Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual abuse issued a letter on Monday accusing the U.S. Department of Justice of violating federal law by failing to release comprehensive investigation records by a congressionally mandated December 19 deadline.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which passed the House nearly unanimously and the Senate without opposition before being signed into law, required the Justice Department to release its complete investigative files with only narrow exceptions for survivor identities.
Instead of full disclosure, survivors and the public received what they describe as a fraction of the requested materials, characterized by “abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation.” The partial release included numerous unredacted victim identities, exposing survivors to potential harm, while simultaneously withholding critical financial documents and blacking out 119 full pages of grand jury minutes that a federal judge had approved for release.
“We are told that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of documents still unreleased. These are clear-cut violations of an unambiguous law,” the survivors stated.
The survivors detailed multiple layers of failure in the document release process. Beyond the sheer volume of withheld materials, they criticized the methodology of the partial release, which they said made it “difficult or impossible for survivors to find materials that would be most relevant to our search for accountability.”
Compounding these concerns, survivors reported receiving no guidance on locating case-specific materials and have been denied copies of their own files despite repeated requests. The Justice Department has also failed to communicate what was withheld, why hundreds of thousands of documents remain undisclosed, or how it will prevent further improper disclosure of victim names.
The statement, signed by 18 victims, said that while improved communication “would not change the fact that a law was broken, its absence suggests an ongoing intent to keep survivors and the public in the dark as much as possible and as long as possible.”
Survivors are demanding immediate congressional oversight, including hearings, formal compliance demands, and potential legal action to force Justice Department compliance. They specifically called upon the Department to explain publicly why it missed the legal deadline and to provide private access to all documents identifying survivors by name.
The bipartisan nature of the original legislation forms a central argument for congressional action. “This is not a partisan issue,” survivors said.
The survivors drew a clear distinction between necessary transparency and victim protection, arguing that lawful redaction is essential for publicly released documents. They insisted that transparency must focus on “institutional failures, enablers, financial records, and government conduct, not on further endangering survivors.”
As the statement concludes: “Survivors deserve truth. Survivors whose identities are private deserve protection. The public deserves accountability. And the law must be enforced.”
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), co-authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced Sunday they are pursuing inherent contempt charges against Bondi for what they characterize as deliberate non-compliance with a law President Donald Trump signed on November 19.
Massie and Khanna are invoking Congress’s inherent contempt authority, a constitutional power not exercised by the House since 1916 and by the Senate since 1934. Unlike criminal contempt, which requires Justice Department prosecution, inherent contempt allows Congress to enforce its own subpoenas and orders through its constitutional authority.
The process would involve a House resolution directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Bondi, bring her before the House, and potentially impose fines or detention until she complies. The lawmakers plan to introduce their resolution as “privileged” when the House returns in January, forcing a vote within two legislative days.
Massie warned that non-compliance could have future legal consequences. “If they refuse to produce these materials, then let’s say whoever is the next president, their attorney general could bring charges because the statute of limitations will not have run out on non-compliance with this law. It’s unique,” he said.
