A federal judge has delivered a firm no to two House members pushing for quicker access to Jeffrey Epstein’s records, leaving transparency advocates frustrated.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer turned down a bipartisan effort by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, to force the Justice Department to expedite the release of documents tied to Epstein. The judge ruled that the court lacks the power to oversee the DOJ’s actions in Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal case, which he called effectively closed. Massie and Khanna had sought to join the case as friends of the court and requested a special monitor to ensure compliance with a new transparency law.

Judge Blocks Oversight in Maxwell Case

The issue has sparked debate over government accountability and the pace at which sensitive records are made public. Many question whether federal agencies can be trusted to act without external pressure. This ruling has reignited concerns about whether justice is truly being served in high-profile cases like Epstein’s.

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in November, mandating the DOJ to release all unclassified records on Epstein and Maxwell in a searchable, downloadable format. The law explicitly bars withholding documents due to embarrassment or political sensitivity. Yet, Massie and Khanna argue the DOJ might drag its feet without strict oversight.

In their Jan. 8 letter to the court, the lawmakers didn’t mince words. “Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act,” they wrote. That’s a damning statement, and it’s hard to disagree when history shows agencies often prioritize optics over openness, the Daily Caller reported.

Lawmakers’ Concerns Echo Public Frustration

Judge Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, dismissed the request as a nonstarter, pointing out a key legal hurdle. “[T]he only parties to the case are Maxwell and the United States,” he stated. This technicality sidesteps the broader issue of public interest, leaving many to wonder if the system is built to protect itself over the people.

Engelmayer further noted that Maxwell’s charges fell under six federal criminal statutes, unrelated to the Transparency Act, which didn’t even exist at the time of her case. That’s a fair point on paper, but it does little to ease the suspicion that bureaucracy is a convenient shield for inaction. The public deserves answers, not excuses.

Still, the judge left a door open, acknowledging that Massie and Khanna could file a separate lawsuit or wield congressional oversight tools to push their cause. That’s a small consolation, but it’s something. At least the fight for transparency isn’t completely dead in the water.

Transparency Act Faces Uphill Battle

The Epstein Files Transparency Act is a rare bipartisan win, aiming to peel back the curtain on a case that’s haunted the public for years. But without teeth to enforce it, the law risks becoming just another feel-good measure. If the DOJ can’t be held to account, what’s the point?

Engelmayer himself seemed to recognize the underlying tension, admitting the lawmakers’ and victims’ questions “raise legitimate concerns about whether DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law.” That’s a polite way of saying there’s smoke here, and possibly fire. If even a federal judge sees the problem, shouldn’t that light a fire under the system?

The Epstein saga has long been a symbol of elite impunity, with countless unanswered questions about who knew what and when. The public’s distrust isn’t baseless—it’s built on years of half-truths and stonewalling. This ruling only adds fuel to that frustration.

Public Trust Hangs in the Balance

Massie and Khanna’s effort was a long shot, but it spoke to a deeper hunger for accountability. Too often, government agencies hide behind legal jargon while the powerful escape scrutiny. That’s not justice; it’s a rigged game.

The judge’s suggestion of a separate lawsuit or congressional tools sounds reasonable, but it also feels like passing the buck. Why should lawmakers have to jump through endless hoops to enforce a law that’s already on the books? The system should work for the people, not against them.

Ultimately, this ruling isn’t the end of the road for Epstein-related transparency, but it’s a frustrating detour. The fight for these records matters because it’s about more than just one case—it’s about whether the government answers to us or to itself. Until that question is settled, public trust will remain on shaky ground.