• Only 12,000 documents released from more than 2 million files under review
• Congressmen who wrote law accuse DOJ of flagrant violation and possible criminal conduct
• U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton says lawmakers lack standing to request special master

NEW YORK, NY (TDR) — The Department of Justice has formally moved to block the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, arguing no federal court has authority to compel disclosure under the Epstein Files Transparency Act despite Congress passing the law with overwhelming bipartisan support.

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton told U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in a six-page letter Friday that the court must reject requests from the law’s congressional sponsors to appoint a special master or independent monitor, claiming the representatives lack legal standing to intervene in the closed criminal case.

Congressional Authors Demand Oversight

Representatives Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, co-authored the transparency legislation that President Trump signed in November 2025. The law required the Justice Department to release all unclassified Epstein investigation files within 30 days, setting a December 19, 2025 deadline.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The congressmen filed an emergency motion this week expressing alarm over the slow pace of document disclosure and alleged violations of the law.

“Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act,” Khanna and Massie wrote in their filing to Judge Engelmayer, requesting appointment of an independent monitor to ensure all documents are immediately made public.

The lawmakers said they believe criminal violations have taken place in the release process and that the Justice Department’s handling of the disclosure has caused “serious trauma to survivors.”

Only 1% of Files Released

According to DOJ court filings, the department has released approximately 12,000 documents totaling 125,000 pages from more than 2 million files currently under review by a team of 400 lawyers. This represents less than 1% of the total materials covered by the transparency act.

“To date, the Department has now posted to the DOJ Epstein Library webpage approximately 12,285 documents in response to the Act, and there are more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the Act that are in various phases of review,” Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote to the court.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Khanna and Massie characterized the partial release as a flagrant violation of federal law’s release requirements.

“The Department of Justice’s release of only 12,000 documents out of more than 2 million documents being reviewed was a ‘flagrant violation’ of the law’s release requirements and had caused ‘serious trauma to survivors,'” the congressmen stated in court documents.

DOJ Claims No Legal Authority Exists

Clayton’s response argues that the Epstein Files Transparency Act does not create an individual right to obtain information like the Freedom of Information Act, nor does it authorize anyone to sue the Justice Department for noncompliance.

“Engelmayer ‘lacks the authority’ to grant such a request,” Clayton wrote, particularly because the congressional representatives are not parties to the criminal case that led to Maxwell’s December 2021 sex trafficking conviction and subsequent 20-year prison sentence.

The U.S. Attorney contended that recent efforts by members of Congress amount to an improper attempt to reopen a concluded criminal case and create judicial oversight that Congress did not specifically authorize in the statute.

According to the DOJ letter, prosecutors assert that Representatives Khanna and Massie lack Article III standing because they have not suffered a concrete, particularized injury required for federal court jurisdiction.

Victim Privacy vs Public Interest

The Justice Department has defended the slow release by citing the need to protect victim identities through careful redactions of sensitive information.

“The goal of all these efforts is to facilitate the release of materials under the Act promptly and to continue to protect victim privacy to the maximum extent practicable,” the DOJ stated in court filings.

However, the department acknowledged that despite tens of thousands of manual redactions, some information that victims believe should have been redacted has already been posted in the initial releases.

The Justice Department said it would implement additional quality control measures and deduplicate files across different divisions to ensure consistent redaction standards.

Maxwell Case Background

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 of recruiting girls and women for Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse and aiding in the abuse. She is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence.

Epstein, a financier who cultivated relationships with prominent politicians and celebrities, died by suicide in a Manhattan federal jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the House of Representatives on November 18, 2025, in a 427-1 vote. The Senate unanimously approved the bill the same day, and President Trump signed it into law on November 19, 2025.

Congressional Response

Representative Khanna rejected the Justice Department’s legal arguments in a statement responding to Clayton’s letter.

“We are informing the Court of serious misconduct by the Department of Justice that requires a remedy, one we believe this Court has the authority to provide, and which victims themselves have requested,” Khanna said. “Our purpose is to ensure that DOJ complies with its representations to the Court and with its legal obligations under our law.”

The Justice Department has promised to update the court “again shortly” regarding progress in turning over documents from the Epstein and Maxwell investigative files.

Will Judge Engelmayer side with Congress and appoint an independent monitor, or accept the Justice Department’s claim that courts lack enforcement authority over the transparency law?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10