I am a concerned constituent writing to request that the Committee conduct a public, survivor-centered investigation into the Department of Justice’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119–38, and into congressional oversight of DOJ’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein- and Ghislaine Maxwell-related records.

Congress enacted the Epstein Files Transparency Act to require the Attorney General to release, in searchable and downloadable form, unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of DOJ —including the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices— that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and related matters. The law was signed on November 19, 2025, and generally required public release within 30 days, subject to specified protections and exceptions. 

The law’s purpose was not political spectacle. It was transparency, accountability, and justice for survivors, while protecting victims’ privacy and preserving legitimate law-enforcement and national-security interests.

However, DOJ’s implementation has generated serious and unresolved questions about whether records have been withheld, removed, delayed, redacted, or made effectively inaccessible in ways consistent with the law’s text and purpose.

In February 2026, NPR reported that the public Epstein-files database was missing or had removed documents concerning a woman whose 2019 FBI reports contained uncorroborated allegations that President Donald Trump sexually abused her when she was a minor. NPR reported that DOJ’s internal tracking reflected multiple FBI interviews and related material, while the public release initially contained only one interview summary that did not mention Trump. DOJ stated that unpublished records could be privileged, duplicative, or related to an ongoing investigation. 

On March 6, 2026, DOJ released three additional FBI interview summaries relating to the woman’s allegations and said the reports had initially been withheld because they were believed to be duplicative. Reporting at that time indicated that handwritten notes from the interviews still were not publicly available. That later release did not eliminate the underlying oversight question: why were the reports initially absent, which materials remain withheld or removed, which statutory exception applies to each withholding, and who made those decisions? 

The concern is broader than any single person or allegation. The public deserves a complete, auditable accounting of DOJ’s implementation of the Act: which categories of records were published; which were withheld, redacted, delayed, removed, or later restored; the precise statutory basis for each decision; and whether survivors were provided safe, meaningful access to records concerning them.

Congress itself has recognized the potential enforcement gap. In July 2026, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act II, H.R. 9694, which would create mechanisms for victims, state officials, and Members of Congress to seek judicial review of alleged unlawful withholding, redaction, delay, concealment, removal, or nonpublication of records required by the original law. The bill remains pending before the House Judiciary Committee. 

I respectfully request that the Committee:

• Hold a public, survivor-centered hearing on DOJ’s implementation of Public Law 119–38, including DOJ’s policies for withholding, redacting, delaying, removing, and restoring Epstein-related records.
• Require DOJ to produce a publicly releasable compliance report listing every category of record withheld, redacted, delayed, removed, or later restored, together with the specific statutory or legal basis for each decision.
• Require DOJ to preserve all records, audit logs, publication histories, redaction logs, deletion records, metadata, internal guidance, emails, memoranda, and decision documents concerning the Epstein-files database and implementation of the Act.
• Obtain an explanation for why the FBI interview summaries reported by NPR were initially absent and why only some materials were later restored, including whether handwritten notes or related records remain unavailable and on what legal basis.
• Provide survivors and their counsel safe, trauma-informed opportunities to submit testimony, identify missing material, seek access to records concerning their own cases, and describe barriers they have encountered.
• Conduct an open review of whether DOJ’s asserted exemptions—including victim privacy, active investigations, privilege, duplication, or national security—are being applied consistently with the Act rather than as a means of evading it.
• Consider H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, or comparable enforcement legislation that gives survivors and appropriate public officials a meaningful remedy when DOJ fails to comply with statutory disclosure requirements.

I further request that the Committee preserve the distinction between survivor protection and institutional concealment. Victim privacy must be safeguarded. At the same time, privacy protections cannot become a blanket rationale for withholding or obscuring records without an auditable explanation and meaningful independent oversight.

I submit this petition in good faith and under my right to petition my government for redress of grievances. I request a written response explaining what oversight steps, if any, the Committee intends to take.