The Justice Department’s release of the Epstein files — mandated by Congress to be completed last week — is still a work in progress.

Thousands of files still aren’t public. The redactions are extensive, at times going beyond what was called for in the law passed by Congress last month.

The Justice Department said it made the decision on its own to withhold information in the files under executive branch and legal privileges, to be extremely cautious not to expose victims, and to re-release files that had been redacted previously by the federal government under broader guidelines before the law was passed.

In the past four days, the approach has put the Trump administration, and especially its leadership at the Justice Department, on the defensive. Inside the Justice Department headquarters, lawyers are still scrambling to correct mistakes made in redacting files and working through thousands more documents that still aren’t available, according to sources familiar with the work and statements DOJ leadership have made since Friday.

And despite their efforts to defend the work of hundreds of lawyers working through the Epstein records, the Justice Department’s leadership hasn’t been able to silence critics from all corners who now say they aren’t being transparent enough.

In a statement Monday, more than a dozen Epstein survivors who’ve called for transparency slammed the “abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation.”

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie said Sunday that he is working with Democrats to potentially hold Justice Department leaders in contempt because they are “not abiding” by the law requiring broad transparency. And a widely shared fact-check on X said the Trump administration was protecting “pedophiles and rapists.”

On Monday, a spokesman for former President Bill Clinton, who appears unredacted in many of the photos that make up the sliver of what’s new and notable in the files, said there’s “widespread suspicion” that the Justice Department is selectively releasing information to imply wrongdoing about individuals who have been cleared of any crime. Clinton has never been charged with or accused of wrongdoing.

“We call on President Trump to direct Attorney General Bondi to immediately release any remaining materials referring to, mentioning, or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton,” the statement from Clinton spokesman Angel Ureña said.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a request for comment for this story.

Persistent criticism

Criticism of the Justice Department for failing to be transparent with its Epstein records has dogged the department’s leadership throughout Trump’s second term. Bondi was previously panned for touting transparency while re-releasing records that were already in the public sphere.

Other choices made by the Justice Department’s top brass, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, added to the frustration, leading Congress to act and pass the transparency law in the first place. Federal judges previously noted the Justice Department’s prior publicized attempts at transparency, such as asking for grand jury records to be released, wouldn’t have delivered much new information to the public.

The Epstein files released Friday contain hundreds of photos that hadn’t previously been seen, as well some grand jury and interview transcripts that were previously secret and a few other notable filings and internal files.

But by and large, the massive and incomplete trove posted on the Justice Department’s website comprised of records that people could have already found — if they knew where to look.

In many ways, a primary audience for the Epstein files’ release has been an increasingly wide swath of the public, representing both conservatives and liberals across the country, especially those who are active online.

Attempts by Trump officials to defend the release on social media were met with sharp rebuttals. Users on X added “community notes,” flagging inaccuracies, to at least 13 posts from official Justice Department accounts or Bondi and Blanche’s accounts.

The community notes feature on X allows users to add fact-checks or context underneath posts that are misleading. If a critical mass of other users gives the note a positive rating, it will be permanently attached to the original post.

Bondi and Blanche have posted a combined five times on X since the Epstein files dropped on Friday, and every post drew a community note.

In one post, Bondi said, “President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in American history.” In response to this and other claims, a community note stated that the Epstein drop was “full of redactions and deleted pages” and that images of Trump “were removed … to protect him.”

Blanche posted in support of Bondi’s position that the Department would bring charges if someone came forward with new information about Epstein’s associates. An X community note pointed out that the Justice Department said in July that it already did a top-down review of the Epstein probe and “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation” into anyone else. (Blanche himself reaffirmed in a letter sent to Congress on Friday that the DOJ hadn’t found additional evidence to merit a new investigation.)

The Justice Department’s press office also argued on X with Massie, who has championed the release of the files. Massie complained that the administration shielded political figures with improper redactions. The Justice Department disagreed, saying “Do you not see Clinton’s face??”

