Pam Bondi says all Epstein files released, lawmakers claims key details ‘hidden’
By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON – US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Sunday said that all Epstein files are released, but lawmakers alleged that crucial details remain hidden behind redactions and privilege claims.
The clash raised fresh doubts over why some names and past prosecution decisions are still not fully clear.
The buzz around the Epstein files is refusing to die down.
Washington thought the big document dump would calm the noise, it has instead opened a fresh round of suspicion, eye-rolls, and sharp political jabs.
Pamela (Pam) Bondi sent a formal letter to members of Congress stated the Justice Department has released all records related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
She wrote that this move follows a law passed last year, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which ordered the disclosure of millions of documents connected to Epstein and several related categories.
According to Bondi, the department released all “records, documents, communications and investigative materials” in its possession. She also attached a list of government officials and politically exposed people whose names appear somewhere in the files.
On paper, it sounds like full transparency. In reality, critics said the fine print tells a different story.
Republicans and Democrats are not fully convinced.
Thomas Massie, who has been leading the push for file disclosure along with Ro Khanna, said bluntly that the job is “not done yet.”
He pointed to mistakes where names were blacked out even though they should not have been. He also questioned why some names appear to be shielded at all.
Massie argued that the Justice Department is citing “deliberative process privilege” to withhold certain internal records. That legal shield allows agencies to keep internal discussions private.
He said that the transparency law he co-wrote clearly demands the release of internal memos, emails, notes about decisions on whether to investigate or prosecute people linked to Epstein.
The lawmakers want to know not just who was mentioned, but why some people never charged.
One of the biggest unanswered questions is the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein.
The deal allowed him to plead guilty to lesser charges instead of facing more serious federal prosecution.
Massie said the newly released material should include insight into how and why that deal happened.
The critics suspect that without those internal discussions, the public is only seeing the surface story, not the backstage politics that may have shaped prosecutorial decisions.
Massie also claimed the Justice Department removed some documents before lawmakers could review un redacted versions at the department.
Bondi’s letter also included a long list of individuals labeled as government officials or politically exposed persons who appear in the files at least once. She warned that names appear in many different ways.
Some people had direct email contact with Epstein or his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Others were mentioned only briefly, sometimes inside unrelated press reports or documents.
It reportedly includes figures from across the political spectrum over the past two decades including Donald Trump. But crucially, the list gives no context about why each name appears.
The tension spilled into public view during a heated session with the House Judiciary Committee last week.
Lawmakers pressed Bondi about the redactions and about past prosecution decisions tied to Epstein’s network.
Bondi deflected several questions and responded with sharp remarks aimed at individual lawmakers.
The exchange was less like a calm legal briefing and more like a political showdown complete with insults and prepared talking points.
The performance did little to reassure critics who want transparency, not theatrics.
The existence of Bondi’s letter was first reported by Fox News Digital, which broke the story before the wider political storm followed.
The conversation has shifted from “Have the files been released?” to a more pointed “What is still hidden?”
US Justice Department said the Epstein-related records are fully released under the law.
Lawmakers from both parties say the heavy redactions, withheld internal discussions, and missing context make that claim look incomplete.
This tug-of-war is not about documents. It is about trust, media reported.
The public wants clarity on why some powerful figures were investigated and others were not in addition to whether past prosecutorial decisions were influenced by status or connections.
