As anger grows over the Justice Department’s partial release and heavy redaction of the Jeffrey Epstein files, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are vowing retaliation for what they say is a clear violation of the law President Donald Trump signed last month.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., came out swinging on Monday morning, unveiling a resolution directing the Senate to pursue legal action against the Department of Justice for what he argues is a blatant breach of the statute.
The legislation criticizes the DOJ’s rollout of the files, saying they were “extensively redacted” and “not in compliance with the limited scope of redactions included in the Act.” It also points out that the dump — about 4,000 records, totaling just under 10,000 pages — was far less than the “several hundred thousand documents” that Justice Department officials teased.
“Instead of transparency, the Trump administration released a tiny fraction of the files and blacked out massive portions of what little they provided,” Schumer said in a statement. “This is a blatant cover-up. [Attorney General] Pam Bondi and [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche are shielding Donald Trump from accountability, and the Senate has a duty to act.”
Schumer’s team said the minority leader plans to force a vote on the resolution when Congress returns in the new year — an endeavor that is likely to be symbolic, since Schumer and Democrats are in the minority.
On the House side, the bipartisan champions of the Epstein Files Transparency Act — Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky. — said they are exploring inherent contempt proceedings against Bondi. The rarely used mechanism has a slim chance of success but could subject Bondi to daily fines if approved.
If invoked, inherent contempt would allow the House to fine Bondi for each day the Justice Department remains out of compliance — and in theory could authorize the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest and detain her.
During an MS NOW appearance on Monday morning, Khanna said the penalty would be a fine of up to $5,000 for each day Bondi does not release all the documents.
“My goal is not to destroy Pam Bondi. I didn’t even know who Pam Bondi was,” Khanna said. “I’ve gotten to know these survivors, and my goal is that, on a personal level, these documents need to come out. Their lives were traumatized, they want these documents out, and whatever we can do to get the documents out.”
On Sunday, Massie said he and Khanna were drafting an inherent contempt resolution, calling it “the quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims.”
The reality, however, is far more complicated.
Inherent contempt requires a majority vote in the House, and a vote to invoke the arcane punishment would be an uphill climb. The tool has not been successful since 1934, when the Senate sergeant-at-arms arrested William MacCracken, the first federal aviation regulator, after he refused to participate in a Senate investigation.
The outrage from Democrats over the incomplete release comes with some political baggage on inherent contempt.
Last year, for example, when Republicans pursued inherent contempt against then-Attorney General Merrick Garland after he refused to hand over audio tapes of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur, Democrats derided the effort. New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffires, then the House’s top Democrat, labeled the effort “frivolous, unconscionable, unnecessary and un-American.”
Of course, Democrats have considered the tactic in recent years themselves. In 2019, then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who was serving as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, weighed bringing inherent contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials who dodged subpoenas.
On Sunday, Khanna said he and Massie were “building a bipartisan coalition” for inherent contempt.
But Republicans face a particularly delicate political calculus: balancing their support for the Epstein Files Transparency Act — and their base’s intense interest in the Epstein files — against the prospect of publicly rebuking a Trump administration official.
One House Republican, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic, told MS NOW the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein documents rollout “puts us in a rock and a hard place.”
This GOP lawmaker called the situation “ridiculous” and “frustrating.”
“We’re all kind of pissed off about it,” the member said. “This isn’t what was directed by Congress. So it’s really a slap in the face. And it’s like, who are they protecting? Are they protecting the victims, or are they protecting the predators? Which one is it? Pick a side.”
The Department of Justice began releasing files on Friday afternoon, the deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which sailed through Congress in near-unanimous votes. While the law required that all documents be made public in a searchable and downloadable format by Friday at midnight, only a fraction have seen the light of day.
Instead, Blanche on Friday suggested more files would be released in tranches over several weeks, arguing that the DOJ needed more time to go through the materials and protect victims.
Democrats and a handful of Republicans accused the administration of slow-walking.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posted on social media that the “heavily redacted” files were “NOT MAGA.”
“Let’s just start by being very clear: The DOJ and the Trump administration completely missed the legal requirement to actually get all of the documents out to the American public, and so right now, they are defying the law,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said on MS NOW on Monday. “They are defying Congress.”
While Capitol Hill is weighing its options, lawmakers have other means to go after the administration — though none are quick fixes.
Khanna previously told MS NOW that he and Massie are considering referring individuals to the DOJ for obstruction of justice. But Khanna acknowledged that any such obstruction proceedings may not be possible until there’s a new attorney general and a new president. In other words, it could be years before there’s any tangible movement.
Khanna has also floated trying to impeach Bondi. Of course, that would also require a majority in the GOP-controlled House, plus a two-thirds vote in the GOP-controlled Senate for a conviction. On Monday morning, Khanna said, “we’re not going straight to impeachment.”
Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sought to rein in expectations over the weekend — given that Democrats are the minority party in both chambers.
“Bring me some Republicans and we can have a conversation,” Raskin said during an appearance on CNN, noting that otherwise they’d bring the motion up “on the floor, and then the whole thing is shot down immediately.”
“That’s purely performative,” Raskin said. “We’re interested in actually getting these materials out.”
