SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
classified documents
Cover-Up Feared as Epstein Files Law Lets DOJ Redact Info Sensitive to ‘National Security’
"Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation," said independent journalist Ken Klippenstein. "But the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people."
Nov 20, 2025
After its near-unanimous approval in Congress and following months of sustained public pressure, President Donald Trump signed a law on Wednesday releasing the files from the FBI's investigation into the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The law is called the "Epstein Files Transparency Act," but critics fear that a key provision could allow the US Department of Justice to keep critical information from coming to light.
The law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to "make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials" related to the investigations into Epstein and his partner and coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell within the next 30 days.
But critically, it gives Bondi expansive power to redact large amounts of information, potentially burying material that may be incriminating to the president, whose relationship with the disgraced financier has become the subject of greater speculation with each new set of documents released.
One provision allows Bondi to redact documents to strike information that "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution." Last week, Trump ordered Bondi to open investigations into Epstein's connections with several prominent Democrats: Among them are former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.
Lawmakers have raised fears that these investigations were enacted to give Bondi greater leeway to scrub information from the record. On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), the law's Republican cosponsor, warned that the DOJ "may be trying to use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files."
But another largely overlooked section may give her even more sweeping authority. The law states that information may also be redacted "if the attorney general makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security." It also allows her to redact information deemed "to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
While the law requires Bondi to issue a written justification for each piece of redacted information and also clarifies that no file shall be "withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary," it does not define the criteria Bondi must use to determine whether something is in the interest of America's "national security," "national defense," or "foreign policy."
"One glaring loophole will prevent full transparency: It’s called national security," wrote independent journalist Ken Klippenstein Monday, as the House moved toward a vote on the files. "Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation, but the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people by depriving them of information."
There are many cases in recent memory of the US using national security as a justification to withhold information from the public. Earlier this year, the Trump administration used its "state secrets" privilege to deny a judge's request to turn over information related to its extrajudicial deportation flights to El Salvador, arguing that it would compromise its diplomatic relations with that country. Meanwhile, past administrations have used national security to justify keeping the public in the dark about everything from the military's use of torture to the government's mass surveillance of American citizens.
While the primary interest in Epstein surrounds his alleged role in facilitating a sex trafficking ring for the political and economic elite, there are clear cases where the government could attempt to use national security as a justification to keep information hidden.
For example, recent documents have revealed the extent of his involvement with foreign intelligence and dealmaking. Drop Site News has reported extensively on Epstein's long history working as an informal fixer for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to secure deals with several foreign nations that benefited Israel and attempted to shape global politics, including in the United States, to its interests.
Klippenstein has also raised concerns about the inclusion of the word "unclassified" in the bill, which he noted "is an official word that in theory only exists when it comes to national security matters; that is, that the release of such information could cause 'harm' to national security."
He said he asked Massie and the law's Democratic cosponsor, Ro Khanna (Calif.), for comment on why that word was included at all since the law does not relate to national security. Neither responded.
But Massie told journalist Michael Tracey back in September that a similar provision to redact info related to “national defense” was included because, "You have to put that in there if you’re going to get them to sign it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who fought against the release of the files until the bitter end but ultimately voted for the bill along with all but one member of the House, invoked what he called "national security concerns" in a last-ditch effort to stop the discharge petition that brought the Epstein bill to the House floor.
It echoed what Bondi herself said back in March when asked on Fox News why any information besides victims' names would need to be stricken from the record: "Of course, national security."
"If large sections of the files remain redacted or withheld, the public may face a truncated version of 'transparency,' one that protects many of the powerful rather than exposes them," wrote independent journalist Brian Allen. "This is not just a story about Epstein. It is a stress test of our system of accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Calls for Vote to Release 'FULL' Epstein Files to Public
The Trump administration is facing suspicion from all sides of burying information about the convicted sex criminal, who has a well-documented history with Trump. "This is about transparency and restoring trust, not partisan politics," said Khanna.
Jul 13, 2025
U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna said he will attempt to force a vote in Congress to release all the government's files pertaining to the notorious financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"On Tuesday, I'm introducing an amendment to force a vote demanding the FULL Epstein files be released to the public," Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted Saturday night. "Speaker [Mike Johnson] must call a vote and put every Congress member on record."
The administration of President Donald Trump has been accused in recent days of covering up information about the extent of the financier's crimes and his connections to powerful individuals, including President Donald Trump himself.
"Why are the Epstein files still hidden? Who are the rich and powerful being protected?" Khanna asked.
Since Epstein's death in 2019 in federal custody following charges of child sex-trafficking, the billionaire investor has been the subject of rampant speculation.
Though his death was officially ruled a suicide, some have speculated that Epstein was murdered to prevent him from implicating other elite "clients" in his sex-trafficking ring. Epstein had relationships with powerful individuals, including former President Bill Clinton and the U.K.'s Prince Andrew.
Trump also has a well-documented history with Epstein. They have been extensively photographed together. And last year, an audio tape was released in which Epstein described himself as "Donald Trump's closest friend."
In June, amid a public falling-out with the president, billionaire Elon Musk said that the Trump administration, which he'd just departed, was covering up the files to protect Trump.
"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," he wrote. That is the real reason they have not been made public."
During the 2024 campaign, Trump said he would "probably" release the so-called "Epstein files" to the public. Meanwhile, many members of his Department of Justice—including FBI Director Kash Patel—rose to prominence in part by accusing Joe Biden's administration of covering up secrets about Epstein to protect powerful Democrats and other elites.
During his confirmation hearing, Patel said he would "do everything if confirmed as FBI director to make sure the American public knows the full weight of what happened."
