ-provided “unredacted” Epstein materials still contained redactions, including names tied to at least six “likely implicated” men.
The dispute centers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Trump in 2024, which limits what DOJ is allowed to redact.
DOJ leadership has cited legal privileges for withholding or redacting pages, while lawmakers argue those categories are not permitted under the statute.
Members of Congress can review millions of pages in a DOJ reading room, but the process is controlled by the department’s access rules and production pace.

Congress Finds “Unredacted” Files Still Blacked Out

Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) reported that a February 9, 2026 review session at DOJ headquarters revealed continued redactions in materials described as unredacted. The lawmakers said at least six individuals—described as “likely implicated” in Epstein’s network—had identities concealed. They also pointed to redactions appearing in investigative records, including FBI 302 interview summaries and grand jury-related material, raising questions about compliance with the governing transparency law.

Massie said the problem appeared to be incomplete production rather than misconduct by line-level attorneys, but he emphasized that the statute’s requirements are specific about what should be visible. He also said some documents previously posted publicly were later removed and remained unavailable during the review. Khanna said the files they saw appeared to carry the same types of redactions that had frustrated observers during earlier releases, undercutting the central promise of full disclosure.

What the Transparency Law Allows—and What It Forbids

The Epstein Files Transparency Act sets the boundaries for what DOJ can keep hidden, and those boundaries are now the core of the conflict. Reporting on the statute indicates it bars redactions justified by “reputational harm” or “political sensitivity,” including sensitivity involving public figures and foreign officials. At the same time, the law permits redactions for victim-identifying information, child sexual abuse material, classified information, and certain circumstances tied to active federal investigations.

That structure matters because DOJ leadership has described withholding or redacting a large volume of pages based on claimed privileges, including attorney-client and deliberative-process rationales. Massie and Khanna have argued those categories are not among the law’s permitted carve-outs. Without a detailed public written justification from DOJ tying each category of redaction to the statute’s allowed exceptions, outside observers and Congress are left evaluating the dispute largely through the plain text of the law and what lawmakers report seeing.

DOJ’s Reading Room Access Shows Transparency—On DOJ’s Terms

Congress now has formal access to a massive collection of Epstein-related records through a DOJ reading room process that runs during set weekday hours and requires advance notice. Axios reporting described the pool as roughly three million documents available for lawmakers to inspect. That access is real, but it is also controlled: the department manages the setting, schedules, and what is produced in which form—factors that shape how quickly Congress can determine whether redactions are lawful or excessive.

For voters exhausted by years of government stonewalling—whether on border enforcement, spending, or politically sensitive investigations—the process highlights a familiar friction point: the permanent bureaucracy holds the levers, and elected oversight often arrives late and with constraints. The current dispute is also unusual in one important way: it is bipartisan on the Hill, with a Republican and a Democrat jointly pressing for a cleaner release, which increases pressure for a clear, documented DOJ explanation.

Why Redactions in the Epstein Case Carry Bigger Stakes

The Epstein case has long been associated with unanswered questions about enablers and co-conspirators. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died in custody after his 2019 arrest, and Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted for sex trafficking conspiracy. Lawmakers from different factions have argued that a trafficking enterprise of that scale could not have involved only two culpable people. That argument is partly why Congress mandated broader disclosure: to identify additional wrongdoers and clarify who protected whom.

Massie and Khanna have not publicly named the concealed individuals they said they saw in the files, and reporting indicates they are considering whether to disclose names through House floor statements or committee processes. That restraint leaves a key limitation: the public cannot independently assess whether the six unnamed individuals are being redacted for lawful reasons (such as ongoing investigations or protected victim information) or for reasons the statute explicitly prohibits, such as political sensitivity.

What Happens Next: Compliance, Court Fights, or More Redactions

The next phase will likely revolve around whether DOJ narrows redactions and clarifies the legal rationale for what remains withheld. The fight also sets a precedent for how Congress can enforce transparency mandates when an agency argues competing legal privileges. If lawmakers conclude DOJ is ignoring the statute’s limits, the dispute could move toward subpoenas, contempt threats, or litigation over statutory interpretation—steps that test whether the executive branch can effectively rewrite transparency laws through internal redaction policy.

For the Trump administration, the political challenge is two-sided: the public expects real sunlight on a case tied to elite impunity, while DOJ must still protect victims and legitimate investigative equities. For Congress, the challenge is simpler but harder to execute—forcing full compliance without turning disclosure into a partisan weapon. The facts available so far support one conclusion: the “unredacted” promise is still being contested, line by line.