Ro Khanna Exposes DOJ’s Two-Track Story on Epstein Files: Blame the Judge, Withhold the Records
- CUBNSC
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
CUBNSC STAFF | ON THE HILL
updated: 01/21/26 3:30pm
In December 2025, Congress enacted the Epstein Transparency Act, a federal law requiring the U.S. Department of Justice to release records related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The law set a clear deadline of December 19, 2025. As of late January 2026, the DOJ has acknowledged that it has released less than one percent of the materials it possesses.
Now, a rare bipartisan intervention by two members of Congress has placed the DOJ’s conduct under scrutiny, not by launching a lawsuit, but by alerting a federal judge that the Department’s public statements sharply contradict its legal arguments in court.
Epstein: The Law and the Delay
The Epstein Transparency Act was designed to compel disclosure of Epstein-related files that had remained sealed or otherwise unavailable to the public for years. According to DOJ statements, the Department holds hundreds of thousands of pages of relevant materials.
Despite the statutory deadline, only a small fraction has been released. The DOJ has attributed delays to court orders, redactions, and the need for judicial approval.
The Court at the Center
The matter is tied procedurally to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, the criminal case over which U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer presided in the Southern District of New York. In late November 2025, the DOJ formally asked Judge Engelmayer to amend protective orders in the Maxwell case, stating that such amendments were necessary to comply with the new law.
On December 9, 2025, the court agreed and amended those protective orders.
Ten days later, the DOJ missed the statutory deadline.
DOJ’s Public vs. Courtroom Positions
On December 21, 2025, the DOJ issued a public “fact sheet” asserting that the release of Epstein files was proceeding and suggesting that prior court seals had been the primary obstacle. The statement indicated that the Epstein Transparency Act gave judges a “legal predicate” to permit disclosure and implied that the courts were now responsible for the pace of release.
However, in subsequent court filings, the DOJ took a different position. It argued that:
Members of Congress lacked standing to seek relief.
Federal courts have no authority to enforce the Epstein Transparency Act.
The Act provides no enforceable mechanism compelling the DOJ to act.
In effect, the Department told the court it lacked power to force disclosure, while telling the public that the court was the reason disclosure was slow.
The Khanna–Massie Amicus Brief
In response, Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) filed an amicus curiae brief—a “friend of the court” filing—in Judge Engelmayer’s court.
The lawmakers did not seek to intervene as parties, nor did they ask the court to rule on their standing. Instead, they made three core points:
They are the lead sponsors of the Epstein Transparency Act and have a direct institutional interest in its faithful execution.
The DOJ previously invoked the court’s authority, asking for amended protective orders in order to comply with the Act.
The DOJ is now publicly attributing its own noncompliance to the court, while simultaneously arguing in court that the judge has no authority to enforce the law.
The brief included the DOJ’s December 21 public fact sheet as an exhibit, highlighting what the lawmakers described as a contradiction between public messaging and legal argument.
A Warning to the Court
Rather than asking for immediate sanctions or enforcement, the lawmakers framed their filing as a warning. They urged the court not to allow itself to be portrayed publicly as the obstacle to transparency, particularly when the DOJ itself sought and received judicial assistance before failing to meet the statutory deadline.
They also suggested that the court consider appointing a special master or independent monitor to determine how many Epstein records exist and to ensure compliance with the law.
Update: Judge Engelmayer Issues Ruling, Blocks Intervention but Leaves Enforcement Path Open
On Wednesday morning, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a ruling that clarifies the immediate legal limits of the Epstein Transparency Act while leaving broader questions unresolved.
Judge Engelmayer barred Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie from intervening in the criminal case of Ghislaine Maxwell, agreeing with the Justice Department that lawmakers lack the legal right to append their enforcement demands to a concluded criminal proceeding. The court also declined to appoint an independent monitor or special master within the Maxwell case to oversee the release of Epstein-related records.
However, the ruling does not absolve the DOJ of its obligations under the Epstein Transparency Act, nor does it resolve whether the Department is in compliance with the law. Instead, Judge Engelmayer made clear that Congressional cosponsors may pursue enforcement through a separate civil lawsuit, including seeking court oversight to compel compliance.
In effect, the judge drew a procedural boundary, not a substantive endorsement of the DOJ’s conduct. While he agreed that the Maxwell criminal case is not the proper vehicle for enforcement, the decision leaves intact the central conflict highlighted by Khanna and Massie: the DOJ previously invoked the court’s authority to amend protective orders in order to release the files, yet later argued that courts lack authority to enforce the law once compliance failed.
The ruling underscores a broader institutional question now squarely in view: Can a federal agency invoke judicial authority when convenient, then deny that same authority when enforcement is sought?
For now, the Epstein files remain largely unreleased. The DOJ’s compliance with the Epstein Transparency Act remains contested, Congress’s intent remains unfulfilled, and the next phase of the dispute appears headed toward standalone litigation rather than continued proceedings in the Maxwell case.