Congressman Jamie Raskin Sounds Alarm on Epstein Files: Is Transparency Just for Show?

As the public grapples with the latest release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s sprawling sex trafficking network, Congressman Jamie Raskin is raising a stark warning: selective transparency is just another form of cover-up.

In a recent interview, Raskin didn’t mince words about the Justice Department’s heavily redacted document dump. “If you read the statute, the only things that are allowed to be redacted are related to child sex abuse, physical abuse, ongoing investigations—which they say there are none—and national security,” Raskin explained. “How can you block out an entire document? It makes no sense.”

The law, passed by Congress in response to years of stonewalling, was clear: the Epstein materials were to be released in full, with only narrow redactions to protect victims or for legitimate security concerns. Instead, the public received page after page of blacked-out documents, stripped of context and substance.

**Redaction or Evasion?**

Raskin’s frustration is palpable. “Redaction is not supposed to erase accountability,” he said. “It’s supposed to protect people who were harmed, not people who might be embarrassed or politically exposed.” When entire documents are wiped clean, the public is left unable to discern what is being protected—and why.

The Congressman pointed to President Donald Trump’s shifting stance on the legislation. “Trump opposed the legislation up until the very end when he could read the writing on the wall. Then he said, ‘Oh, I’m for it.’ But they decided they’re just going to try to obstruct the implementation of the legislation. So, that’s the fight we’re in now.”

Raskin dismissed any suggestion that the redactions served victim protection. “Zero and 100,” he said bluntly. “They’ve not shown any difference or respect for the victims at all, for the survivors of this nightmare. And it’s all about covering up things that, for whatever reason, Donald Trump doesn’t want to go public—either about himself, other members of his family, friends, Jeffrey Epstein, or just the social, business, cultural network that he was involved in for at least a decade, if not longer.”

**Protecting Power, Not Victims**

Asked directly if the Justice Department’s actions were designed to protect Trump, Raskin was unequivocal. “What else? That’s their whole business model. In fact, they’re trying to reorganize American constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law around the idea that the entire executive branch serves one guy. That’s the unitary executive theory—serving whatever Donald Trump wants. I can’t imagine what other interests they have in mind.”

Raskin also addressed the uncomfortable presence of other powerful figures in the Epstein saga. “Bill Clinton has appeared along with Donald Trump, along with Noam Chomsky and other people from different aspects of our society,” he noted. “But what we’re looking at is how did a global, decades-long, billion-dollar sex ring go undetected and unpoliced for such a long period of time? This is about a double system of justice.”

He pointed out that Epstein was convicted in 2008, but that didn’t stop him from continuing to run his network. “There was really a cover-up of other people who were involved as part of that plea bargain agreement,” Raskin said. “I’ve got the letters to show how I was demanding hearings on that back in 2018, 2019. Accusing somebody else of hypocrisy doesn’t demonstrate that you’re actually interested in getting to the bottom of the crime—and that’s what we need to be doing here.”

**Legal and Political Roadblocks**

Raskin acknowledged the difficulties in forcing further disclosure. “It’s not clear that we’ve got standing to do that. Speaker Johnson would clearly have standing to do that on behalf of the whole House of Representatives. The court rules about standing of individual members or the minority caucus are very restrictive and hostile. So, we’re going to be doing whatever we can to elevate this, to keep it in the public imagination, and to demand that they turn the documents over. If it’s possible, we will be bringing litigation, but we’re trying to work that through right now.”

He was similarly candid about impeachment efforts. “I think everything is on the table here, but people are coming up with solutions that require a majority in Congress. We know the Republicans are in control in the House, they’re in control in the Senate. So, when people say, ‘Let’s impeach Bondi, let’s impeach Robert F. Kennedy, let’s impeach Trump or whomever,’ I say, bring me some Republicans and we can have a conversation. Otherwise, what happens is what happened the other day to Al Green. You get up on the floor and then the whole thing is shot down immediately. That’s purely performative. We’re interested in actually getting these materials out.”