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ would be "lifting the veil" on "Epstein and his co-conspirators." She said she had Epstein's client list "sitting on my desk right now to review" and promised that "a lot of names" would be revealed. Though in subsequent days, little was released beyond information that was already public.
A memo released July 7 by the DOJ later stated that there was "no incriminating client list" and that Epstein indeed committed suicide. It also said that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."
This reversal resulted in widespread anger, including from many Trump supporters directed at Bondi, who they accused of covering up information that might damage the president.
"Pam Blondi [sic] is covering up child sex crimes that took place under HER WATCH when she was Attorney General of Florida," wrote one of Trump's closest confidantes, Laura Loomer. "Bondi needs to be fired."
The following day, Trump chastised a reporter for continuing to ask about Epstein.
"Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years… Are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable," the president said.
He would later write a long Truth Social post in which he defended Bondi and urged the public to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about."
The post received an almost totally negative response on Trump's own social media app.
The administration's dismissive response to the mysteries surrounding Epstein has led to suspicion across the political spectrum, including from some of Trump's closest allies.
"He said 'Epstein' half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein," wrote Musk on X. "Just release the files as promised."
Khanna is now hoping to wield the widespread backlash to force the administration to come clean about what it knows.
"This is about transparency and restoring trust, not partisan politics. The public outcry is apparent," he said. "The files should be fully released and can be done so consistent with DOJ principles of protecting victims and the innocent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Demands Release of 'Critical' Documents on Patel Ahead of Confirmation Vote
"Kash Patel has a dangerous track record of putting his loyalty to Trump before our national security," said one critic, "and the U.S. senators and the American public deserve to know where his allegiances would stand if confirmed."
Feb 20, 2025
As the U.S. Senate headed toward a likely vote to confirm Kashyap "Kash" Patel, a conspiracy theorist and loyalist to President Donald Trump, to lead the FBI, a government watchdog warned the vote will serve as "a historic test" of Republican lawmakers' priorities as it called for the release of a special counsel report that could reveal "critical information" about the nominee.
Accountable.US demanded that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia allow the release of the second volume of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump's handling of classified documents after he was voted out of office in 2020.
The report, said the group Wednesday, may show that Patel misled the public with his claim that Trump declassified documents before leaving office. Trump said after government documents were found at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, that the papers had been appropriately declassified—a claim several of his administration officials said was baseless but which Patel quickly tried to corroborate.
"No evidence has emerged to support Mr. Patel's claim," reported The New York Times in January. "No written blanket declassification order—or any written contemporaneous reference to any such oral order—has ever surfaced. And nobody communicated to national security officials any records or information that they should now treat as declassified."
Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida barred the Department of Justice (DOJ) last month from releasing the second volume of Smith's report, and rejected a motion filed by the watchdog group American Oversight last week calling on her to reverse the order.
With a separate case filed by American Oversight in the D.C. District Court, arguing that portions of the report should be released under the Freedom of Information Act, Accountable.US said Wednesday that the court "must allow the special counsel's report to be swiftly released before the Senate votes on Kash Patel's nomination."
"With Kash Patel's confirmation vote looming, Trump's DOJ and a Trump-appointed judge are standing in the way of the release of critical information which would shine a light on Patel's ability to serve as FBI director," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "Kash Patel has a dangerous track record of putting his loyalty to Trump before our national security, and the U.S. senators and the American public deserve to know where his allegiances would stand if confirmed."
"Patel's vote should be held until Americans can read [the special counsel report] for themselves," Carrk added.
In addition to Patel's unverified claims about the security of secret government documents, Accountable.US on Wednesday catalogued numerous other "reasons for disqualification," including the millions of dollars he amassed doing consulting work for a Czech arms company and other foreign entities; his threat to "come after people in the media"; his alleged perjury during his confirmation hearings regarding reports that he had given orders to fire FBI officials without having the authority to do so; and his profiteering off false claims that Trump won the 2020 election, which he has peddled to children in the form of a book titled The Plot Against The King: 2000 Mules.
"Kash Patel is not just uniquely unqualified to serve as FBI director, he shouldn't even be allowed in the building," said Carrk. "There's clearly no limit to where Patel will go to make a quick buck for himself and friends, including selling election denial propaganda to children and consulting for sketchy companies linked to forced labor and foreign adversaries."
Ahead of the expected Senate vote, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee held a press conference outside the FBI headquarters to warn that if confirmed, Patel would "misuse the resources of the bureau" and "weaponize the FBI against the president's opponents."
"Kash Patel, mark my words, will cause evil in this building behind us," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "And Republicans who vote for him will rue that day."
On Thursday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced she would vote against Patel's confirmation, saying his "political profile undermines his ability to serve in the apolitical role of director of the FBI."
Carrk said that "it should not take courage for Senate Republicans to reject Patel as a dangerously dishonest and unqualified choice for FBI head who will make the nation less safe and more vulnerable to foreign influence."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Patel would "be a political and national security disaster if confirmed," and noted that the Trump administration has plans to purge the FBI's ranks of thousands of agents who have investigated Trump supporters' violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Agents have filed a lawsuit to bar the DOJ from releasing the names of people who worked on the investigation, to avoid retaliation from Trump.
"Mr. Patel has been open about his plans to dismantle the FBI and seek retribution," said Durbin. "His directives as a private citizen have already thrown the bureau into chaos."
He called on Senate Republicans to "do publicly what they have told agents they want to do, and that is vote against Kash Patel."
"What is at stake," he said, "is the future of the FBI."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular