The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may have the upper hand in redacting information from the Jeffrey Epstein files before their public release, according to Eric O’Neill, a former FBI counterintelligence operative and national security lawyer. He noted that the government tends to err on the side of over-redaction rather than under-redaction, a practice he is familiar with from his experience redacting documents for the FBI and advocating for unredacted documents as a lawyer.
While there are valid reasons to withhold certain details in the Epstein files, there are potential gray areas that could lead to disagreements between the DOJ and Congress. The recently passed Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law on Wednesday, mandates the release of the DOJ’s files on the convicted sex offender, which could spark disputes over redactions and withheld information.
The legislation prohibits the withholding, deletion, or redaction of records due to concerns of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including related to public figures. It also requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide reports to Congress detailing the released and withheld records, summarizing redactions, and citing legal justifications for redactions.
Virginia Canter, an ethics and anti-corruption expert, warned that the DOJ could employ various tactics to impede the release of records, such as citing ongoing investigations. Despite skepticism about the DOJ’s intentions, the bill offers a level of accountability. However, the DOJ has the authority to redact information under specific circumstances, such as to protect victims’ identities, prevent the dissemination of child sexual abuse materials, or safeguard national defense or foreign policy secrets.
President Donald Trump instructed Bondi to investigate Epstein’s connections to prominent Democrats, potentially granting her the discretion to withhold relevant information for the investigation. The bill’s provision allowing redactions based on active federal investigations has raised concerns among observers.
While ongoing investigations are a common reason for redactions, critics fear excessive redactions and potential clashes with Congress over transparency. O’Neill highlighted that information regarding cooperating witnesses and sensitive operations might be redacted to shield individuals involved in criminal activities.
The content involving grand jury proceedings, legal advice, internal deliberations, and classified intelligence operations will likely remain restricted from public disclosure. O’Neill emphasized that redacted materials, especially those related to surveillance and ongoing investigations, are crucial and could provoke public discontent due to their exclusion from the released files.