**Democratic Strategy and Accountability**

Raskin emphasized that Democrats are focused on substance, not spectacle. “Right now we are all 100% absorbed in trying to do the work of getting information out that’s being withheld by Trump and then going out and campaigning around the country,” he said. “We’re certainly not running on [impeachment]. We’re running on delivering health care to the American people and trying to restore the government as an instrument for the common good for everybody as opposed to being an instrument for the private self-enrichment of the guy who gets in and his family and his friends.”

He also took aim at the Democratic National Committee’s reluctance to release its own autopsy of the 2024 election loss. “If you don’t want your answers shared, you probably shouldn’t be engaged in the enterprise in the first place,” he said. “There are so many different available causes for anything that happens in politics. Why did somebody win an election? Why did somebody lose an election? There are certain obvious things… and maybe there are other factors and I don’t see why we wouldn’t just share them and talk about them.”

**The Deeper Issue: Selective Transparency**

Raskin’s warning is not just about frustration with a document dump; it’s about how power works when transparency becomes selective. The law Congress passed was explicit: the Epstein materials were supposed to be released in full, with only narrow redactions for victim protection, ongoing investigations, or national security. What the public received instead was something very different.

Months ago, the Justice Department told lawmakers it had already reviewed the Epstein materials and found no basis for further prosecutions. That admission alone tells us the files had already been examined in detail. So when officials now claim they need more time, more review, or sweeping redactions, the explanation doesn’t line up with their own earlier statements. That inconsistency is what raises red flags for lawmakers and survivors alike.

Transparency laws aren’t symbolic gestures. They are legal obligations designed to prevent exactly this kind of slow-walked disclosure. When a government agency complies partially, late, or in a way that guts the substance of what was ordered, it effectively turns transparency into theater. The public sees activity, but not answers.

**Double Standard and Systemic Failure**

Another critical layer is the double standard in how justice operates. Epstein was able to run a massive trafficking operation for years, despite credible allegations, law enforcement awareness, and documented abuse. Survivors have been asking a simple question ever since: How did this continue for so long? And who else enabled it?

Those answers don’t live in sensational headlines. They live in financial records, internal communications, prosecutorial memos, and investigative summaries. When those are erased through over-redaction, the truth remains buried.

Raskin is careful to make a distinction that matters: this isn’t about guilt by association. Epstein deliberately cultivated powerful people across politics, business, academia, and culture. Being photographed with him does not equal criminal conduct. But suppressing information that could show how a global trafficking network functioned does something else entirely. It prevents the public from understanding systemic failure. That’s why Congress explicitly rejected the idea that embarrassment alone justifies secrecy.

**Structural Obstacles to Accountability**

There’s also a structural problem that explains why accountability is so difficult. Individual lawmakers, especially those in the minority, often lack legal standing to force compliance in court. That power usually rests with House leadership. So, while you hear strong language about violations, contempt, or even impeachment, the reality is that enforcement requires political will as much as legal authority. That tension is why Raskin describes this moment as a tug-of-war, not just between parties, but between truth and institutional self-protection.

What makes this moment different is survivor pressure. Survivors have driven every major breakthrough in this case, from reopening scrutiny to forcing legislation in the first place. Their insistence on full disclosure is not abstract or political. It’s about trust in the justice system. Partial releases retraumatize them by signaling that powerful interests still get special treatment.

**A Fight for the Rule of Law**

At its core, this isn’t a left versus right issue. It’s a question of whether the rule of law applies evenly—or whether it bends when it gets uncomfortable. If the government can comply with a transparency law in name only, then any future promise of accountability becomes optional.

And that’s why this story doesn’t end with this release. Either the remaining materials come out in a meaningful, legally compliant way, or this fight escalates through courts, subpoenas, and continued public pressure.

History shows that the truth in cases like this rarely emerges all at once. It comes because people refuse to let silence settle in. If you want accountability instead of carefully managed secrecy, stay engaged, share this analysis, and demand answers. The more people understand what’s missing—not just what was released—the harder it becomes for the truth to stay buried.