The lawmakers who championed new legislation to force the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related records are now weighing penalties against the Justice Department, arguing it failed to publish the full set of documents required by law.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) led the bipartisan push behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which passed with overwhelming support. The law required the full release of the records by Friday. But Massie and Khanna say what has been made public so far falls short: only a limited portion of the material has been released, much of it is heavily redacted, and more disclosures are expected to roll out over the coming weeks. The Justice Department insists it is complying with the statute.
Appearing Sunday on CBS News’ Face the Nation, Massie signaled he’s ready to escalate.
“There are several ways to get at this. Some take longer. Some are shorter. The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi, and that doesn’t require going through the courts,” he said. “Basically Ro Khanna and I are talking about and drafting that right now.”
Khanna emphasized that, unlike impeachment and removal, an inherent contempt action would not require Senate approval. He said the pair are working to assemble a bipartisan coalition aimed at imposing daily financial penalties until the documents are released.
“We’re building a bipartisan coalition to fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents,” Khanna said. “Instead of holding them accountable, Pam Bondi is breaking the law. And this is the corrupt system, the Epstein class that people are sick of. So I believe we’re going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable, and a committee of Congress should determine whether these redactions are justified or not.”
The Justice Department, however, is pushing back forcefully. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche dismissed the idea that the department is exposed to legal consequences for the pace and scope of its disclosures.
On NBC’s Meet the Press With Kristen Welker Sunday, Blanche argued the redactions are necessary to protect victims and said a phased release still satisfies the law’s requirements. Asked whether he takes threats of impeachment or contempt seriously, Blanche replied, “Not even a little bit. Bring it on. We are doing everything we’re supposed to be doing to comply with this statute.”
As the dispute intensifies, Congress has several enforcement tools at its disposal. According to the American Bar Association, either chamber can vote—by simple majority—to hold an individual in contempt on criminal or civil grounds if the person refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry. Criminal contempt referrals go to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, though prosecutors are not required to pursue them. If that route stalls, the House can seek civil enforcement in federal court. Inherent contempt is separate, allowing the House or Senate to conduct its own proceedings and cite someone directly.
Even so, the lawmakers’ latest talk of inherent contempt comes short of the heavier threat of impeachment—an option Khanna floated on Friday but framed as dependent on political support.
“Impeachment is a political decision, and is there the support in the House of Representatives? I mean, Massie and I aren’t going to just do something for the show of it,” he told CNN.
