Republican senators are pressing Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department to release every file related to Jeffrey Epstein that mentions President Trump's name, after media reports this week revealed that documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act did not include FBI memos summarizing interviews with a woman who made claims in 2019 against both Epstein and Trump involving an incident from the 1980s.
The DOJ publicly released an index indicating the FBI conducted four interviews related to the woman's claims and wrote separate summaries. But the summaries themselves were not among the published files.
The message from GOP lawmakers has been simple: the law says release everything, so release everything.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was characteristically blunt:
"Release the documents. Redact the names of the victims. Don't release photographs, naked or otherwise, of minors. Release the documents. This is not going to go away until there is full disclosure."
Kennedy followed up with a line that left no room for interpretation:
"I don't know how else to say it: Release the documents."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley echoed the sentiment without hesitation:
"I think when we pass a law that says that all documents need to be put out, it seems to me all documents need to be put out."
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine noted that withholding files mentioning a sitting president "would seem to be contrary to the intent of the law," while acknowledging she didn't know whether legitimate reasons existed for redactions. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina called it "concerning" if true, though he added he hadn't yet confirmed the reporting himself. Sen. Joni Ernst said she had believed all files were already released and called it "definitely something I'd want to look into." The Hill reported.
None of these senators hedged on the principle. Congress passed a transparency law. The expectation is compliance.
The DOJ initially told The New York Times that "the only materials that have been withheld were either privileged or duplicates," later adding that some documents may have been held back because of "an ongoing federal investigation."
On Wednesday night, the Department issued a more detailed statement acknowledging that individuals and news outlets had flagged files related to documents produced to Ghislaine Maxwell in discovery during her criminal case:
"As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the Department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the Act, the Department will of course publish it, consistent with the law."
That statement strikes the right note. If files were improperly tagged, fix them. If a legitimate privilege or investigative need applies, explain it. Transparency laws don't come with a footnote that reads "unless politically inconvenient."
The White House has repeatedly said Trump did nothing wrong about Epstein, and the DOJ has previously described the allegations in question as having no credibility. If that's the case, releasing the files only reinforces that position. Withholding them does the opposite.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer held a press conference Thursday in the Capitol, and his rhetoric made clear that Democrats see this as a political weapon, not a transparency cause:
"Let me be blunt, there is a massive coverup going on in the Justice Department to protect Donald Trump and people associated with Jeffrey Epstein."
He vowed an "all-out oversight effort," promised to "pull on every thread" and "chase every lead," and said Democrats plan to travel to the DOJ in the coming days to review unredacted files. Democrats also asked the DOJ and FBI to preserve all records related to decisions on redacting and withholding Epstein documents.
This is Schumer doing what Schumer does: wrapping partisan ambition in the language of justice. The man who spent four years enabling the weaponization of the DOJ against Trump's political allies now demands the same institution answer to him. His concern for transparency is recent and selective.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, claimed Tuesday that the DOJ "appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews" with the woman who made the allegations.
The Democrats' framing here deserves scrutiny. They aren't simply asking for documents. They're pre-loading the conclusion: that any gap in the record is proof of a conspiracy. That framing is designed to ensure that no matter what the files contain, the narrative of a "cover-up" persists.
Here's the political reality. If files are released and contain nothing damaging, Democrats will claim the real documents were destroyed. If files are withheld for legitimate legal reasons, Democrats will call it a cover-up. And if anything ambiguous emerges, it will be treated as a conviction in the court of cable news.
This is why Republicans are smart to get ahead of it. By demanding full release themselves, GOP senators eliminate the Democratic monopoly on the transparency argument. Kennedy, Grassley, Collins, Tillis, and Ernst aren't breaking with the administration. They're protecting it by making the obvious point: sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the law already requires it.
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with broad bipartisan support. The premise was straightforward: the American public deserves to know who was involved in Epstein's operation and why certain people were never prosecuted. Kennedy framed it precisely:
"This is not going away until there's full disclosure and the American people want to know, and they're entitled to know, who if anyone, did Epstein traffic these women to … and why they weren't prosecuted."
That question doesn't become less important when it touches powerful people. It becomes more important. The entire justification for the law was that the Epstein case represented a grotesque failure of the justice system, one in which wealth and connections shielded predators for decades. If the DOJ now carves out exceptions to the transparency mandate, it validates every suspicion the law was meant to address.
Grassley hasn't decided whether to hold a hearing on DOJ compliance. He should. Not to grandstand, but to establish a clear record of what was withheld, why, and on whose authority. Independent journalist Roger Sollenberger first reported on the missing pages. The press did its job. Now Congress needs to do its job.
The DOJ says it's reviewing the flagged files. Good. The review should be swift, the results public, and the explanations specific. Vague invocations of privilege and ongoing investigations won't satisfy a law written to override exactly those kinds of institutional reflexes.
The American people passed this test once before: they demanded the files. They'll demand them again. The only question is whether the Justice Department treats a transparency law as binding or optional.
