Epstein, DOJ, and an Election Year: Why the Files Still Matter

Spread love

Legal analyst Elie Honig says the Justice Department is defying the Epstein Transparency Act. He raised fresh questions about elite impunity as voters head to the polls.

By TRH Op-Ed Desk

New Delhi, January 31, 2026 — In an election year defined by distrust in institutions, the Jeffrey Epstein case refuses to stay buried—and that may be the most politically dangerous part of all.

Senior legal analyst Elie Honig’s remarks on CNN cut through years of fog with a blunt charge: the Justice Department is not complying with the Epstein Transparency Act, a law passed almost unanimously by Congress to prevent exactly this kind of institutional evasion.

At stake are millions of pages, including more than 5,500 pages from the Southern District of Florida—documents that trace why Epstein was spared federal prosecution in the mid-2000s despite evidence that could have supported serious charges. Instead of accountability, Epstein received a 2007 sweetheart deal that insulated him—and potentially others—from scrutiny.

Only two people have ever been charged: Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Yet DOJ records reference three additional co-conspirators, their names still redacted. “That’s the most important part of the document,” Honig said, because it raises the central question American voters keep asking: Who else was protected—and why?

Congress attempted to force transparency through the Epstein Transparency Act, signed into law by Donald Trump. The statute requires the DOJ to release internal emails, memos, and meeting notes tied to decisions to charge—or not charge—Epstein and his associates. Crucially, the law blocks the DOJ from hiding behind deliberative process privilege.

And yet, according to Honig, that is precisely what the department is doing.

The DOJ missed its statutory deadline by over 40 days. More troubling, it is invoking a privilege the law explicitly says cannot be used here. “The law says DOJ must turn over internal communications,” Honig noted. “They’re not doing it.”

This is no longer a legal technicality. It is a political liability.

In a campaign season where both parties claim to stand against elite corruption, Epstein has become a symbol—of selective justice, protected networks, and a system that closes ranks when power is implicated. Lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum—Thomas Massie on the right, Ro Khanna on the left—backed the transparency law precisely to prevent another Epstein-style cover-up.

That bipartisan intent is now colliding with bureaucratic resistance.

The deeper fear, Honig suggests, is not just historical embarrassment but ongoing exposure. Some crimes may still be prosecutable. Some decisions may still implicate living officials. And once the internal memos are public, the narrative shifts from “mistakes were made” to who made them—and for whom.

For voters, this lands at a raw moment. Faith in federal institutions is fragile. Trust in the DOJ is already polarized. And the perception that the rules change for the rich and connected is political dynamite—especially when transparency was promised, legislated, and then quietly denied.

The Epstein case endures because it answers a question elections keep circling: Does accountability in America stop at the edge of power?

Until the files are released and the redactions lifted, the silence itself will keep speaking—and in an election year, that silence may matter more than any campaign slogan.