Can members of Congress see the unredacted Epstein files?

Yes. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, members of Congress can review unredacted files at a secure DOJ facility. Beginning in February 2026, multiple members from both parties visited the DOJ to review materials that were redacted in the public release, including the approximately 2.5 million pages not yet made public.

Which members of Congress reviewed the Epstein files?

As of March 2026, members who have publicly confirmed reviewing the files include Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), among others. Each has made public statements about what they observed.

What did Congress find in the unredacted Epstein files?

Members who reviewed the files have made limited public statements due to classification restrictions. Key revelations include the identification of 6 names that were wrongly redacted in the public release, references to a Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) list, and what Rep. Frost described as 'very disturbing' content. Full details cannot be disclosed publicly.

Are there still unreleased Epstein files?

Yes. The DOJ released approximately 3.5 million of an estimated 6 million responsive pages. The remaining approximately 2.5 million pages have not been made public, though members of Congress can review them at the secure facility. Congressional investigators have pushed for the release of additional documents.

Congress Reviewing Unredacted Epstein Files: Key Findings

The Vault Review Process

Beginning in February 2026, members of Congress gained access to unredacted Epstein case files at a secure Department of Justice facility, according to NBC News and CBS News. The review process operated under strict security protocols similar to those used for classified intelligence materials.

According to reporting by NBC News and the Associated Press:

Members reviewed documents in a secure reading room at a DOJ facility, with conditions described as similar to a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility)
No electronic devices — including phones, tablets, or laptops — were permitted in the review area
Members could take handwritten notes, but notes were subject to review before being removed from the facility
Documents were presented in their unredacted form, allowing members to see content hidden by black bars in the public release
Access was available to members of both parties under the terms of the Epstein Files Transparency Act

The provision for Congressional review was a key component of the Transparency Act, which passed the House 427-1 and was signed into law on November 19, 2025.

Who Went and What They Said

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)

Rep. Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, was among the first members to review the unredacted files, according to NBC News.

Raskin publicly expressed concern about the scope of redactions in the publicly released documents, stating that some appeared to lack sufficient justification
He raised questions about whether documents mentioning the President had been handled differently from other files, according to PBS
Raskin called for the DOJ to release additional pages from the estimated 2.5 million that remain unpublished
He has been careful to distinguish between documents that should remain redacted (victim identities, ongoing investigations) and those where redaction appears to serve political rather than legal purposes

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL)

Rep. Frost, the youngest member of Congress to review the Epstein files, described the experience as "very disturbing," according to CBS News.

Frost noted what he described as contradictions between the unredacted documents and President Trump's public claims about banning Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, according to PBS and CBS News
He stated that the documents he reviewed contained content that the public "deserves to know about," according to NBC News
Frost pushed for the release of additional documents, particularly those related to the timeline of the Trump-Epstein relationship
His statements focused on factual content in the documents rather than drawing conclusions about guilt or innocence

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)

Rep. Massie, a Republican known for his libertarian-leaning positions, brought bipartisan credibility to the review process, according to the Associated Press.

Massie has been a consistent advocate for full transparency in the Epstein case, voting for the Transparency Act
According to Reuters, Massie stated that the files contained information that "Americans have a right to see"
He expressed frustration with the pace of document releases, noting that the remaining 2.5 million pages should be prioritized
Massie's participation underscored that demands for transparency in the Epstein case cross party lines

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)

Rep. Khanna focused his public statements on accountability and further releases, according to the Associated Press.

Khanna called for the DOJ to establish a clear timeline for releasing the remaining approximately 2.5 million pages
He emphasized that the Transparency Act was designed for maximum public disclosure, not for selective release
According to NPR, Khanna stated that the reviewed documents reinforced the need for continued congressional oversight of the DOJ's handling of the files

Key Findings Made Public

The 6 Wrongly-Redacted Names

One of the most concrete outcomes of the Congressional review was the identification of six names that were redacted in the public release without sufficient legal justification, according to CBS News and NBC News.

