Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna’s Bill Would Allow the Government to Continue Concealing “Epstein Files”
I am headed to Washington, DC today because I’m attending the press conference called by Congressmen Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) in which they will supposedly unveil a new slate of Epstein “survivors,” furnished to them by lawyer Bradley Edwards, who will also be present. When I say that I am “attending” this press conference, I mean that I was specifically invited by Ro Khanna’s staff, although I would’ve been entitled to attend regardless. So I assume there should be no problems with my asking some critically-minded questions. Right?
In principle, I’m in favor of the bill that Khanna and Massie have introduced, and are seeking to force a vote on by discharge petition. The bill essentially requires the Justice Department to turn over the remaining records in its possession related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. However, there are a few big issues:
First, I’m in favor of way more transparency than is provided for in the Khanna/Massie bill. For instance, the bill permits the Attorney General to withhold or redact materials that she (Pam Bondi) deems to “contain personally identifiable information of victims,” or could constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” of purported victims. Why should the Attorney General get to make such a unilateral determination? This almost gives carte blanche to Pam Bondi to withhold whatever she wants, on the grounds of protecting “victims,” because a huge universe of records are obviously going to have some nexus with the identifying information of purported “victims.”
Second, we don’t even have a clear idea of who these “victims” purportedly are. The fateful DOJ/FBI memo of July 6, 2025, which sparked what I’m lovingly calling the “Summer of Epstein,” claims that a review by the Trump Administration confirmed “over one thousand victims” were “harmed” by Epstein — but doesn’t spell out with any specificity what “harm” was allegedly inflicted on any given victim. “Each suffered unique trauma,” the memo claims. Huh?
If you read the memo carefully, conflations and weasel-wordage are rife. “The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors,” the memo says. So they’ve had more than six years to forensically examine all this material, and they still can’t determine whether the “images and videos” seized from Epstein’s properties depict actual minors — or just persons who may “appear to be minors”? Like, can’t anyone in the FBI verify if the persons in question were actually minors? So we can know with a little more precision what’s supposed to constitute a “victim” here?
The memo also claims that the government recovered “over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography.” Comedian and Epstein mythology chronicler Tim Dillon says he talked to JD Vance at a private dinner recently, and Vance told him that what’s being referred to in this clause is “commercial pornography,” meaning pornography that would have to be legal, because “commercial pornography” can only depict adults. In fact, the government can no longer refer to sexually explicit materials that depict minors as “pornography.” By contemporary DOJ guidelines, any materials depicting minors would have to be referred to as “illegal child sex abuse material.” So why would they even mention the “other pornography” in this memo? If the “pornographic” material wouldn’t even be illegal? Are persons allegedly depicted in this “other pornography” also being considered “victims”?
“Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials,” the memo claims. And that’s probably true enough. But herein lies the problem. Are we to believe that any materials which may intersect with the identifying information of chronic fabricator Virginia Giuffre, who spawned the whole child-sex trafficking ring and blackmail theory, must remain permanently withheld or redacted? Giuffre (we’re told) is deceased. So what privacy interests does this deceased person have in continuing to keep any records concealed? (Absurdly, Giuffre’s name was even redacted in the recently released proffer interview transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell.) How about Sarah Ransome, the adult escort who encountered Epstein at age 22, hallucinated the existence of non-existent sex tapes, and later claimed she was sex-trafficked? Are any records related to Ransome also destined to be permanently withheld from public scrutiny?
The full scope of these records is never going to be released if the privacy interests of “victims” are made eternally paramount. So, in effect, Khanna and Massie are giving the government an “out.”
Their bill will even fail to satisfy the legions of internet commenters clamoring for further investigation of Epstein’s purported intelligence ties. And again, I’m personally all in favor of such investigations. But the bill permits certain records “to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” if Pam Bondi determines that is what must be done. This means any records which bear on the involvement of intelligence agencies could be perpetually hidden, per the criteria set forth by Khanna and Massie. It’s silly. This bill would not give people the disclosure they want. In fact, it would provide additional justification for the government to continue thwarting disclosure.
I don’t know how deeply Khanna and Massie have thought about any of this stuff. They seem to have understandably latched on to the wave of public outrage (and hysteria) around the seeming concealment of “Epstein Files.” I also oppose this ongoing concealment, even if my perspective on the broader Epstein saga differs markedly from most people.
