19. March 2026

'We’re Not Going Away’: Massie, Epstein Victims Demand Release of Additional Epstein Files

WASHINGTON-- A sweeping transparency law passed by Congress has forced the release of millions of pages tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But despite the unprecedented disclosure, lawmakers and victims say a vast trove of information remains hidden—and they are now escalating efforts to pry it loose.

According to officials, roughly 2.5 million documents from the Justice Department’s Epstein investigation have yet to be made public. Of the approximately 3.5 million pages that have been released, many are heavily redacted, fueling bipartisan frustration on Capitol Hill and raising questions about what is still being withheld.

That frustration boiled over this week during a closed-door meeting between Attorney General Pam Bondi and members of the House Oversight Committee. Lawmakers had hoped to press Bondi on the Justice Department’s handling of the files, but the meeting quickly deteriorated when Democrats walked out, accusing her of refusing to commit to complying with a congressional subpoena.

The committee is now moving forward with efforts to compel Bondi’s testimony under oath, even as divisions remain among Republicans about how aggressively to pursue the matter.

At the center of the push are Reps. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, who led the bipartisan effort to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act last year. While the law has forced the release of more material than ever before, both lawmakers now acknowledge it has a critical flaw: it lacks a clear enforcement mechanism.

“If I knew the attorney general was going to break the law and you’d have to bring her into court to enforce it, I would have written that in,” Massie said in a recent interview.

Massie and Khanna are now considering joining Epstein survivors in a lawsuit aimed at forcing the Justice Department to release additional records. As it stands, there is no direct legal pathway for a judge to order the department to remove redactions or disclose more documents.

Justice Department officials, however, insist they are complying with the law. They point to the sheer scale of the document review process and acknowledge mistakes were made, including the improper release of victims’ names, which they say have since been corrected.

“We got smashed by lawyers, Congress, and the public for making mistakes,” one senior DOJ official said, adding that staff were reviewing thousands of documents under tight deadlines. “There are always errors in reviews of this size.”

The department has defended its decision to withhold certain materials, citing legal and practical constraints. These include classified information, grand jury proceedings, attorney-client communications, and explicit depictions of child sexual abuse. Officials have also said some documents—such as those written in foreign languages or affected by technical issues—have not yet been uploaded.

Still, lawmakers who have reviewed less-redacted versions of the files inside DOJ facilities say the department has gone too far. Some have accused officials of improperly concealing the identities of alleged co-conspirators and withholding key FBI interview memos. In at least one instance, the department reversed course and released previously redacted material following congressional complaints.

The controversy has extended beyond Congress. Survivors of Epstein’s abuse are increasingly weighing legal action, encouraged in part by a recent federal court ruling that suggested individuals—not lawmakers—may have standing to challenge the government’s handling of the records.

Efforts by Massie and Khanna to involve the courts have so far fallen short. A federal judge in New York ruled that they lacked standing to force judicial oversight of the Justice Department’s compliance with the law. Still, the decision left open the possibility for other legal challenges.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are exploring new legislation that would strengthen the original transparency law by adding enforcement provisions and potentially expanding its scope to include other agencies, such as the CIA—an idea that was dropped from the initial bill to secure enough support for passage.

Despite its shortcomings, Khanna argues the law has already achieved something historic.

“There has never been a law in modern American history that has exposed more of the global elite,” he said. “But what we’re seeing now is blatant non-compliance with the law as it stands.”

Legal experts have been more blunt. Bradley Moss, a national security attorney, described the law as effectively unenforceable.

“In practice, it was little more than a ‘please do the right thing’ directive,” Moss said, noting the absence of a clear legal mechanism to compel compliance.

For now, pressure on the Justice Department continues to mount—from Congress, from victims, and from the public.

“This issue is not going away,” Khanna said.