The Trump administration just told a federal court, in writing, that no judge can force the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files—and that members of Congress who passed a law demanding transparency have no legal right to make them comply.
In a six-page letter filed this week to U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, DOJ prosecutors moved to block the appointment of an independent monitor or special master to oversee release of records related to Jeffrey Epstein in the closed criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell.
Their argument? Courts simply don’t have the power to compel these disclosures. Period.
THE DETAILS
Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie—a bipartisan duo who helped pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act—asked the court for permission to appear as friends of the court and requested a special master to force DOJ compliance with the law they wrote.
The DOJ’s response was essentially: Nice try, but no.
Prosecutors argue that amici curiae are supposed to provide “neutral legal analysis”—not introduce new disputes or seek new remedies. Khanna and Massie, they claim, are trying to do exactly that by asking the court to oversee DOJ document production and compel testimony from prosecutors.
“An amicus cannot initiate, create, extend, or enlarge issues,” the DOJ writes, citing federal precedent.
Translation: You passed the law, but you can’t enforce it.
BUT BUT BUT: The government’s argument gets even bolder. Prosecutors claim the two members of Congress lack Article III standing because they haven’t suffered a “concrete, particularized injury.” The Epstein Files Transparency Act, they note, doesn’t create an individual right to obtain information like the Freedom of Information Act does. And it doesn’t authorize anyone—lawmakers included—to sue the DOJ for noncompliance.
Even more fundamentally, the DOJ maintains the Act provides no “cause of action” at all. Where Congress hasn’t explicitly authorized judicial enforcement, federal courts are barred from inventing one. As prosecutors put it, courts “cannot reach out to award remedies” where neither the Constitution nor a statute authorizes them.
OF COURSE: The DOJ emphasizes that United States v. Maxwell is no longer an active criminal matter. Maxwell’s conviction was affirmed by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2025. According to the government, the only remaining issues are Maxwell’s collateral challenge and the court’s supervision of a protective order—which exists to limit disclosure, primarily to protect victim privacy, not to mandate public release.
While the court previously modified that order to permit the DOJ to release certain materials consistent with the Transparency Act, prosecutors argue this modification shouldn’t amount to judicial enforcement of the statute itself.
WHY IT MATTERS: Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: The Trump administration is arguing that even though Congress passed a law demanding the release of Epstein files—a law Trump himself signed—no court can actually make them do it. The executive branch is claiming it alone gets to decide whether to comply with transparency legislation.
This isn’t just about the Epstein files. It’s about whether laws mean anything when the people enforcing them decide they’d rather not. Judge Engelmayer is expected to rule on the motion in the coming weeks.