• Rep. Massie told ABC's "This Week" that Trump is "still in with the Epstein class" and the DOJ is violating the law he co-authored
• DOJ sent Congress a six-page letter Saturday listing roughly 130 "politically exposed persons" without distinguishing predators from people mentioned in news clippings
• Trump has endorsed former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein to unseat Massie in Kentucky's May 19 primary, calling the congressman a "real loser" and "psychotic"

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky escalated his public war with the Trump administration Sunday, calling it the Epstein administration and accusing the Justice Department of protecting powerful men connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Massie said the president is targeting him politically because he forced the release of millions of government files that Washington's elite wanted buried.

"Donald Trump told us that even though he had dinner with these kinds of people in New York City and West Palm Beach, that he would be transparent — but he's not. He's still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration, and they're attacking me for trying to get these files released."

The accusation lands on the same day the Justice Department sent a six-page letter to Congress defending its handling of the Epstein file redactions — a letter that has managed to anger virtually everyone involved.

The Epstein Administration: What the DOJ Letter Actually Says

The letter, signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, claims the DOJ has fulfilled its obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act — the law Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna co-authored that passed the House 427-1 and was signed by Trump in November.

The letter includes a list of roughly 130 "government officials and politically exposed persons" named in the files. That list includes President Donald Trump, former President Joe Biden, Bill Clinton (mentioned 1,193 times), Tucker Carlson, Bruce Springsteen, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.

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

The problem: the letter makes no distinction between people who directly communicated with Epstein and people who were merely mentioned in news clippings stored in the files. As Khanna pointed out:

"To have Janis Joplin, who died when Epstein was 17, in the same list as Larry Nassar, who went to prison for the sexual abuse of hundreds of young women and child pornography, with no clarification of how either was mentioned in the files, is absurd."

The DOJ maintained that no records were withheld on the basis of "embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity." It cited deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege and attorney-client privilege for certain withholdings. Massie argues those categories violate the statute, which he says requires the release of internal memos and notes related to investigative and prosecutorial decisions about the Epstein case.

What Massie and Khanna Found in the Unredacted Files

On Feb. 9, Massie and Khanna became among the first lawmakers to view unredacted versions of the DOJ's Epstein files. What they described raised more questions than it answered.

Massie said he found the names of at least six men "that have been redacted that are likely incriminated by their inclusion in these files." The pair said the six included at least one US citizen, a foreign individual "pretty high up in a foreign government" and three or four others whose nationalities they couldn't immediately determine.

The DOJ subsequently un-redacted more than a dozen additional names after the lawmakers raised public concerns — including removing the redaction from Les Wexner, the former Victoria's Secret CEO, who was listed as a possible "co-conspirator" in a 2019 FBI document.

But the situation got complicated fast. Khanna read six names on the House floor on Feb. 10. Blanche fired back, saying the lawmakers had "forced the unmasking of completely random people" who had nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell. An investigation by OCCRP found that while two of the six were known Epstein associates — including Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, who resigned as chairman of Dubai-based DP World — several others appeared to be ordinary citizens whose names appeared in FBI lineup documents.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Khanna acknowledged the mistake but blamed the DOJ: "I wish DoJ had provided that explanation earlier instead of redacting then unredacting their names."

The DOJ Surveillance Controversy

Adding fuel to the fire: during the Feb. 11 House Judiciary Committee hearing where Massie grilled Bondi, the AG was photographed with a document titled "Jayapal Pramila Search History" — revealing that the DOJ was tracking which searches lawmakers conducted in the unredacted file viewing room.

The revelation produced rare bipartisan outrage. Rep. Pramila Jayapal called it "outrageous." Rep. Jamie Raskin called it an "outrageous abuse of power." Republican Rep. Nancy Mace called it "disturbing … a form of intimidation, potentially." Even House Speaker Mike Johnson — typically aligned with the administration — said it was "not appropriate" for DOJ to track congressional searches.