But to learn how to actually achieve the disclosure that people say they want, you have to actually dig into the details. You have to understand that a huge portion of relevant materials are being concealed by order of federal judges in New York and Florida, on the grounds of preserving the privacy rights of purported victims. As well as the privacy rights of people whom these victims (mainly Giuffre) have accused of sexual misconduct, almost certainly falsely. In other words, should certain of these materials be made public, it would wrongfully impugn certain individuals as perpetrators of sex crimes against minors. Now, I would argue that the extreme public interest in this matter, as well as the attendant political implications, override whatever privacy interests the wrongfully accused individuals might have to keep the records hidden in perpetuity. But it’s still an ethically fraught calculation.
As to records in the possession of the Executive Branch, rather than the judiciary, similar issues apply. Grand Jury materials, by dint of statute, can’t just be released willy-nilly. I wish this were not the case, but it is. Bondi’s DOJ has already tried to petition for the release of Grand Jury materials pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell, but were rebuffed, for plausible enough reasons — there are ongoing proceedings related to Maxwell’s case, such as an active appeal before the Supreme Court.
So what is the ultimate purpose of this Khanna/Massie legislation? If it won’t compel the release of records that could be “intertwined with” information relating to the purported victims? And it will continue to allow the government to conceal records which could illuminate any ties Epstein might’ve had to intelligence agencies?
Unfortunately, it looks like the purpose of the legislation is mostly to give Khanna and Massie a salient political issue to portray themselves as bold crusaders on. I say this is unfortunate because Khanna and Massie are rare members of Congress that I have any respect for whatsoever. They’re both willing to buck party conventions, especially Massie, who is one of the extraordinarily rare Republicans not totally subservient to Donald Trump. (Trump has vowed to defeat Massie in next year’s GOP primary.) Both are idiosyncratic, and can be anomalously critical thinkers. Khanna is a rare Democrat who actually makes a point to talk regularly to people and media outside the annoying Dem bubble. Massie is actually a knowledgeable legislative tactician; he knows the ins-and-outs of arcane Congressional procedure, such as the minutia of the Rules Committee, which most Members are totally oblivious to.
So it’s unfortunate that they could be raising people’s low-info hopes, only to crash out with inevitable disappointment.
It’s also questionable that they are aligning themselves with Bradley Edwards, the FBI informant, secret FBI colluder, and FBI sting operation participant who’s been the purveyor of endless defamatory nonsense with his ~15 years of Epstein-related litigation. This is his entire identity as a lawyer and public advocate. Look at his “Crime Victim Law Firm” website — it’s like a monument to his unbounded egoism. Is he pulling a fast one on Khanna and Massie, to advance his own interests? Hoping for some fresh political ammunition, so even more lawsuits can spring from all this? Who are these brand new “victims” that are set to be unveiled? Their identities have been kept secret in advance of the press conference. Which is odd. Presumably they’d all have to be adults at this point? The youngest any Epstein “victim” could be in 2025 is almost certainly early 30s.
So it’s just odd. Edwards is one of the “main characters” of the entire Epstein saga, and his role really calls out for more critical examination. By the way, here’s what Edwards wrote in his 2020 book, Relentless Pursuit, page 263:
While many media accounts have hinted that a primary purpose of Epstein’s enterprise was to attract young females and lend them out to powerful people in order for him to hold these sexual encounters over their heads as blackmail, that was not really the case. The primary, if not exclusive, purpose of the operation was Epstein’s personal sexual gratification. If some of his friends liked what they saw and wanted to partake, Epstein would share with a select few. For those who participated, it incidentally provided ammunition for Epstein to hold over their heads if he ever wanted to, but despite all the speculation, there has been no recovered evidence that he actually used any of this sexual information against anyone in order to get something out of them.
Have Khanna and Edwards read the book? I guess we shall see.
UPDATE FROM MT: I have removed the paywall in the interest of maximum amplification, given the timeliness of this legislation. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you appreciate the article.
Good article, certainly problematic holes that assuredly would be exploited. My sense is Massie departed from his normal MO to offer something remotely passable, though by doing so has made it simultaneously useless. I hope he changes course hereafter and realizes his appeal is as a protest vote for what is good and avoids these compromising and defanged bills.
I'm content with Michael Tracey opening up this whole can of worms.