The Epstein Files Transparency Act required that all of the Justice Department’s Epstein files be publicly released by December 19. The department released more than 100,000 pages of material by that deadline but did not release the majority of its files until the end of January. The delay drew condemnation from Democrats and some Republicans.
The Justice Department has been under fire for months over its compliance with the law, with lawmakers finding fault in the missed deadline, the level of redactions in the documents, the interruption of public access to certain documents and the failure to redact some information related to victims’ identities. Several lawmakers have also accused the department of withholding files required to be released.
Last month, Bondi touted the Justice Department’s efforts to comply with the law during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.
“More than 500 attorneys and reviewers spent thousands of hours painstakingly reviewing millions of pages to comply with Congress’s law,” Bondi said then. “We’ve released more than three million pages, including 180,000 images, all to the public, while doing our very best in the time frame allotted by the legislation to protect victims.”
A Wall Street Journal analysis published on Wednesday found more than 47,000 files appear to be missing from the public archive posted on the Justice Department’s website.
A department spokesperson said on Thursday no files had been deleted from the site but 47,635 documents “were offline” for further review to ensure that their release complies with the Epstein transparency law.
Of that tranche of missing files, department officials said they expected to upload some 25,000 of them by the end of the day on Thursday with the rest of those deemed publishable to follow by the end of the week.
“This is the most transparent Department of Justice in history, and all responsive documents will be repopulated online once proper redactions are made,” Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said in a statement.
Although complying with congressional subpoenas is not optional, several past attorneys general in both Republican and Democratic administrations have rejected congressional subpoenas for testimony or documents, citing executive privileges, law enforcement confidentiality or separation-of-powers issues.
In 2024, the Republican-held House voted to hold then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for his refusal to release audio recordings of then-US President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel investigating his retention of classified material.
Five years earlier, then-Attorney General William P. Barr was held in contempt of Congress for rebuffing subpoenas for documents and testimony related to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Trump during his first term.
It is up to the Justice Department, however, to prosecute any contempt charges recommended by Congress. And the department took no action on either the Garland or Barr referrals.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
