Some lawmakers are blasting the Justice Department over what they call “completely unnecessary redactions,” including men’s names, in the files the government released on the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
After reviewing unredacted versions of the Epstein files on Monday, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said that “it’s not explained yet why there might be certain redactions that have been made.”
“So, I went over there, and I was able to determine, at least, I believe, that there were tons of completely unnecessary redactions in addition to the failure to redact the names of victims, and so that’s troubling to us,” Raskin said Monday.
Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks with the media after viewing the unredacted version of the Jeffrey Epstein files at the Department of Justice, in Washington, February 9, 2026.
Kent Nishimura/Reuters
“I saw the names of lots of people who were redacted for mysterious or baffling or inscrutable reasons,” he said.
Since Monday, lawmakers have been able to review unredacted versions of the more than 3 million pages the DOJ recently released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Raskin complained there are just four computers in a DOJ satellite office where lawmakers can review the documents.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act and also reviewed unredacted files, said on Monday they’re concerned some men’s names were wrongly blacked out.
It is not known what activity the men could be connected to in the unredacted documents that the lawmakers reviewed.
Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna speak outside the Department of Justice in Washington, February 9, 2026.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
Khanna also said he has the impression that DOJ had attempted to redact the names of any female in the files — without knowing whether they’re a victim.
“In some of the redactions, they need to be very careful on whether that was a survivor or not. Just because, for example, someone is female doesn’t necessarily mean they’re survivors. And it seemed like they blanket redacted anyone who was a female from my review,” Khanna said.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche fired back at Massie’s claims of unwarranted redactions.
In a series of X posts, Blanche reacted to a Massie post saying the Justice Department had redacted the name of a “well known retired CEO.”
“The document you cite has numerous victim names,” Blanche said. “We have just unredacted Les Wexner’s name from this document, but his name already appears in the files thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing.”
“The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect,” a legal representative for Wexner said. “Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.”
In another online exchange, Blanche said the DOJ unredacted names that weren’t victims’ names after Massie publicly raised questions about them.
“The document you cite has numerous victim names. We have just unredacted all non-victim names from this document. The DOJ is committed to transparency,” Blanche said.
Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert told Newsweek that she viewed the unredacted files on Monday and planned to go back Tuesday. She said she doesn’t think “everyone there that was talking about underage girls being trafficked are victims.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Tuesday that he intended to personally review the unredacted Epstein documents.
Johnson said he is “convinced” the Justice Department “is complying with everything they’re required to do.”
“They’re simply still have a pending report where they will give us, or they will formally explain why some of their redactions are made. But I think it’s a good move for them to put the millions of documents in the SCIF so that members can go in and see and verify this for themselves,” he said, referring to the area designated to store and review sensitive information.
“There’s some good work, good review being done on that. I applaud it. It’s important. We have to make sure that justice is carried forward for these victims, and we’re all committed to that.”
Leave a Reply