A federal judge has rejected an effort by two lawmakers to place independent oversight on the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, even as he acknowledged ongoing concerns about whether the department is complying with federal law.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York ruled Wednesday that he lacks the authority to appoint an independent monitor to oversee the release of the Epstein files, as requested by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). In a seven-page opinion, Engelmayer said his judicial role is limited to supervising the criminal case involving Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell and does not extend to monitoring the Justice Department’s compliance with disclosure requirements under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“I do not have any charter to supervise whether DOJ is meeting its legal obligations” under the law, Engelmayer wrote.

However, the judge made clear that his decision does not close the door on further legal action. He noted that Khanna, Massie, and Epstein’s victims “raise legitimate concerns about whether DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law” and said the lawmakers are free to pursue a separate lawsuit over the matter.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, authored by Khanna and Massie, became law late last year and required the Justice Department to release its unclassified Epstein-related files by Dec. 19. The DOJ has since acknowledged that it is reviewing millions of documents connected to Epstein and his associates, but only a small portion of material has been released so far.

The lawmakers have accused the department of slow-walking the process and excessively redacting information. They have also alleged that DOJ has withdrawn documents it previously made public and has improperly blamed the courts for delays and redactions.

According to their court filings, Khanna and Massie argue that the Justice Department has cited judicial requirements as the reason for withholding information, when courts have merely instructed DOJ to ensure that released materials do not improperly identify victims. They contend the department has repeatedly failed to meet the law’s disclosure requirements.

More than a month has passed since the deadline for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all its files related to the investigations into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. And while the department has publicly shared thousands of documents since that date, those releases account for only a fraction of the materials it has in its possession—leaving the vast majority of the so-called “Epstein files” still unreleased.

Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump in November, the DOJ was required to release all the Epstein files by Dec. 19. The department began releasing materials that day, but the Trump Administration admitted that it wouldn’t share all the documents by the deadline, claiming that the scale of redactions needed to protect victims’ identities would delay the full release. Since then, the department has released a few batches of documents related to the Epstein case. But it has been weeks since the most recent of those batches was made public, and earlier this month, top DOJ officials revealed that more than two million documents have yet to be shared, meaning that less than 1% of the Epstein files have been released.

The partial releases—and the heavy redactions made to many of the documents that have been made public—have sparked outcry from politicians, survivors of Epstein’s abuse, and the public. Days after the December deadline, lawmakers threatened to take action against the Trump Administration for not releasing all the documents in the case, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slamming the DOJ for what he called a “blatant disregard of the law.”

Here’s what to know about the latest developments in the situation.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California—the two lawmakers who co-wrote the Epstein Files Transparency Act—requested an independent expert to ensure that the DOJ complied with the federal law and released all its Epstein materials. But on Wednesday, a federal judge denied the request, saying that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to oversee the DOJ in this matter. (Read more from “What’s Going on With the Epstein Files? A Month After Deadline, the Vast Majority of Materials Remain Unreleased” HERE)

A source familiar with the release of the Epstein files confirms that the United States Congress has yet to receive a required explanation from the United States Department of Justice regarding redactions made to the Epstein file productions.

This omission represents yet another apparent violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a statute enacted to ensure public accountability, congressional oversight, and transparency surrounding one of the most consequential criminal investigations in recent history.

Under the law, the Department of Justice was required to formally explain and justify any redactions made to the released Epstein-related materials. That deadline was January 3, a statutory date clearly outlined prescribed by the Act. As of now, no such explanation has been delivered to Congress.

The failure to meet a clear legal requirement—particularly one designed to prevent secrecy—raises serious questions about compliance, intent, and accountability within the Justice Department.

This lapse does not exist in isolation. It comes amid broader concerns about executive overreach and what critics describe as unconstitutional actions by the President. Regardless of those developments, the law remains the law—and compliance is not optional. (Read more from “Department of Justice Violates Epstein Files Law By Failing to Inform Congress of Reasons Behind Redactions” HERE)

Julie K. Brown — the Miami Herald reporter whose investigative work helped reopen the Jeffrey Epstein case — says she expected her name to appear in the recently released Epstein files. What she didn’t expect, however, was to find her personal flight records included among the government documents.

Brown wrote that she discovered the information while reviewing materials from the latest document release by the Department of Justice. The records appeared as part of a grand jury subpoena requesting business documents from American Airlines, which included an itinerary for flights she booked in July 2019 — just days before Epstein was arrested.

In a December 28 Substack post, Brown said the itinerary listed her maiden name, which she does not use professionally, making it clear to her that the entry referred to her specifically. She questioned why her travel details were swept into the files.

Does somebody at the DOJ want to tell me why my American Airlines booking information and flights in July 2019 are part of the Epstein files (attached to a grand jury subpoena)? As the flight itinerary includes my maiden name (and I did book this flight) why was the DOJ… pic.twitter.com/m1mgP6pdgk

— julie k. brown (@jkbjournalist) December 28, 2025

“Since the itinerary includes my maiden name — and I did take this flight — why was the DOJ monitoring me?” Brown asked in a post on X.

So far, the Justice Department has not provided a public explanation for why her information appeared in the database.

Brown’s acclaimed three-part investigation, Perversion of Justice, published in 2018, helped bring renewed scrutiny to Epstein’s earlier plea deal and the scope of his abuse network. Her reporting was widely credited with spurring federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to bring new criminal charges in July 2019.

Epstein was later found dead in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial.

The flight record Brown uncovered showed a round trip from Austin, Texas to Little Rock, Arkansas, with a return scheduled for July 8, 2019 — the same day Epstein was taken into federal custody. Brown said she had booked and taken the trip.