The release of three million files related to the Epstein Transparency Act last week has demonstrated that the FBI and the Department of Justice have concealed key findings into the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. After viewing supposedly unredacted files on Monday, several members of Congress confirmed that the years-long cover-up continues.

The working class, whose lives have been shaped by the social and political corruption embodied in the Epstein operation, is entirely excluded from this process. The files remain inaccessible to the public, journalists and independent investigators, while a handful of lawmakers are allowed tightly controlled viewings designed to create the appearance of oversight without its substance.

After viewing the files, which were in fact not unredacted, at the at Justice Department facility in Washington DC, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) and Ro Khanna (D-California) asserted that at least “six wealthy powerful men” had their identifies redacted even though they were not victims, but instead implicated in Epstein’s criminal network.

Khanna estimated that “70-80 percent” of the files available featured the same redactions that the Department of Justice has publicly published. The California congressman asserted that the redactions were not made by lawyers at the Department of Justice, but by Kash Patel’s FBI in March 2025.

One of the most significance facts Massie identified was an internal FBI document from 2019 that identified billionaire Leslie Wexner, former CEO of Victoria’s Secret, as an Epstein co-conspirator. Wexner hired Epstein in the mid-1980’s as his financial adviser and money manager. For over two decades, until his conviction in 2008, Epstein had access to hundreds of millions of dollars through Wexner.

Another billionaire whose identity was confirmed by the DoJ only after Massie and Khanna pointed out the unnecessary redaction was Emirati billionaire Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. Bin Sulayem is the chairman and CEO of DP World, a massive multinational logistics company that began as a port operator in Jeddah, Saudia Arabia.

Epstein and Bin Sulayem had one of the more disturbing exchanges in the Epstein Files, an ignominious distinction. In an April 24, 2009 email to the “Sultan,” Epstein asked, “where are you? Are you ok, I loved the torture video.”

The person responded, “I am in china I will be in the US 2nd week of May.”

In another correspondence with Epstein on September 30, 2015, Bin Sulayem sent Epstein an email with the subject line “Russian Cypriot.” The email included an image attachment and read: “This girl is russian father Cypriot mom I met her two years ago she got to the American university in Dubai. She got engaged but now she back with me. The best sex I ever had amazing body.”

In addition to Bin Sulayem and Wexner, Khanna and Massie identified four other men who were not victims yet whose names were redacted: Nicola Caputo, Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze and Leonic Leonov. As of this writing, the Justice Department has released no documents explaining their role in the Epstein investigation or why their names were shielded in the first place.

After viewing some of the files on Monday, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin told the media, “There were to be no redactions in order to spare people embarrassment or political disgrace. We didn’t want there to be a cover-up and yet what I saw today was that there were lots of examples of people’s names being redacted when they were not victims.

“So we still haven’t gotten from the DoJ their privileged log explaining why certain redactions were made, but I can tell you that I saw a whole bunch of them that seemed very suspicious and baffling to me.”

Raskin said some of the files that included descriptions of “15-year-old girls. 14-year-old girls, 10-year-old girls. I saw mention of a 9-year-old girl today, this is just preposterous and scandalous.”

The cover-up extends to the manner in which the Epstein files are being made available to lawmakers and exposes the fraudulent character of the Justice Department’s claims of transparency. Members of Congress are permitted to review the materials only on a handful of government-controlled computers in a secure room. They are prohibited from downloading files, taking photographs, or retaining copies of documents. Lawmakers may take notes only by hand, with pen and paper, under supervision.

The practical effect of these restrictions is to render meaningful oversight impossible. The Epstein files consist of millions of pages of documents, images, videos, emails and investigative records accumulated over decades. Even if a member of Congress were to spend an hour every day reviewing files under these conditions, it would take years, if not decades, to examine the material in full, let alone determine whether redactions were lawfully applied or whether evidence of criminal activity by powerful figures remains concealed.

