If officials from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are determined to censor or retain specific information in the Jeffrey Epstein files before making them public, they are likely to find a way to do so.
According to Eric O’Neill, a national security attorney and former FBI counterintelligence operative, the government tends to err on the side of excessive redaction rather than being conservative with it.
O’Neill, who has experience redacting documents for the FBI and advocating for unredacted documents as a lawyer, emphasizes the tendency to over-redact as a precautionary measure.
Regarding the Epstein files, O’Neill acknowledges valid reasons for withholding certain information but also points out potential gray areas that could lead to disagreements between the DOJ and Congress members. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress on Tuesday and signed into law on Wednesday, mandates the release of the DOJ’s files on the convicted sex offender.
Potential disputes between the DOJ and those seeking comprehensive information on the case could arise from differing perspectives on what should be disclosed.
The legislation stipulates that records cannot be withheld, deleted, or redacted out of concerns related to embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including for government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries.
Additionally, the bill requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide both the House and Senate with a report detailing the categories of released and withheld records, a summary of redactions, and the legal justifications for redacting them.
‘Strategies to Delay’
Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and anti-corruption and director of the Democracy Defenders Fund, explains that the DOJ could employ various tactics to delay the release of these records, including citing ongoing investigations.
Despite skepticism about the DOJ’s commitment to transparency, Canter acknowledges that the bill includes mechanisms for accountability.
While the legislation permits the DOJ to withhold or redact records in specific circumstances, such as those containing information that may identify victims, child sexual abuse materials, images of abuse or death, and data deemed critical for national defense or foreign policy interests.
The clause raising concerns among some observers allows the DOJ to redact information that could jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.
Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump instructed Bondi to launch an investigation into Epstein’s connections with prominent Democrats, potentially enabling the withholding of relevant materials for the investigation.
Former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, Barbara Mcquade, notes the broad discretion this grants Bondi in determining the relevancy of documents to the investigation, including those related to Trump’s association with Epstein.
If the DOJ attempts to justify withholding information under the guise of an ongoing investigation, Canter believes there will be significant backlash from both political and public spheres.
O’Neill highlights that while redacting information due to an ongoing investigation is common, disputes often arise over excessive redaction in such cases.
He anticipates that information related to cooperating witnesses, individuals involved in criminal activities who provided assistance to law enforcement, will likely be redacted from the files.
Details from grand jury proceedings, including testimonies, exhibits, and subpoenas related to the prosecution of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as legal opinions and internal deliberations between the DOJ and FBI, will remain confidential due to legal privilege.
Items linked to undercover operations or gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will also be subject to redaction.
O’Neill underscores the frustration likely to result from the redaction of crucial information, such as data obtained through surveillance or wiretapping in ongoing investigations.
