Congress forced Trump to release the Epstein files.
The law said no redactions to protect powerful people.
But when Massie walked into DOJ's "unredacted" reading room Monday, he discovered something that should make every American's blood boil – at least six men's names still blacked out, men who are likely incriminated by the files.
DOJ Called Them Unredacted Epstein Files But Co-Conspirators' Names Still Hidden
Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna spent two hours digging through what DOJ promised were the full, unredacted Epstein files.
They found six men whose names had been scrubbed from documents – one high up in a foreign government, another a prominent individual, at least one American citizen.
"What I saw that bothered me were the names of at least six men that have been redacted that are likely incriminated by their inclusion in these files," Massie told reporters.
It took digging to find them.
The files showed photographs of some of these men – with their faces visible but their identities blacked out.
Khanna put it bluntly: "There's no explanation why those people were redacted."
Epstein Files Transparency Act Says No Protecting Powerful People – DOJ Violated The Law
The Epstein Files Transparency Act couldn't be clearer.
No redactions based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity – including government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries.
Redactions only allowed to protect victims or active investigations.
Yet DOJ redacted these six men anyway.
Jamie Raskin found the same pattern – Trump's name redacted in multiple places where it shouldn't be, including an email between Epstein's lawyers and Trump's lawyers about Mar-a-Lago visits.
Billionaire Leslie Wexner's name redacted when he's not a victim.
"I can tell you that I saw a whole bunch of them that seemed very suspicious and baffling to me," Raskin said.
The excuse DOJ keeps pushing – that FBI and grand juries redacted documents before DOJ received them.
That's not an excuse.
That's an admission they're breaking the law.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act directed FBI, U.S. attorneys, and DOJ to produce unredacted files.
All three agencies answer to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
She's responsible for all of it.
Documents DOJ Published Then Vanished From The Database
DOJ initially published some documents on their website, then took them back down.
Maybe victims' names needed protection – that's their excuse.
But those documents aren't just off the website.
They're completely gone from the database members of Congress can search.
"Those documents not only haven't been put back up on the site with the appropriate redactions, they were not available to us to search," Massie said.
Disappeared without a trace.
Raskin's staff ran the numbers – at the current setup with four computers, members-only access, and no staff allowed, it would take seven years for Congress to review all the files DOJ released.
That's not transparency.
That's obstruction with a reading room.
Massie Posted One Name On X – A Retired CEO Everyone Knows
After leaving DOJ Monday, Massie went to X.
He said one of the co-conspirators whose name is redacted is a well-known retired CEO.
He called on DOJ to unredact the name.
When reporters asked Massie to share all six names, he said he'd probably do it from the House floor or in a committee hearing – where congressional immunity protects members from lawsuits for what they say.
Translation: These names are explosive enough that Massie wants legal protection before going public.
Khanna backed him up: "They should be releasing these documents. We have many avenues where we can compel that legally."
Three Million Jeffrey Epstein Documents Released – Three Million More Hidden By DOJ
The files Congress can review – three million pages, 180,000 images, 2,000 videos – are only half of what DOJ has.
DOJ admitted they possess over six million documents total.
They released roughly half and called it "compliance" with the law.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said approximately 200,000 pages were withheld based on various privileges – deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, work product.
But the Epstein Files Transparency Act required release of internal DOJ communications about decisions to charge or not charge Epstein's associates.
Those deliberative process claims are exactly what Congress demanded DOJ couldn't hide behind.
Pam Bondi Faces House Judiciary Committee Wednesday Over Jeffrey Epstein Redactions
She's going to have to explain why files DOJ called "unredacted" still protect at least six men who by all appearances belong in handcuffs.
Victims Unprotected While Powerful Men Get Cover
The cruelest part of this disaster – DOJ failed to redact victims' names in thousands of pages while carefully protecting the men who abused them.
A Wall Street Journal review found 43 out of 47 victim names left unredacted in the files.
Survivors issued a statement: "As survivors, we should never be the ones named, scrutinized, and retraumatized while Epstein's enablers continue to benefit from secrecy."
Raskin said three thousand pages contained survivors' names exposed.
But six powerful men whose photographs appear in the files?
Their identities carefully blacked out.
Jennifer Freeman, an attorney for Epstein survivors, said they begged DOJ to be careful with victim information: "The damage has already been done."
Massie said he'd like to give DOJ a chance to admit they made a mistake and unredact those six names.
But he added: "They're already breaking the law – look, they're way past the deadline."
Congress passed this law because Americans demanded to know who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked underage girls to for abuse.
We wanted those names published.
Six men – at least one American, one foreign government official, one prominent individual – are hiding behind redactions that violate federal law.
Massie found them in two hours with a clunky database interface.
How many more are buried in the three million pages DOJ is still hiding?
Sources:
- Ian Schwartz, "Rep. Massie: Names Of At Least 6 Men 'Likely Incriminated' Have Been Redacted From The 'Unredacted Epstein Files'," RealClearPolitics, February 9, 2026.
- Katelyn Polantz and Hannah Rabinowitz, "Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna suggest powerful men are being protected by over-redactions in Epstein files," CNN Politics, February 9, 2026.
- Ryan Nobles, "Even inside the DOJ's secure room, some Epstein files remain redacted," MS NOW, February 9, 2026.
- Zachary Basu, "Epstein file review yields 6 new 'likely incriminated' men, lawmakers say," Axios, February 9, 2026.
- Eric Cortellessa, "Epstein Files Redacted to Protect 'Prominent' People, Lawmakers Allege," TIME, February 9, 2026.
