A fierce political dispute has erupted in Washington over the partial release of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, as lawmakers from both parties accused the White House and the Department of Justice of obscuring key material and failing to meet the legal deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The law, signed by President Donald Trump in November, required the Justice Department to make all unclassified records tied to the disgraced financier publicly available by mid-December, but critics say the initial disclosures fall far short of full compliance.

The Justice Department’s December release comprised thousands of photos, court records and investigative files, but many documents were heavily redacted and some — including at least sixteen images briefly posted then removed from the public database — drew particular scrutiny.

Among the files removed shortly after publication was a photograph showing President Trump alongside Epstein and others, a development that fuelled speculation among congressional critics about political interference in the disclosure process.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the actions, saying the removal and redaction of some material were necessary to protect the identities of victims and comply with legal requirements.

Blanche emphasised that the department is acting to fulfil the law while balancing privacy concerns.

Lawmakers have grown increasingly vocal in their criticism.

Representative Ro Khanna and Representative Thomas Massie announced plans to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt of Congress unless the department explains its handling of the files and accelerates the release of unredacted documents.

Bipartisan frustration has stemmed from the absence of significant investigative records, including internal memos and unredacted FBI interviews, which many lawmakers say are critical to understanding prosecutorial decisions and the full scope of Epstein’s network.

Khanna described the limited disclosure as a hindrance to accountability and vowed continued oversight.

Across the political spectrum, lawmakers have questioned whether the partial release satisfies the transparency law.

Some critics argue that significant omissions and the removal of material could undermine public confidence in the process, while supporters of the administration’s approach stress the need to protect sensitive information about victims.

Blanche and other Justice Department officials maintain that review and redaction efforts are ongoing and that additional records will be published once they meet legal and privacy standards.

The dispute underscores the challenge of balancing demands for full transparency with the legal and ethical obligations inherent in disclosing sensitive investigative materials.