The Trump-aligned Department of Justice is facing a political and legal firestorm after a court filing appears to openly admit violations of the Epstein Files Transparency Act—a move critics say could one day be used to indict top Trump allies, including former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. What was meant to be a routine status update to a federal judge has instead ignited accusations of a deliberate cover-up collapsing in real time.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/jd-vance-donald-trump-062325-1-9d2e373777ec457f9c288579ddc02fd1.jpg)
At the center of the controversy is U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, who is overseeing matters related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case and adjacent Epstein records. After the Trump DOJ attempted to shift blame onto the judiciary by pushing for the release of grand jury transcripts, Judge Engelmayer called their bluff—agreeing to transparency, but only if the DOJ fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That compliance, according to the DOJ’s own filing, never happened.
In a January 5, 2026 letter signed by Pam Bondi and Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, the DOJ admitted it had reviewed and released only about 125,000 pages—roughly 12,000 documents—while acknowledging that more than two million additional documents remain unreviewed. The law required all responsive records to be produced by December 19, with a certification on redactions due 15 days later. Legal experts say that admission alone establishes a clear, documented violation of federal law.
Even more explosive, critics argue, is the DOJ’s justification for withholding information. Bondi and Blanche claim broad privileges—such as deliberative process, attorney-client privilege, and work product—to justify redactions. But those exemptions are not permitted under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which narrowly limits redactions to victim privacy, classified material, or active investigations. There are currently no active prosecutions related to Epstein beyond Maxwell—making the DOJ’s rationale look increasingly indefensible.
Victim advocates have also slammed the DOJ for what they describe as reckless and incompetent handling of sensitive materials. The filing concedes that previous document releases improperly exposed victim-identifying information, blaming “quality control issues” and even implying victims should have requested redactions themselves. The backlash has been fierce, with critics calling it victim-blaming and evidence of systemic failure—or worse, intentional sabotage.
The implications are staggering. Legal analysts warn that this very filing could one day be introduced by a future Justice Department as evidence that Bondi, Blanche, and others knowingly violated federal law to delay or suppress the Epstein records. What was supposed to bury the Epstein scandal may have done the opposite—creating a paper trail that could haunt Trump’s inner circle for years. As public outrage grows, one thing is clear: the Epstein files aren’t going away, and this DOJ misstep may have cracked the cover-up wide open.
