Bipartisan Group of Senators Call for Probe Into DOJ's Epstein Files' Redactions

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: MEDIAite

Mar 11th, 2026, 6:21 pm


A group of U.S. senators called for the Government Accountability Office to investigate the Trump Justice Department over its release of the Jeffrey Epstein files and the redactions within the documents, which have sparked outrage and accusations of a cover-up.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) signed the letter alleging that the DOJ did not fully comply with the law compelling the files’ release last December. President Donald Trump signed the law under pressure from both chambers of Congress after it passed with near-unanimous support.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit directive to protect victims, these records included email addresses and nude photos in which the names and faces of publicly-identified and non-public victims could be identified,” read the letter, adding:

But when it came to information identifying powerful business and political figures who are alleged coconspirators or material witnesses, DOJ appears to have heavily redacted those records.

Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/bipartisan-group-of-senators-call-for-probe-into-dojs-epstein-files-redactions/

---

Link to Senator Durbin PRESS RELEASE - Bipartisan Group Of Senators Call For Independent Audit Of Epstein Files Redactions Protocol

Link to LETTER (inquiry) (PDF) - https://www.merkley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/GAO-Epstein-Files-Redactions-Review-Letter.pdf

Link to Senator Whitehouse PRESS RELEASE - As DOJ Continues to Withhold Epstein Files About Accusations Against Trump, Whitehouse Demands that DOJ Follow the Law and Preserve All Related Documents

Link to LETTER (inquiry) (PDF) - https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-03-09-Letter-to-DOJ-Epstein-302s-FINAL.pdf

[mahina]

1. Thank you BRDS.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Mahalo mahina!

[mahina]

16. He mea ʻiki (no big thing, or it is a small thing.)

Thank you for your amazing service to the DU community and general humanity. I hope with my whole heart that your diligence and service does not come at the expense of exercise and fun.

I will now return to my previously scheduled own damn business

Kidding and also not. Be well dear BRDS. You light the path forward! Aloha kaua. (aloha between you and me.)

[AZ8theist]

3. This sounds like an issue that is GOING NOWHERE.

Pardon my disgust...

[Sam I Yam]

4. Agreed

Four fucking senators?

[GiqueCee]

7. True, but...

... at least the demand is in the public record.

[Joinfortmill]

5. The Epstein files aren't going away.

[durablend]

11. Trump: "Well then I'll have to bomb another country"

[republianmushroom]

13. Yup, more distraction

[KPN]

14. Wish the hell someone would just

bomb his ass!

[Dr. T]

6. Another strongly worded letter

that will be laughed off by Bondi and her pedo-protecting Department of Injustice.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. It's not a "strongly worded letter"

It includes REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION to GAO to include the below in their investigation and report back.

Excerpt from the Durbin/Merkley PDF in the OP comments -

(snip)

We thus ask GAO to review and report back to Congress on the following questions:

1. How many individuals did DOJ and its components task with reviewing and redacting the
Epstein files for public release between the November 19, 2025 enactment of the Epstein
Files Transparency Act and the December 19, 2025 production deadline set by the Act?
Please disaggregate by job classification, agency, and contractor, provide the beginning
and end dates, number of individuals, and total hours worked on said work.
2. How many individuals did DOJ and its components task with reviewing and redacting the
Epstein files for public release the additional review period that began January 5, 2026
and ended with the January 30, 2026 production? Please disaggregate by job
classification, agency, and contractor, provide the beginning and end dates, number of
individuals, and total hours worked on said work.
3. How many individuals did DOJ and its components task with reviewing and redacting the
Epstein files prior to the enactment of the Epstein Files Transparency Act during the
review that began after Attorney General Bondi’s February 26, 2025 public
announcement that “New York SDNY [was] sitting on thousands of pages of documents”
and that the country would eventually see “the full Epstein files” and ended with the July
7, 2025 publication of an unsigned DOJ memorandum concluding that this review “did
not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third
parties”?
4. Any and all guidance, written or otherwise, DOJ or other senior Trump Administration
officials provided to those tasked with reviewing and redacting the Epstein files for
public release from January 20, 2025 to the present.
5. Any and all specific directives given to those reviewing and redacting these files with
respect to possible victims.
6. Any and all specific directives given to those reviewing and redacting these files with
respect to possible abusers and co-conspirators, including any and all prominent
individuals and those identified by DOJ as “politically exposed persons.”
7. Any and all specific directives given to those reviewing and redacting these files with
respect to names, email addresses, or other contact information, as well as photo or video
images. How did those directives differ from each other?
8. Any and all software used by DOJ to assist with the review and redaction of these files.
Provide the names and the functions performed by said software.
9. Did DOJ use a contractor for any of the review or redaction? If yes, please provide the
name, functions performed, and total hours worked by each contractor. What was the
Administration’s review and approval process of the redactions ahead of public release?
10. Any and all political appointees with a role in the final approval of DOJ’s redactions
before they were released publicly on DOJ’s website.
11. Any and all guidance, written or otherwise, that DOJ or other senior officials in the
Trump Administration provided to those tasked with maintaining the published Epstein
records regarding removing already-published records.
12. Any and all political appointees with a role in the removal process of already published
Epstein records from DOJ’s website?

(snip)

I wish DU would get off the "strongly worded letter" nonsense.

[durablend]

12. She'll wad that up and toss it into the wastebasket

[KPN]

15. The GAO is under the legislative, not the executive branch. Bondi has nothing to do with this letter. The GAO is

currently headed by an Acting Comptroller General appointed by the outgoing CG the end of 2025 -- his 15 year term ended December 29.

Here's the rub: while the GAO is a legislative branch organ, the President gets to nominate Comptroller Generals to a 15 year term, which the Senate has power of approval on. You can damn well bet Trump is scrambling to appoint a lackey as we speak. We'll need more than just Murkowski's vote to block any Trump nominee. This f'ing prick is so f'ing lucky, it's mind boggling! Isn't there a saying about the devil makes his own luck? If not, Trump is showing there should be.

[EuterpeThelo]

8. What I don't understand

is that WHY were no enforcement mechanisms built into the law they passed to force release of the files? These are professional legislators who get paid a good chunk of change (not to mention the fine, fine healthcare and pensions our tax dollars provide them) to craft these bills. They HAD to know there would not be compliance after watching these thugs flout court orders for the past year. Can the law be amended to specify penalties for refusal to comply???

[BumRushDaShow]

10. The "enforcement mechanisms" come with an "independent DOJ", which we don't have.

The judicial branch is finally catching on and is slowly starting to do some "enforcement" and for the most part, at least in the thousands and thousands of cases that don't get much press, there is finally some compliance.