Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie went on ABC's This Week and called the Trump presidency "the Epstein administration," accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice of stonewalling the full release of records tied to deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein. The accusation landed the same day Bondi published a list of 305 celebrities and politicians mentioned at least once in the Epstein files.
Massie did not mince words.
"He's still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration."
According to the Daily Mail, he accused the DOJ of pulling key documents after they had already been produced, specifically citing two files related to Virginia Giuffre's case. He accused unnamed billionaires of exerting influence to keep the files sealed. And he framed the entire fight as one man against a protected class in Washington.
"There are billionaires that are friends with these people, and that's what I'm up against in D.C."
Before Massie's interview aired, Bondi released the names of 305 individuals mentioned in the Epstein files. The list included names ranging from Kamala Harris to Princess Diana to the Obamas to Bruce Springsteen and Lisa Marie Presley. Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, noted that names appear across the files in a "wide variety of contexts," and being listed does not imply guilt or wrongdoing of any kind.
That distinction matters. Princess Diana died in 1997, years before Epstein faced any criminal charges. Her inclusion illustrates how sprawling and varied these records are. A name on a list is not an accusation. It is a data point.
The DOJ has stated it released all relevant files from its investigation and that the probe uncovered no criminal wrongdoing by powerful individuals beyond Epstein himself and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted and remains imprisoned.
Massie disputes that characterization directly. He claims significant documents were removed after being produced.
"They took down some of the most significant documents, two of them involving Virginia Giuffre's case."
Those two claims sit in flat contradiction, and neither side has resolved the discrepancy publicly.
The tension between Massie and the DOJ did not begin on Sunday. Last week's House Judiciary Committee hearing turned combative when Bondi defended the administration's handling of the files and clashed with lawmakers from both parties. She confronted Massie directly, accusing him of political opportunism and telling him he was suffering from "Trump derangement syndrome."
"You sit here and you attack the president and I'm not going to have it."
Democrats seized on the moment as well. Rep. Jamie Raskin criticized the DOJ's redaction approach, arguing that names of potential co-conspirators were being shielded under the guise of protecting victims.
"We didn't want to see any redactions of the names of co-conspirators, accomplices, enablers, abusers, rapists, simply to spare them potential embarrassment, political sensitivity or disgrace of some kind."
Raskin further claimed the released documents were "filled with redactions of names and information about people who clearly are not victims and may fall into that other category."
Here is what makes Massie's broadside so unusual: he is not wrong that the public deserves full transparency on the Epstein files. That has been a bipartisan demand. Massie himself, alongside Democrat Ro Khanna, led the discharge petition that forced the government to release Epstein-related evidence. That measure passed Congress and was signed into law by President Trump.
Trump signed the bill. Bondi published 305 names. The DOJ says it has released everything from its investigation. Whether that constitutes "everything" in any meaningful sense is a legitimate question. But calling it "the Epstein administration" is not a serious way to ask it.
Massie's rhetoric puts him in the rare position of sounding indistinguishable from the Democrats sitting next to him. When Jamie Raskin is making essentially the same argument with essentially the same tone, a Republican congressman should ask himself whether he is advancing transparency or simply providing ammunition to people who have no interest in transparency at all, only in political damage.
There is a version of this fight that serves the public. It involves pressing the DOJ on the specific documents Massie says were removed, demanding answers about the Giuffre case files, and holding hearings that produce facts instead of soundbites. Labeling the entire administration after a dead sex trafficker is not that version.
Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal child sex trafficking charges. His death was officially ruled a suicide. Maxwell was convicted and imprisoned. The files produced from the investigation have already sent shockwaves through powerful circles, stripping Prince Andrew of his royal titles and forcing reckonings across business, academia, and politics.
The public appetite for full disclosure is real and justified. Children were trafficked. Powerful people were in the room. The instinct to demand every last page is not paranoia. It is civic hygiene.
But the question is whether Massie's approach advances that goal or merely advances Massie. Trump has already vowed to support a primary challenger against him. That context does not discredit Massie's underlying concern, but it does explain the volume. A congressman facing political extinction has every incentive to make noise, and calling the administration "the Epstein administration" on national television is very loud noise indeed.
The American public deserves to see every file that does not compromise an active victim's safety. That is not a left-wing position or a right-wing position. It is a baseline expectation of a government that claims to serve the people who fund it.
What the public does not need is a Republican congressman handing Democrats their next campaign ad while claiming to fight the establishment. Massie says he wants sunlight. Fine. Sunlight does not require a flamethrower.
Press for the Giuffre documents. Demand an accounting of what was removed and why. Subpoena if necessary. But do it with the precision the victims deserve, not with a label designed to trend on social media.
Three hundred and five names are now public. The DOJ says the investigation is complete. Massie says it is not. Someone is wrong. The way to find out is through oversight, not cable news grenades.