But the community note concluded: “Rep. Massie is correct.”

Some may call it ‘over-redaction’

The Department does have to follow privacy laws to protect victims of crimes, leading to an approach of extreme caution so far with the Epstein files

In court on Friday, the Southern District of New York’s US Attorney Jay Clayton admitted that some may view the DOJ’s work so far as “over-redaction.” But the department was erring on the side of caution, Clayton said, and crunched for time.

Clayton described to the judges who oversaw the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell that the Department was blacking out the faces of all women who appeared in photos with Epstein, according to a court filing Friday from the Department describing the document release to a federal judge.

Blanche also told Congress in a separate letter on Friday that in addition to redacting the names, faces and other identifying information of more than 1,200 people in the Epstein files, the Justice Department redacted details that it considered to be confidential and privileged, such as attorney work product, executive branch deliberations and attorney-client communications. Blanche gave Congress legal reasoning why the Department redacted that information, though the transparency law Congress passed didn’t specify that privileged information could be withheld.

The ultra-cautious approach was evident in the removal and subsequent restoration over the weekend of a photo that included an image of Donald Trump.

The Justice Department said on Sunday that it had removed the image after its US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, which handled the 2019 Epstein indictment, flagged it in case victims were depicted.

“Out of an abundance of caution,” the Justice Department temporarily removed the photo, then “determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph.”

“It has been reposted without any alteration or redaction,” the Department also said in a statement on the social media site X.

Not updating old redactions

The administration included old documents that the government previously released, without making new updates.

Some of those files include what appears to capture redactions previously made by the FBI, before the transparency law passed.

The Justice Department published two versions of the same document, one with Trump’s name redacted and another with his name visible, prompting further criticism.

One Democratic strategist highlighted the redactions on social media and claimed the administration was “intimidating survivors who implicated Trump” because the document described unverified claims of sexual activity by Trump at one of Epstein’s mansions.

That document originated from a civil lawsuit against Maxwell. The Justice Department’s new “Epstein Library” essentially recreated the full docket from that case – including both the 2022 document with Trump redacted, and also a less-redacted version from 2024 where Trump’s name is visible.

But it was the old version that went viral online, fueling anger at the administration. Trump denies wrongdoing and has never been accused by law enforcement of involvement in Epstein’s crimes, and the victim mentioned in the document has recanted some of her claims over the years.

Blanche has also said the Justice Department hasn’t received any orders to redact Trump’s name from the Epstein files it is reviewing. The Epstein transparency law mandates that nothing in the records should be withheld or delayed from being released “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official,” according to the act’s text.

“President Trump has certainly said from the beginning that he expects all files that can be released to be released, and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Blanche said.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, an advocate for the transparency act and a critic of the Justice Department’s work so far, said on Monday he still wants FBI witness interview records to have more transparency, as well as early drafts and memos regarding a potential Epstein indictment nearly 20 years ago, which was never filed because the Justice Department instead offered Epstein a plea deal.

Khanna said on social media that he expected more Epstein documents could be released as early as Monday afternoon.

Other files that were previously redacted and not updated include the hundreds of FBI documents, prison videos and audio of Epstein conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell that are released in the portion of the Justice Department’s Epstein Library website labeled Freedom of Information Act.

The Department has clearly marked that those records “contain pre-existing redactions,” some of which under FOIA — the federal public records law — would go beyond the requirements of the Epstein transparency law.

Democrats have come out aggressively against the DOJ’s failure to release all documents by the mandated date of December 19 and have said they are exploring all options on how to try and hold DOJ accountable.

Massie and Khanna said Sunday they are considering an effort to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in inherent contempt of Congress in light of the extensive redactions in the documents.

Inherent contempt is a process that involves telling the House or Senate sergeant-at-arms to detain or imprison the person in contempt until he or she honors congressional demands. This is an extremely rare process and hasn’t happened in modern times.

Khanna suggested the contempt measure the lawmakers are drafting “would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” (CNN)

Update news