The DOJ has not met a law's Dec. 19 deadline for the release of all the files.
Jeffrey Epstein is seen in this image released by the Department of Justice in Washington, December 19, 2025
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday declined to appoint a special master to oversee the Justice Department's production of the remaining Epstein files, despite "legitimate concerns" about whether the DOJ is faithfully complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The Dec. 19 deadline the law imposed for the release of all files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has come and gone, and at least two members of Congress say the Justice Department is still in possession of as many as two million potentially relevant documents.
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York said last week they're still reviewing and redacting material from the investigations into Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell to comply with court orders about protecting victims.
Several Epstein victims wrote letters supporting legislators' push for a neutral monitor.
In his opinion released Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer said the "questions raised by the Representatives and the victims are undeniably important and timely" and raise "raise legitimate concerns about whether DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law."
However, the judge concluded he lacks jurisdiction to supervise the Justice Department's compliance with the Epstein Act.
"The Representatives have not articulated how the criminal statutes under which Maxwell was charged would empower the Court to enforce the EFTA," Engelmayer wrote.
Jeffrey Epstein is seen in this image released by the Department of Justice in Washington, December 19, 2025 U.S. Justice Department
The opinion also said the members of Congress -- Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. -- have no role in the matter.
"The Representatives do not seek to opine on any live issue before the Court," Engelmayer wrote. "And the appointment of a neutral to supervise DOJ's compliance with the EFTA is far afield from any matter pending before the Court."
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November, following blowback the Trump administration received seeking the release of materials related to their probe of Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. President Donald Trump signed the act into law on Nov. 19.
Materials released to date include a trove of photographs and court records, including a complaint to the FBI about Epstein that was filed years before he was first investigated for child sex abuse, and documents containing previously unknown details about plans for Epstein's 2019 arrest.
The files released so far, however, have yet to show evidence of wrongdoing on the part of famous, powerful men, against the expectations of many of those who have been pushing for the files' release.
TwistedTreelineScrub on January 21st, 2026 at 18:11 UTC »
While the judge declined to appoint one because Massie and Khanna don't have standing, the judge very unsubtly encouraged the Epstein victims to push for the action in court because they would have the necessary standing. So this is the judge following the law, but still giving a wink and a nudge on how to go about getting a special monitor appointed.
mrdominoe on January 21st, 2026 at 18:03 UTC »
And republican voters shrug as they continue to support a rapist and his fascist government.
B-Z_B-S on January 21st, 2026 at 18:01 UTC »
Pam Bondi is protecting pedophiles. Release the Epstein Files! Impeach Pam Bondi!