Transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case remains frustratingly out of reach.
On Jan. 8, 2026, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) penned a letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer in the Southern District of New York, urging the appointment of a special master to oversee the Department of Justice’s delayed release of files tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as mandated by their co-authored Epstein Files Transparency Act with a deadline of Dec. 19, 2025. The DOJ has only partially complied, releasing some documents on the deadline and more afterward, while a Jan. 5, 2026, filing noted about 12,285 documents produced, but over 2 million potentially relevant files are still under review. The Hill has contacted the DOJ for comment on the matter.
The issue has sparked heated debate over government accountability and the right to public information. While the Epstein case carries heavy emotional weight for survivors, the core question remains whether federal agencies can be trusted to follow legal mandates without oversight. Let’s unpack the timeline and the lawmakers’ push for action.
According to the Hill, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, crafted by Khanna and Massie, set a clear deadline of Dec. 19, 2025, for the federal government to disclose files on Epstein, allowing limited exceptions mainly to safeguard victims’ privacy. Yet, the DOJ missed the mark, trickling out documents on that date and in subsequent weeks. This partial effort has fueled frustration over apparent foot-dragging.
A DOJ filing on Jan. 5, 2026, claimed roughly 12,285 documents, spanning about 125,575 pages, have been released, but admitted over 2 million files are still in various review stages. Another report cited by the lawmakers hints at over 5 million pages potentially in play. Such staggering, inconsistent numbers raise eyebrows about the scale of the task—or the excuse.
Khanna and Massie didn’t mince words, alleging the DOJ might be inflating the volume of materials to make compliance seem impossible, thus stalling disclosure. They pointed to self-reported figures that don’t align with prior statements as evidence of potential manipulation. It’s a bureaucratic sleight of hand that smells of delay over duty.
Beyond delays, the lawmakers criticized the DOJ for heavy redactions that appear to flout the Act’s ban on shielding politically connected figures through withheld information. Such editing undermines the law’s intent to lay bare the full scope of Epstein’s network. Transparency shouldn’t come with an eraser.
They also underscored the human toll, noting that court rulings have acknowledged the DOJ’s actions have inflicted deep pain on survivors. This isn’t just about paperwork—it’s about justice for those already scarred by Epstein’s crimes. Bureaucratic gamesmanship only deepens the wounds.
In their letter, Khanna and Massie wrote, “Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” That blunt assessment cuts to the core of public distrust in federal institutions. If the DOJ can’t follow a clear law, what’s the point of legislating transparency at all?
The lawmakers’ solution is straightforward: appoint a special master or independent monitor to ensure every file and digital record sees the light of day as the Act demands. They’ve asked that this overseer have the power to report to the court on the real status of document releases, flag improper redactions, and expose any misconduct. It’s a call for a watchdog with teeth.
They’ve also urged the court to force testimony from DOJ officials directly involved in the process to clarify what’s really happening behind closed doors. Without such accountability, the public is left guessing about the truth. Stonewalling shouldn’t be a default setting for government work.
Another pointed critique from the duo states, “Absent an independent process, as outlined above, we do not believe the DOJ will produce the records that are required by the Act and what it has represented to this Court.” That’s a polite way of saying the DOJ might keep playing hide-and-seek unless forced to open the vault. Public trust isn’t a game to be trifled with.
The Epstein saga has long been a stain on institutional integrity, with whispers of powerful figures dodging scrutiny. Delaying or redacting files only feeds suspicions of cover-ups at the highest levels. The public deserves the unvarnished truth, not a sanitized version.
Khanna and Massie’s bipartisan push shows that even across party lines, there’s agreement on one thing: government must answer to the people, not hide behind endless reviews. A special master could cut through the red tape and ensure survivors and citizens aren’t left waiting for justice. It’s a practical fix for a festering problem. This isn’t about political theater—it’s about ensuring laws mean something when they’re passed. If the DOJ can’t handle full disclosure without a babysitter, then it’s time for the court to step in and appoint one. Let’s get the facts out and stop the stalling before trust erodes further.