Congressman Says Redacted Part of Epstein File Suggests Trump Never Banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago

A Democratic member of Congress said a partially redacted document in the Jeffrey Epstein files appears to challenge President Donald Trump’s long-standing explanation of his past relationship with the late financier.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland spoke with reporters after reviewing a limited number of unredacted records made available to select House members. The review took place ahead of upcoming congressional testimony by Attorney General Pam Bondi, as lawmakers continue to press the Justice Department for broader disclosure.

Raskin said one document that stood out to him was a 2009 email forwarded by Epstein to an associate, summarizing an exchange involving attorneys for Epstein and Trump. According to Raskin, the passage suggests Trump told Epstein’s lawyers that Epstein had not been expelled from Trump’s private club in Florida, but had attended as a guest and was never formally asked to leave.

That description, Raskin said, appears inconsistent with public statements Trump and his aides have made over the years asserting that Epstein was banned from the club for inappropriate behavior. Trump has repeatedly cited that claim when asked about his prior association with Epstein, who died in federal custody in 2019 while facing trafficking charges.

The Justice Department has released millions of Epstein-related records in stages, though many remain heavily redacted. Raskin said he has reviewed only a small fraction of the unredacted material so far and emphasized that conclusions should not be drawn from a single document. He added that millions of additional records have not yet been disclosed to Congress or the public.

Raskin accused the department of moving too slowly and argued that the remaining materials could shed light on how Epstein operated and whether others played roles in his activities. He also called for hearings that would center the testimony of survivors, saying their accounts are critical to understanding the scope of the case.