Some lawmakers have raised concerns about the extent of the redactions in the documents in the Epstein files. Photograph: Cristóbal Herrera/EPAView image in fullscreenSome lawmakers have raised concerns about the extent of the redactions in the documents in the Epstein files. Photograph: Cristóbal Herrera/EPADoJ inspector general to audit department’s compliance with Epstein Files Transparency ActMandated release of files was marred by missed deadlines, leaked victims’ information and excessive redactions
The US Department of Justice’s office of the inspector general (OIG) announced on Thursday that it is launching an audit of the justice department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
In a news release, the deputy inspector general William M Blier, who the statement said is performing the duties of the inspector general, said that the “preliminary objective” of the internal probe “is to evaluate the [justice department’s] processes for identifying, redacting, and releasing records in its possession as required by the Act”.
The review will look at the justice department’s “identification, collection, and production of responsive material”, as well as its “guidance and processes for redacting and withholding material consistent with the requirements enumerated in the Act” and the its “processes for addressing post-release publication concerns”.
Read more“If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider addressing other issues that may arise during the course of the audit,” the statement added.
The justice department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress last year and signed into law last November, mandated the release of all of the justice department’s files related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with exceptions to withhold records that identify victims, include images of child sexual abuse, and those that are related to ongoing investigations or are tied to national security.
The justice department has faced criticism in recent months over the extent it has complied with the law. The justice department failed to comply with the act’s 19 December deadline to release the relevant files, only releasing what it has claimed were the full files on 31 January.
In addition, many Epstein victims have complained that their sensitive personal information was improperly exposed in the files, and some lawmakers have also raised concerns about the extent of the redactions in the documents.
The justice department has maintained that it has followed the law.
Last month, the House oversight and government reform committee subpoenaed former attorney general Pam Bondi, while she was still in her role as the head of the justice department. The panel requested that she appear to answer questions about the department’s handling of the investigation into Epstein and the its “compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act”.
Earlier this month, however, Donald Trump ousted Bondi from her role, and several days later the House committee announced that it had been told by the justice department that Bondi would not be appearing for the scheduled deposition.
In a letter to the committee chair, James Comer, the assistant attorney general Patrick Davis argued that the subpoena no longer applies because “the committee issued the subpoena to Ms Bondi in her official capacity as attorney general”.
“Ms Bondi no longer holds that office,” the letter reads. “As a result, because Ms Bondi no longer can testify in her official capacity as attorney general, the department’s position is that the subpoena no longer obligates her to appear on 14 April.”
The letter added: “We kindly ask that you confirm that the subpoena is withdrawn.”
As of 8 April, the committee’s subpoena had not been withdrawn, according to a person familiar with the matter.
