The latest chapter in the Jeffrey Epstein files saga has deepened public distrust in the institutions tasked with delivering justice. When Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before Congress about the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein file releases, what unfolded was not routine oversight but a public reckoning over transparency, accountability and institutional credibility.

To understand how we got here, we need to go all the way back to Florida in 1996, when Maria Farmer, an artist and adviser, who claimed to be among his victims, first reported Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to federal authorities.

In 2008, Epstein received a controversial non-prosecution agreement in Florida that allowed him to avoid federal charges. In July 2019, he was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in New York, only to die in jail weeks later. In 2021, Maxwell was convicted. Yet even after those milestones, public questions persisted about who else might have been involved and what federal agencies knew.

Those questions intensified during the 2024 campaign cycle, when promises were made that all Epstein-related files would be released. After Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in late 2025, expectations were high that full clarity would follow. Instead, the early 2026 document releases produced confusion: millions of pages were posted, many heavily redacted and some containing victim-identifying information that survivors say should never have been disclosed.

That confusion became the centerpiece of the congressional hearing. Rep. Thomas Massie held up documents he argued showed serious failures: emails listing names that should not have been released, FBI 302 forms almost entirely blacked out and inconsistencies in how certain alleged co-conspirators appeared in filings. He demanded to know who authorized the redactions and whether the department could track internal accountability.

Bondi responded that specific redaction issues were corrected “within 40 minutes” and rejected suggestions of a cover-up, insisting there was “no credible information” implicating additional individuals beyond those already prosecuted.

The contradictions did not stop there. During the hearing, Bondi said there were “pending investigations.” Yet survivors interviewed afterward said they have had no recent contact from the Department of Justice. At other moments in public discourse, administration allies suggested there was “nothing actionable” in the files — language difficult to reconcile with claims of active investigations. FBI Director Kash Patel and other officials have characterized the controversy as politically weaponized while also implying further review is ongoing.

The mixed messaging has left observers asking a basic question: Is this an active investigation, or a chapter the department considers closed?

Even the file-release announcements added to the uncertainty. Statements that “all files” had been released were later clarified to refer largely to previously posted materials, reorganized or indexed differently. Lists of names circulated without a consistent context about how those names appeared in records — whether as witnesses, associates, correspondents or subjects of scrutiny. In an already distrustful environment, imprecision becomes combustible.

Yet the most powerful testimony did not come from lawmakers. It came from the survivors who stood in the room. In an NBC News interview with survivors who attended the hearing, Teresa Helm, one of the survivors, said there was “no integrity in that room.” Dani Bensky, another survivor, described feeling like “a ghost” when Bondi did not turn to face survivors during questioning.

Farmer, the artist who reported Epstein to the authorities back in 1996, said the department apologized for Epstein’s crimes but not for its own handling of the files. For them, this is not a partisan dispute but decades of trauma intersecting with institutional decision-making.

The disconnect extends beyond the hearing room. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also faced renewed scrutiny following reporting that newly released records detailed years of contact between the two men, including a December 2012 visit to Epstein’s private island with Lutnick’s wife and children after Epstein had pleaded guilty to charges involving a minor.

Lutnick had previously described severing ties with Epstein after finding his behavior “disgusting,” though emails later showed additional interactions in subsequent years. In Senate testimony in February 2026, Lutnick acknowledged the island visit, prompting bipartisan criticism and calls for his resignation.

Lutnick has denied wrongdoing, and no charges have been brought against him. Still, for survivors watching powerful officials discuss past associations with Epstein — sometimes while minimizing their significance — the optics reinforce concerns that transparency does not always translate into accountability.

The result is a cycle of escalation. Survivors describe institutional failure while lawmakers allege obstruction or incompetence. Officials insist on compliance, and commentators declare vindication. Meanwhile, high-profile figures named in various documents deny wrongdoing and face no charges; the public, watching the contradictions accumulate, is left unsure which version of events is definitive.

Transparency laws can mandate document releases. They cannot mandate clarity or accountability.

In the end, the issue may not be whether every file has been posted. It may be whether the institutions responsible for justice can speak with coherence — and mean it.

Share