DOJ DEFIES Court Order — Epstein Files HIDDEN

(RightwingJournal.com) – Bipartisan lawmakers are asking a federal judge to force the Department of Justice to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act after DOJ admitted releasing less than 1% of records while missing the statutory deadline.

Story Highlights

DOJ released only 40,000 pages of over 2 million Epstein-related documents, missing December 19 deadline
Lawmakers seek court-appointed official to supervise DOJ compliance with transparency law
Representatives consider contempt or impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi
Bipartisan frustration grows over perceived cover-up of politically sensitive case

Bipartisan Push for Court Intervention

Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, co-sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, are taking unprecedented action by asking U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer to appoint a court-supervised official to force DOJ compliance. The lawmakers state they “do not believe the DOJ will” voluntarily release the complete records despite clear statutory requirements. This extraordinary step reflects growing congressional frustration with what many view as deliberate stonewalling by the Trump administration’s Justice Department on a matter with bipartisan support.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Trump in November 2025, required Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all unclassified DOJ records related to Jeffrey Epstein by December 19, 2025. The law explicitly limited DOJ’s discretion to delay or redact documents, allowing only narrow exceptions to protect ongoing investigations and victim identities. Despite having months to prepare and deploying 400 lawyers to the task, DOJ acknowledged to Judge Engelmayer that it remains in violation of the statutory deadline with no firm completion date.

Massive Document Review Reveals Systemic Failures

DOJ’s letter to Judge Engelmayer reveals the staggering scope of government records related to the Epstein case, with over 2 million potentially responsive documents identified across multiple agencies. The department claims these files are in “various phases of review” requiring extensive redaction work. However, legal experts argue the statute intentionally constrained DOJ’s redaction authority precisely to prevent the kind of indefinite delays that have characterized previous transparency battles involving politically sensitive cases.

The limited initial release of heavily redacted documents has intensified public suspicion about government cover-up efforts spanning multiple administrations. Victims’ advocates and survivors have consistently demanded complete transparency with minimal redactions, viewing the DOJ’s approach as another attempt to shield powerful individuals from accountability. The case represents decades of alleged institutional failures, with reports showing that victims like Maria Farmer complained to the FBI as early as 1996, yet Epstein continued operating his trafficking network for over two decades.

Constitutional Crisis Over Executive Branch Defiance

The standoff represents a serious separation of powers challenge, with Congress having passed a law with near-unanimous bipartisan support that the executive branch is openly defying. Representatives Khanna and Massie are exploring multiple enforcement mechanisms, including contempt citations and potential impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Bondi and other senior DOJ officials. This constitutional confrontation undermines the principle that executive agencies must faithfully execute laws passed by Congress, especially when those laws address government transparency and accountability.

For conservative Americans who value constitutional governance and distrust government secrecy, this situation highlights concerning patterns of institutional resistance to transparency mandates. The DOJ’s failure to comply with a clear statutory deadline, despite having the resources and authority to do so, suggests either incompetence or deliberate obstruction. Either scenario undermines public confidence in federal law enforcement agencies that are already facing credibility challenges following Epstein’s suspicious death in federal custody in 2019.