GAO Investigates DOJ Compliance with Epstein Files Law

The Government Accountability Office agreed on Tuesday to open an investigation into the Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein files. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced the development, which stems from a bipartisan letter he signed over a month earlier requesting the probe.

The independent legislative agency will examine the department's compliance with federal law in managing the documents. Merkley, along with other senators, requested the Government Accountability Office investigation in March.

The senators sought to ensure the Justice Department adhered to requirements for releasing files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The probe will coordinate with an ongoing audit by the Department of Justice’s office of the inspector general to avoid duplicative work.

That internal watchdog announced last week it would launch an audit into the department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The inspector general’s office is leading the effort to determine how the department identified, redacted, and released the Epstein files in recent months.

The audits come amid sharp criticism of the Justice Department's actions, including heavy redactions in the released documents. Critics have pointed to redactions of names of powerful figures and disclosures of victims' personal information.

A lawsuit was filed in the US district court for the District of Columbia on Monday. The suit alleges the Justice Department broke the transparency law by withholding records on Epstein and over-redacting disclosures. It accuses the acting attorney general of missing statutory deadlines, improper redactions, failure to explain them, and withholding key documents.

The action seeks to hold the acting attorney general personally responsible for the alleged failure to publish all documents. The lawsuit demands the release of all required documents without unlawful redactions, explanations for any remaining ones, and the appointment of an independent special master to oversee compliance.

According to a report on her employer's website, the department's actions have harmed her ability to report on Epstein’s network and undermined public transparency.

The acting attorney general succeeded Pam Bondi as acting attorney general earlier this month after President Donald Trump fired Bondi. The acting attorney general later clarified his remarks, acknowledging that the public hasn’t gotten any closure on Epstein nearly seven years after his death.

The controversy has drawn attention, though the president has denied any wrongdoing. The department released over 3.5 million pages by the end of January. The department identified about 6 million pages as potentially relevant for disclosure.

Lawmakers have argued that the releases were incomplete, with many documents heavily redacted initially, prompting backlash. President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November. The act, which mandated the full release of Epstein documents by Dec. 19, was introduced in the Senate by Merkley.

It was authored by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). The law compelled the Justice Department to release all records pertaining to Epstein while protecting victims. In a March letter to the GAO, the senators alleged the department did not comply with directives to safeguard victims, instead heavily redacting names of business and elected officials.

Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in a federal jail in New York City in August 2019, weeks after his arrest on child sex trafficking charges. His associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted on sex-trafficking charges in December 2021 and is serving a 20-year prison term.

Rep. ' The Justice Department’s inspector general’s deputy, William M. Blier, stated in a news release that the preliminary objective of the internal inquiry is to evaluate the department’s processes for identifying, redacting, and releasing records as required by the act.

Many Epstein victims have complained that their sensitive personal information was improperly exposed in the releases. Critics, including lawmakers, have questioned the redactions.

The lawsuit emphasizes that the transparency law was intended to aid journalists and inform the public while delivering accountability. A hearing date has not yet been set.