Some three million files have yet to be released in any form as part of the Epstein Transparency Act. As Trump’s Department of Justice continues to break the law, Democrats are not moving towards impeachment, but are pleading for more cooperation.

Appearing on MSNow on Monday, New Mexico Democratic Rep. Melanie Stansbury called on her “Republican colleagues” to “step up and do the right thing” and join Democrats in supporting subpoenas for certain individuals to testify before Congress.

This useless maneuver was exposed by Epstein’s partner in crime, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, earlier in the day. Appearing remotely by video before the House Oversight Committee, Maxwell repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions about herself, Jeffrey Epstein or other co-conspirators involved in an international operation that combined sex trafficking with the exchange of money, access and sensitive information among powerful political and financial figures.

Following the hearing, Maxwell’s attorney David Oscar Markus confirmed her client would answer questions only if her sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump. In exchange for this testimony, Maxwell promised to exonerate both Trump and former President Bill Clinton of any crimes related to Epstein.

The statement read: “If this Committee and the American public truly want to hear the unfiltered truth about what happened, there is a straightforward path. Ms. Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump. Only she can provide the complete account. Some may not like what they hear, but the truth matters. For example, both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Notably, Maxwell did not invoke her Fifth Amendment privileges last summer when she was interviewed for some nine hours by Todd Blanche, Trump’s personal defense lawyer in the Stormy Daniels case. After speaking with Blanche, Maxwell was moved from a medium security prison to a minimum security camp in Texas where she has her own room.

Maxwell’s offer to exonerate Clinton comes as the former president along with former Secretary State Hillary Clinton are set to testify before the same committee. Hillary Clinton is set to testify on February 26, while Bill Clinton is scheduled for the day after.

The recently named Wexner is slated to testify on February 18, while Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant, is scheduled to do so on March 11. Darren Indkye, Epstein’s lawyer, is the last person currently slated to be questioned by the Oversight Committee, on March 19.

The latest disclosures further undermine official claims about the circumstances of Epstein’s death. On Thursday, CBS News reported on newly released documents from the Epstein files showing that investigators flagged an orange-colored figure moving toward Epstein’s locked housing tier on jail surveillance video at approximately 10:39 p.m. on August 9, 2019. This observation was recorded in internal video logs but was never disclosed publicly and was omitted from all official reviews of Epstein’s death.

The existence of this figure directly contradicts repeated assurances from federal authorities that no one entered Epstein’s housing tier on the night of his death. Those claims were made by senior officials, including then-Attorney General Bill Barr, and echoed by law enforcement figures such as Dan Bongino, who asserted publicly that surveillance footage showed Epstein was the only person to enter or exit the area.

Equally unresolved is the fate of the alleged ligature. Michael Thomas, the officer who discovered Epstein’s body the following morning, told investigators he lowered Epstein from the hanging position but did not recall removing a noose from around his neck. Tova Noel, the corrections officer on duty the night Epstein was killed, said she did not see a noose at all. The noose purportedly used in Epstein’s death has never been definitively identified. According to the inspector general’s report, a ligature collected at the scene was later determined not to be the one involved in Epstein’s death.

That same logic of managed exposure and political protection was on display in testimony Thursday by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose appearance before Congress underscored the role of the Democratic Party in containing, rather than pursuing, accountability.

Democratic senators framed their questioning not as an effort to establish facts or consequences, but as an appeal for closure. Senator Chris Coons praised Lutnick for allegedly concluding in 2005 that Jeffrey Epstein was “a disgusting man,” while simultaneously expressing concern over Lutnick’s subsequent visits to Epstein’s island and meetings with him. Coons urged Lutnick to “disclose everything” so Congress could “work together and move on,” a formulation that treated the Epstein files not as evidence of crimes demanding exposure, but as a political obstacle to be cleared away.

Lutnick used the hearing to deny any meaningful relationship with Epstein, claiming he met him only a handful of times and did “absolutely nothing wrong.”