re: Why did Massie give the DOJ the ability to redact whatever it wanted in HIS bill?

quote:

---

I thought they wanted the names released

Ro Kanaha and Massie embarrassed themselves

---

quote:

---

Why did Democrats unanimously vote to allow

---

quote:

---

So they can blame all redactions on Muh Drumpf!

---

quote:

---

The legislation sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (along with Rep. Ro Khanna), known as the **Epstein Files Transparency Act** (H.R. 4405, enacted in late 2025 and signed by President Trump), required the Department of Justice to release all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein's investigations, prosecutions, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, and associated individuals or entities. The bill explicitly outlined **narrow, permitted reasons for redactions or withholdings** to balance transparency with protections. These valid reasons, as detailed in the bill text (particularly in sections addressing permitted withholdings and prohibited grounds), included: - **Personally identifiable information of victims** — Redactions allowed for victims' personal information, medical files, or similar details where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. - **Child sexual abuse materials (CSAM)** — Any depictions or content defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under related statutes. - **Materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution** — Permitted only if narrowly tailored and temporary. - **Images of death, physical abuse, or injury** of any person. - **Properly classified information** — Specifically authorized under Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy (with a requirement to declassify to the maximum extent possible). The bill also included strong prohibitions: No records could be withheld, delayed, or redacted on grounds such as **embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity** (including to government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries). All redactions required written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress. In practice, Massie and others (including Khanna) have publicly criticized the DOJ's implementation, arguing that observed redactions (e.g., of certain men's names and photos in released files) exceeded these limits and lacked valid justification under the law—often appearing to protect non-victims without fitting the permitted categories. Massie has stated there was "no reason in our legislation that allows them to redact the names of those men" in such cases, and the act emphasized limited redactions "mostly to protect the identities of Epstein’s victims." For the full bill text, see the congress.gov entry for H.R.4405 or related resolutions like H.Res.581 that incorporated similar language. Recent events (as of February 2026) show ongoing disputes over compliance, with some redactions later reversed after congressional review.

---