Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?
The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.
A law that leaves little wiggle room
In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.
The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.
Pam Bondi’s dodgy compliance
By December 19 the department had released tens of thousands of pages but withheld the bulk of the material. Observers noted that many records were heavily blacked out and that the department offered no written justifications for redactions. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged that more documents would be released later, effectively moving the deadline. Massie and Khanna argued that this flouts the statute and have drafted impeachment articles and are weighing inherent contempt. Bondi’s department claims it can withhold materials under common‑law privileges, such as deliberative-process and attorney‑client privilege, even though the statute expressly demands release of “internal DOJ communications” and other decision‑making records. Critics argue that by invoking judge‑made privileges to avoid a law that overrides them, Bondi—who reports directly to Donald Trump—puts the president’s political interests ahead of statutory obligations.
Congress’ options, and why they seldom work
Congress has three enforcement tools: criminal contempt referrals, civil lawsuits, and inherent contempt arrests. The first two depend on the Justice Department, which is unlikely to prosecute its own leaders. Inherent contempt—a forgotten power to arrest defiant officials—has not been used since 1935, but Khanna says it is on the table. Past episodes illustrate why penalties are rare. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about mass surveillance and faced no charges. CIA officials destroyed videotapes documenting torture, yet prosecutors declined to prosecute. FBI agents misused warrantless surveillance authorities, but no one has been held accountable. The pattern is clear: when officials break the rules, investigations are slow, referrals go nowhere, and political leaders quietly move on. As whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack noted, there is a double standard: government officials can lie to Congress with impunity while those who tell the truth are indicted. This inversion of accountability encourages lawlessness within the executive branch and chills those who might expose wrongdoing.
Legal experts note that Congress could also sue to compel disclosure or hold Bondi in criminal contempt, but because the Justice Department prosecutes contempt and is headed by the same officials refusing to comply, those routes are circular. The only truly independent remedy—directing the House sergeant at arms to arrest Bondi and hold her until she obeys—has not been used in nearly a century and would provoke a constitutional crisis. This institutional timidity emboldens agencies to treat congressional mandates as advisory and ensures that accountability remains elusive.
What accountability looks like
Khanna and Massie have urged Congress to impeach Bondi or her deputy, use inherent contempt to detain them, and refer the matter for prosecution. Those remedies would test whether Congress is willing to use dormant constitutional powers. Citizens who value liberty should demand action. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now tells us that blacked‑out pages constitute transparency. Without accountability, the executive branch will continue to flout the law. Bondi may work for Trump, but the buck stops with the president who appointed her. If Congress and voters do nothing, future transparency laws will be meaningless, and the war state will remain healthy at our expense.
Accountability requires more than rhetoric. Congress must be willing to reclaim its constitutional prerogatives—by using inherent contempt, cutting funding, or refusing to confirm officials who flout the law. Voters should demand that elected representatives of both parties stop hiding behind national security and confront a Justice Department that acts as if it is above the law. The stakes extend beyond Epstein; they touch on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the very idea of self‑government. When a cabinet official appointed by the president can ignore a clear statutory mandate and the president remains silent, it signals that the executive branch believes itself sovereign. If we shrug, we will continue down the path where laws are for the governed, not the governors.
Citizens who value liberty and limited government should pay attention. The same apparatus that lied about weapons of mass destruction, destroyed evidence of torture, and spied on millions now wants us to accept redacted documents as “transparency”. When laws are ignored without consequence, the effect is to normalize lawlessness. The Massie–Khanna legislation was not meant to be a suggestion; it was a mandate that passed the House 427-1 and the Senate unanimously. If Congress does not enforce it, future transparency laws will be toothless, and the bureaucracy will continue to protect its own at the expense of truth. In the long run, a free society cannot survive if the government decides which laws apply to its friends and which apply to everyone else. Accountability is not partisan, it is a principle. Without it, injustice will remain healthy and unchallenged, and the rest of us will continue to pay the price.
