Skip to main content
2 min read
◆ Mixed look for BondiCongress / MembersCriminal Justice

Pam Bondi Says All Jeffrey Epstein Files Have Been Released

Bondi told Congress that the Justice Department had released the required files, while lawmakers continued to question redactions and withheld material.

Pam Bondi Says All Jeffrey Epstein Files Have Been Released
Image · Deadline

SOURCE CHECK

TAP FOR WHY
Outlet credibilityDeadline70/100 HIGH
This article1 analysis · Oct 10, 2026
Deadline
Feb 15, 2026
tl;dr

Attorney General Pam Bondi told Congress that the Justice Department had released all Epstein-related files required by law. Rep. Thomas Massie disputed that account, citing redactions and documents he said had been removed from review.

Community verdict

12 VOTES
How does this story look for

Counts every outlet’s report of this story. See all 7

● OPEN
Votes cast on this page

Votes cast on this page: ▲ 0 · ◆ 0 · ▼ 0

People in this story

SWIPE →

Attorney General whose letter said the Justice Department had released the required Epstein files

PRIMARY SUBJECT
Thomas Massie
R · KY-4

Representative criticizing the Justice Department’s release of the Epstein files

Massie's version of this story ↗
Donald Trump
R · President of the United States

President named in Bondi’s list of people referenced in the released materials

Ro Khanna
D · CA-17

Representative who co-wrote the Epstein Files Transparency Act with Massie

Part of a bigger story

6 OUTLETS
Pam Bondi Tells Congress DOJ Released Records Covered by Epstein Files Act

Pam Bondi told Congress the Justice Department had released all records required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Lawmakers, including Rep. Thomas Massie, challenged the completeness of the release and its redactions. Center outlets pair Bondi’s account with lawmakers’ objections, including Massie’s criticism of her hearing answers and the department’s redactions. Right-leaning outlets emphasize Massie’s allegation that DOJ is still withholding records, while giving less attention to the department’s rebuttal.

Discussion · 0

What's your take?

Loading comments…