DOJ Redaction

Joint letter from Senators Merkley, Murkowski, Luján, and Durbin to the Government Accountability Office requesting an audit of the Department of Justice's redaction practices in the Epstein Files Transparency Act releases. Raised concerns about the scope and consistency of redactions.

January 31, 2026 The Honorable Todd Blanche Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Deputy Attorney General Blanche: I am writing to request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) immediately arrange for Members and staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary to review the complete unredacted Epstein files next week. Yesterday, the Department released a tranche of documents related to disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and claims to have fully satisfied its obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA).1 In your news conference announcing the materials’ release, you said: “If any Member of Congress wishes to review any portions of the response of production in any unredacted form, they’re welcome to make arrangements with the Department to do so, and we’re happy to do that.”2 The Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee do wish to review the files. Our review is particularly urgent because DOJ itself claims to have identified over 6 million potentially responsive pages, but after releasing only about half of them-including over 200,000 pages that DOJ redacted or withheld-says strangely that it has fully complied with the Act. We seek to ensure that your redactions comply with the Act’s requirement that materials be withheld only in narrow circumstances, such as protecting victims’ personally identifiable information, and not on the basis of “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”3 Moreover, in light of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s appearance in a hearing before the Committee on February 11, it is vital that Committee Members and staff have an opportunity to review the unredacted files in 1 Letter from Pamela J. Bondi, Att’y Gen., & Todd Blanche, Deputy Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Congress (Jan. 30, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/letter-to-

Tenth data set consisting primarily of FBI interview summaries (FD-302 forms) with victims and witnesses. The interviews were conducted across multiple investigations from 2005 through 2021. Many victim identities were redacted to protect their privacy. The records documented the scope of Epstein's abuse pattern across multiple locations and years.

Eleventh data set comprising the index and select images from the approximately 180,000 images and 2,000 videos released by the DOJ. The release included photographs from Epstein's properties, surveillance footage stills, evidence photographs, and social event images. Victim-identifying images were withheld or redacted.

First data set released by the Department of Justice under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). The initial release comprised approximately 125,575 pages and drew bipartisan criticism for being heavily redacted, with over 500 pages entirely blacked out. The release included photographs, court records, FBI documents, news clippings, and emails.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -v- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This decision resolves a motion pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (the “Act”), H.R. 4405, signed into law on November 19, 2025. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) moves for an order that would enable it to publicly release two categories of records from this case that it contends are within the scope of the Act. First, DOJ asks the Court to rule that the Act covers the grand jury transcripts and exhibits in this case (the “grand jury materials”) and, as to these, overrides Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). That ruling would authorize DOJ to publicly release the grand jury materials pursuant to the Act. Second, DOJ asks the Court to rule that the Act covers the extensive discovery the prosecution provided to counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in connection with her 2021 trial (the “discovery materials”) and to modify the protective order that governs such discovery. That modification would permit DOJ to publicly release the discovery materials pursuant to the Act. Consistent with a provision of the Act, DOJ has pledged-with respect to both categories of materials-to withhold or redact segregable portions that contain personally identifiable and other victim-related information. For the following reasons, the Court grants DOJ’s motion. In modifying the protective order, the Court, consistent with the Act, puts in place a mechanism to protect victims from the Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 820 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 24 2 inadvertent release of materials within the discovery in this case that would identify them or otherwise invade their privacy. I. Background A. Maxwell’s Indictment, Trial, Sentencing, and Appeal The history of this case spanning indictment through direct ap