Thomas Massie Just Made an Unbelievable Error – BUSTED!

Department of Justice seal on American flag background.

A Kentucky congressman’s explosive confrontation with the Attorney General over Jeffrey Epstein’s files just revealed the Department of Justice may have accidentally exposed the very cover-up they claimed didn’t exist.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Thomas Massie accused DOJ of illegally redacting billionaire Leslie Wexner’s name from Epstein files showing him as a child sex trafficking co-conspirator
Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the 40-minute error as unintentional while attacking Massie’s motives during a heated congressional hearing
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna identified six powerful men in two hours of reviewing files, raising questions about what 3 million additional pages might reveal
The clash stems from the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which lawmakers claim DOJ is systematically violating to protect elite figures
DOJ accidentally released a victim lawyers’ list of names that should have remained confidential while over-redacting documents identifying perpetrators

When Congressional Oversight Meets Elite Protection

Thomas Massie didn’t walk into that February 11 hearing looking for a polite conversation. Armed with exhibits showing Department of Justice failures spanning multiple presidential administrations, the Kentucky Republican laid out a case that the nation’s top law enforcement agency had systematically fumbled the release of Jeffrey Epstein files. The centerpiece of his accusation: Leslie Wexner, the billionaire former Victoria’s Secret owner whose name appeared over 4,000 times in the files and was explicitly listed as a co-conspirator in a 2019 FBI document for child sex trafficking, had his identity temporarily scrubbed from public view.

Attorney General Pam Bondi fired back with equal force. The redaction was corrected within 40 minutes, she insisted, framing Massie’s questioning as politically motivated character assassination. But the congressman wasn’t buying damage control. He presented evidence of a pattern: victim interview forms improperly redacted, a confidential email list of names from survivors’ lawyers accidentally disclosed to the public, and documents mysteriously pulled from the DOJ’s online portal after initial release. This wasn’t about one typo, Massie argued. This was institutional incompetence protecting powerful predators.

The Transparency Act DOJ Doesn’t Want to Follow

The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed in November 2025 with a simple premise: stop hiding names. Sponsored by the unlikely bipartisan duo of Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna, the law mandates limited redactions restricted to victim protection and legitimate national security concerns. Everything else, including the identities of co-conspirators in one of the most notorious sex trafficking operations in American history, must be made public. The law emerged from years of frustration over heavily redacted releases following Epstein’s 2019 death and Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 conviction, with millions of pages from investigations dating back to 2005 locked behind bureaucratic walls.

By late January 2026, Massie and Khanna had seen enough inconsistencies in released documents to demand unredacted access. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche received their formal request on January 30, detailing redaction discrepancies in emails, victim statements, a 2007 draft indictment, and an 82-page prosecution memo. The DOJ eventually established a secure reading room in Washington where members of Congress could view files from 9 AM to 6 PM with no devices allowed. What Massie and Khanna discovered during their February 9-10 review sessions changed the trajectory of the entire controversy.

Six Names in Two Hours, Millions of Pages Remaining

In just two hours of examining unredacted files, the two congressmen identified six men whose names were improperly concealed and who appeared “likely incriminated” in the documents. Besides Wexner, they confirmed Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the CEO of DP World, appeared in emails linked to a “torture video.” Four other men remained unnamed publicly, though Khanna indicated one was “pretty high up” in a foreign government. The implications were staggering: if six significant figures could be found in such a brief review, what secrets lurked in the remaining 3 million pages the DOJ controlled?

Khanna took the extraordinary step of reading Wexner’s and bin Sulayem’s names into the Congressional Record on February 10, invoking the Speech or Debate Clause that provides lawmakers constitutional immunity for statements made in official congressional proceedings. The move forced the DOJ’s hand, leading to partial compliance and setting the stage for Massie’s confrontation with Bondi the next day. Wexner’s legal counsel immediately pushed back, claiming he was a cooperative source for investigators, not a target. But the FBI document Massie displayed told a different story, explicitly labeling the billionaire as a co-conspirator in child sex trafficking operations.

A Cover-Up Spanning Decades and Administrations

What makes Massie’s critique particularly damning is his bipartisan accusation. This wasn’t a Republican attacking Democrats or vice versa. The congressman pointed directly at institutional rot across the Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump administrations. Jeffrey Epstein’s initial 2005-2008 Florida case resulted in a sweetheart non-prosecution agreement that granted immunity to potential co-conspirators, a deal that haunted federal prosecutors when they finally charged Epstein in 2018. Even after his death in custody and Maxwell’s prosecution, the machinery of government seemed calibrated to protect powerful men rather than deliver justice for trafficking survivors.

The February hearing exposed the fundamental tension between congressional oversight and executive branch discretion. Bondi defended career DOJ attorneys as well-intentioned professionals navigating complex legal standards for redactions, not conspirators deliberately shielding criminals. Massie countered that intent didn’t matter when the practical effect was elite impunity. The accidentally released list of victim lawyers’ email contacts demonstrated the DOJ could be recklessly transparent when it harmed survivors, yet meticulously protective when powerful men’s reputations were at stake. That double standard wasn’t a bug in the system; it was the system working exactly as designed to preserve hierarchies of power.

What Comes Next for Elite Accountability

The standoff between Congress and DOJ remains unresolved. Massie and Khanna have given the department additional time to comply fully before potentially disclosing more names under congressional immunity. The DOJ maintains its online portal and secure reading room provide adequate transparency while protecting legitimate privacy interests. But the hearing damage is done. Public trust in the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files has cratered among both progressives who see systemic protection of wealthy predators and conservatives who view it as deep state obstruction of a Republican-controlled executive branch.

For Epstein’s survivors, the congressional pressure represents a rare institutional victory in a decades-long fight for acknowledgment. Names entering the public record, even amid controversy over process, validate their accounts and chip away at the protective wall around co-conspirators. The long-term precedent matters too: if Congress can successfully override executive branch redactions in this case, it establishes a blueprint for forcing transparency in other sealed investigations involving elite misconduct. The international dimension adds complexity, with at least one foreign official potentially implicated, raising diplomatic concerns beyond domestic law enforcement priorities.

The real test will come when the remaining four men’s identities emerge and when the full scope of the 3 million pages becomes clear. Massie’s challenge to the DOJ wasn’t about one corrected error; it was about whether American institutions prioritize justice for victims or comfort for the powerful. The answer to that question will determine whether this moment becomes a turning point or just another chapter in a decades-long pattern of looking the other way.