Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat and the lead author of the law that forced the Department of Justice to hand over Jeffrey Epstein’s files, is sounding the alarm over the agency’s initial disclosures. Khanna has been a vocal advocate for transparency in the Epstein case, leading the effort to pass the law that requires the DOJ to release the files.
The bipartisan bill, signed into law in 2023, requires the DOJ to release the entire case file on the deceased child sex offender and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The law also mandates that the DOJ provide a full explanation for any redactions, ensuring that Congress can assess whether the agency is withholding information. The law set a 30-day deadline for the release, a deadline that was intended to prevent delays and obfuscation.
Under the law, DOJ officials had 30 days to release all the government’s case files on Epstein and Maxwell. The deadline was set for the end of January, but the agency failed to meet it, citing the complexity of redacting sensitive information. The 30-day deadline was set to prevent delays and obfuscation, ensuring that the public and lawmakers could review the evidence promptly.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Friday morning that the department would not meet the deadline because redacting names to protect victims and innocent people was too time-consuming. Blanche said the redaction process involved reviewing each document to identify personal information that could harm victims or innocent parties, a task that required meticulous scrutiny. Instead, the DOJ would release “several hundred thousand” documents Friday, followed by more in the weeks to come.
Khanna expressed disappointment with the incomplete rollout and voiced concerns that the administration might be stone-walling to protect powerful allies. He said he was “disappointed” with the incomplete rollout, noting that the partial release undermines public trust. Khanna’s disappointment stems from his belief that the DOJ’s partial release erodes confidence in the legal system and may conceal evidence of complicity by powerful individuals.
He added, “I reserve judgment until we see all of the release.” “But things seem very heavily redacted, and it’s unclear what is actually new information, and it’s unclear whether the key documents are in there, which shows the guilt of other rich and powerful men in aiding what Epstein did or covering it up.” He questioned whether the redactions were justified, stating that the lack of explanation violated the law’s requirement for transparency. He also highlighted that the lack of a clear explanation for the heavy redactions violates the statutory requirement for transparency.
Khanna floated a menu of remedial steps Congress could take, including impeachment of Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ officials if evidence shows the administration is redacting or withholding information to protect those who abetted or participated in Epstein’s crimes. He said, “[Rep.] Thomas Massie and I will continue to explore all options to fight to make sure that they comply with the law, whether that is holding people in inherent contempt, recommending people for prosecution, recommending impeachment, or private lawsuits.” He emphasized that these steps are within Congress’s authority to hold officials accountable, noting that impeachment is a constitutional tool available to Congress when officials obstruct justice.
Khanna criticized the Justice Department’s credibility, noting that Bondi had said months ago there was nothing more to release, only to contradict herself after the agency released hundreds of thousands of new documents. He asked Bondi and Blanche to explain what they had released and lay out a timeline for what’s to come, saying, “The question is: How do we believe them?” He pointed out that Bondi’s earlier statement contradicted the subsequent release, raising doubts about the DOJ’s statements. He emphasized that Bondi’s contradictory statements undermine the department’s credibility and that a transparent timeline is essential for restoring public trust.
Khanna acknowledged he would never know for sure if the DOJ had released the full set of files in its possession, but he said survivors’ lawyers have seen many key documents. He added, “Obviously, we can’t be sure if it’s fully comprehensive. But there are a lot of survivors’ lawyers who have seen many of the key documents.” “And if those names are not coming out there, if those witness interviews are not coming out there, we know it’s an incomplete release.” He believes that if key documents remain hidden, the DOJ is not complying with the law. He urges Congress to seek independent oversight to verify the completeness of the release.
The congressman’s remarks underscore a growing impatience with the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein case and a willingness to pursue congressional remedies if the agency fails to comply with the law. Whether the administration will provide a full, unredacted release remains a key question for lawmakers and the public, highlighting the tension between protecting sensitive information and ensuring public access to justice documents. The debate underscores the delicate balance between protecting sensitive information and ensuring accountability, a balance that Congress must navigate carefully.