House Democrats launched an investigation on Feb. 13 into the surveillance practice.

The Epstein Administration: Massie vs. Trump

The personal political stakes are enormous. Trump endorsed former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein in October 2025 to challenge Massie in Kentucky's May 19 primary, calling Massie a "totally ineffective LOSER" and more recently a "moron" and "psychotic." A Trump-aligned super PAC has spent over $1 million in ads against Massie.

The rift goes beyond Epstein. Massie was one of only two Republicans to vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, opposed Trump's military strikes against Iran and the effort to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and joined Democrats in attempting to restrict presidential military intervention.

Gallrein's message is straightforward party loyalty.

"He votes with the other party with deeply flawed logic. He's no Republican."

That was Gallrein's assessment of Massie in an interview with WHAS11.

Massie has framed it differently. Asked about his opponents, he told the station he's being opposed by "three billionaires who epitomize the Epstein class."

Trump, for his part, celebrated Bondi's combative hearing performance: "AG Pam Bondi, under intense fire from the Trump Deranged Radical Left Lunatics, was fantastic."

What Both Sides Leave Out

The Epstein file saga is a story where virtually everyone has selectively emphasized facts that serve their narrative.

What the Trump administration leaves out: The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed 427-1 and was signed by Trump himself. The law explicitly prohibits redactions based on embarrassment or political sensitivity. Yet the DOJ has cited privilege categories that Massie argues aren't authorized by the statute. Files were uploaded and then taken down from the public site. Lawmakers found redacted documents even in what was supposed to be the unredacted viewing room. And the DOJ surveilled congressional searches without disclosing the practice in advance.

What Massie's critics leave out: Massie has the most conservative lifetime rating of any Kentucky congressman from multiple conservative rating organizations. His push for the Epstein files was bipartisan — co-authored with a Democrat — and passed with near-unanimous support. The fact that he's now being primaried for it raises legitimate questions about whether transparency applies when it's politically inconvenient.

What critics on all sides leave out: The DOJ claims it identified over six million pages requiring review, released approximately 3.5 million pages along with 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. By some accounts, 2.5 to 3 million additional pages have not been made public. The files are so massive that Rep. Raskin estimated it would take lawmakers seven and a half years to review them all using the four available computers at DOJ. Meanwhile, the Khanna-Massie naming episode showed the real-world dangers of rushing to expose names — several of the six turned out to be ordinary people in FBI lineup photos, not powerful co-conspirators.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) offered perhaps the most telling bipartisan assessment after reviewing the files herself:

"Now I see what the big deal is. And the members of Congress that have been pushing this were not wrong."

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, framed the accountability question in terms that cross party lines:

"Why wasn't this investigated when these accusations and these stories actually were heard by the FBI years ago? This is an issue not just in Republican administrations, but also ones led by Democrats. We have to get answers."

If a bipartisan law passed 427-1 can't compel full transparency from the executive branch, what mechanism does Congress actually have to force accountability on cases where powerful people are implicated — and does Massie's primary fight signal that pursuing it will cost you your seat?

Sources

My article was compiled using information from the following sources: Washington Times reporting on Massie's "Epstein administration" comments, The Hill's reporting on the DOJ letter to Congress, CNN's coverage of the unredacted file viewing, TIME's reporting on redaction removals, NBC News live updates on the Epstein files, Wikipedia's comprehensive Epstein Files Transparency Act timeline, OCCRP's investigation into the six named individuals, Mediaite's reporting on the DOJ's list of politically exposed persons, MSNOW's reporting on Massie's Sunday interview, The Hill's reporting on Massie-Khanna findings, PBS coverage of the January 30 file release, WHAS11's coverage of the Kentucky primary dynamics, Washington Examiner's analysis of the primary as a Trump loyalty test, Detroit News profile of Massie's showdown with Trump, House Democrats' letter to Bondi on DOJ surveillance, and San.com's aggregated analysis of the DOJ letter.

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