These are not victim names — they are names of public figures whose identities congressional investigators believe should not have been hidden
The names were redacted using standard exemptions (privacy, ongoing investigations), but reviewers determined those exemptions did not apply in these cases
Congressional investigators formally requested the DOJ explain the redaction decisions and consider publishing the names
For full analysis of this controversy, see Epstein Redacted Names: The 6 Hidden Identities

The Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) List

Congressional reviewers referenced documents containing a Politically Exposed Persons list connected to Epstein's financial activities, according to NBC News.

"PEP" is a standard financial compliance term used to identify individuals who hold or have held prominent public positions
Banks are required to apply enhanced due diligence to PEP accounts under anti-money-laundering regulations
The existence of a PEP list in Epstein's files suggests that financial institutions or investigators flagged politically connected individuals in Epstein's transaction network
For analysis of the PEP list, see Epstein Politically Exposed Persons List

The 2.5 Million Unreleased Pages

The DOJ released approximately 3.5 million pages of the estimated 6 million responsive pages identified under the Transparency Act. According to the DOJ's own compliance statement:

The department cited national security, ongoing investigations, and victim privacy as reasons for withholding the remaining pages
Congressional investigators have questioned whether some withholdings are broader than legally justified
Members who reviewed unreleased materials have called for specific categories of documents to be added to the Epstein Library
The DOJ has not announced a timeline for additional releases

The Trump Document Controversy

According to PBS and multiple news outlets, the Congressional review process surfaced a specific controversy about the handling of documents that reference President Trump:

PBS reported that the DOJ faced bipartisan pushback for the handling of files mentioning the President
Some members alleged that Trump-related documents were subjected to additional review or redaction beyond what other files received
The DOJ has stated that all documents were processed under the same legal standards regardless of the individuals named
Trump's name appears approximately 38,000 times across the released 3.5 million pages, according to DOJ Library keyword search data — see Trump and the Epstein Files: 38,000 Mentions
For a comprehensive examination of this question, see Is Trump in the Epstein Files?

What Happens Next

According to the Associated Press, Reuters, and NPR, several developments are expected:

Additional members from both parties are scheduled to review the files at the DOJ facility in coming weeks
Members who have reviewed the files are drafting legislation to compel the release of specific categories of withheld documents
AG Pam Bondi faces continued questions about DOJ decisions on what to release and what to withhold — see Pam Bondi Epstein Hearing
The Epstein Files Transparency Act includes provisions for periodic review of redaction decisions, which may lead to additional releases
Victims' advocates have called for a balance between transparency and victim privacy protections, urging that personal information about survivors remain protected

What We Know

Based on verified reporting from the sources cited above:

Members of Congress have reviewed unredacted Epstein files at a secure DOJ facility since February 2026
Reviewers identified 6 names they believe were wrongly redacted in the public release
A Politically Exposed Persons list exists within the documents
Approximately 2.5 million pages remain unreleased
Both parties have called for additional transparency
Members describe the content as "very disturbing"

What We Don't Know

The specific identities of the 6 wrongly-redacted individuals (pending DOJ response)
The full content of the Politically Exposed Persons list
Why the DOJ applied what reviewers consider excessive redactions to certain documents
Whether documents mentioning the President received different handling than other files
When or whether the remaining 2.5 million pages will be released to the public
What legislative action, if any, will result from the Congressional review

Primary Sources

NBC News, Congressional review reporting — nbcnews.com
CBS News, DOJ facility review — cbsnews.com
PBS, Trump document controversy — pbs.org
Associated Press, Congressional statements — apnews.com
Reuters, review analysis — reuters.com
DOJ, Transparency Act compliance — justice.gov
NPR, Congressional review context — npr.org

Learn about the Epstein Files Transparency Act, review the wrongly-redacted names, or explore Is Trump in the Epstein Files?. Browse the case timeline or the document library.