“We’ll Follow the Law”: How Trump’s DOJ May Be Setting Up an Excuse to Hide the Epstein Files
When Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked a simple yes-or-no question about one of the most sensitive topics in American politics — the release of the remaining
The question:
Does the new investigation launched by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prevent the Department of Justice from releasing
“We have released over 33,000 Epstein documents to the Hill and we’ll continue to follow the law and to have maximum transparency… We will follow the law… again while protecting victims, but also providing maximum transparency.”
On paper, that sounds reasonable: follow the law, protect victims, be transparent. In practice, it sounded like something else entirely — the beginnings of a legal escape hatch.
A Law With Overwhelming Support — and a Possible Loophole
Congress just passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins:
House: 427–1
Senate: Unanimous
Donald Trump, now back in the White House, has already said he’ll sign the bill compelling the release of the files. Of course he did — publicly opposing their release would be political suicide.
“We’ll give them everything. Sure, I would. Let the Senate look at it. Let anybody look at it,” Trump said when asked if he’d support full disclosure.
But because Trump’s public posture has to be “maximum transparency,” the real battle moves to the fine print — and to the one person with power to slow-walk or block those documents:
That’s why her answer matters. When given the chance to clearly say, “Yes, we’ll release all of the files within 30 days as the law requires,” she
Translation: there’s still plenty of room to maneuver.
The “Ongoing Investigation” Card
The key concern isn’t what Bondi did say. It’s what she didn’t.
She never ruled out using one classic DOJ line:
We can’t release that because it’s part of an ongoing investigation.
And suddenly, there is a new “ongoing investigation.”
Bondi confirmed that DOJ has launched a fresh probe out of the Southern District of New York into “third parties” connected to Epstein — notably, not at the demand of prosecutors or career agents, but directly after Trump publicly called for an investigation into a list of his political enemies.
When reporters pressed her on what changed — especially given that an earlier DOJ statement said the evidence did not justify further investigations — she said only:
“Information that has come… there’s new information, additional information… and again we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads… and we will continue to provide maximum transparency under the law.”
The timing tells its own story. Trump posts a rant naming Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, JPMorgan Chase, and others, demanding an Epstein-related investigation into them. Hours later, Bondi announces exactly such an investigation and thanks Trump publicly.
Is that “new information”? Or just a presidential social-media post dressed up as a “lead”?
Either way, this opens a door: as long as DOJ says there is an active investigation involving these files, it can claim that it is
The Perfect Delay Mechanism
This is the potential playbook:
Congress passes a near-unanimous law demanding the release of Epstein files.
Trump publicly pledges cooperation — boosting his image as transparent.
Bondi launches a new probe into prominent Democrats and institutions Trump doesn’t like.
DOJ then says,
“We’d love to fully comply — but we can’t release anything that relates to an
ongoing investigation.”
That “ongoing investigation” can quietly last for months… or years… or forever.
On the surface, it looks like due process. Underneath, it’s a powerful mechanism to keep key documents locked up indefinitely
Enter the Senate Republican “Backstop”
If you thought this was just a DOJ issue, think again.
Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune was asked directly whether it would be a mistake for the administration to use the ongoing-investigation excuse to withhold files, given how overwhelmingly Congress demanded their release.
His response:
“Well, I trust the judgment of the Justice Department to ensure that whatever files they release protect the victims clearly… and there are other materials acquired through grand jury trials that perhaps they will have to make some decisions about, but I think they’ll make the right decisions.”
In other words:
Congress: “Release the files.”
DOJ: “We’ll follow the law (but we’re starting a new investigation).”
Thune: “I trust DOJ to do the right thing.”
This from the same party whose leadership has:
Slow-walked the file release for nearly a year,
Watched Bondi reverse herself after initially signaling cooperation,
Allowed House Speaker Mike Johnson to adjourn without holding a vote,
And stood by as Trump personally pressured members like Lauren Boebert over Epstein-related legislation.
All of that makes the sudden insistence on “maximum transparency” sound less like principle and more like branding.
A Pattern of Delay and Deflection
Critics argue that the DOJ under Bondi has already shown its hand:
When pressed to turn over files requested by Congress, the department delayed.
When it did provide documents, they were largely already public records.
A previous DOJ statement insisted that no further investigation of third parties was warranted — until Trump demanded one.
And now, the same DOJ is positioning itself as both the guardian of “victims” and the arbiter of what the public is allowed to see.
It’s a familiar pattern:
Talk up transparency.
Offer a few symbolic disclosures that don’t reveal much.
Hide behind legal technicalities — ongoing investigation, grand jury secrecy, victim privacy — whenever the documents might cause real political damage.
The concern isn’t that victims’ identities need protection. Everyone agrees they do. The concern is that “protecting victims” becomes a catch-all justification for shielding powerful people from scrutiny.
Trump’s Problem: The Pressure Is Now Bipartisan
In the past, Trump’s delay tactics worked because his party closed ranks behind him. If he wanted to drag something out, Republicans in Congress and conservative media were happy to help muddy the waters.
This time is different.
The vote margin on the Epstein files bill is so overwhelming that any transparent attempt to block the release won’t just look bad — it will look bad to everyone, not just Democrats.
If Trump tries to hide behind the “ongoing investigation” excuse:
He’ll face daily questions at the White House.
Allies and critics alike will pressure him from the left and the right.
The issue could consume his presidency, as every press conference turns into another round of “Where are the files?”
That raises an obvious question:
What is in those files that might be worth that level of political pain?
If the answer is “nothing much,” then dragging this out makes no sense. If the answer is “something devastating,” then Trump may decide that nonstop scrutiny is still better than full disclosure.
Either way, the public is stuck in the middle of a high-stakes staring contest between Congress, the DOJ, and a president with a long history of trying to control information flow.
“Maximum Transparency” or Maximum Gaslighting?
For now, Bondi’s line is simple: follow the law, protect victims, be transparent.
In reality, those phrases can mean very different things depending on how DOJ chooses to interpret them:
“Follow the law” can mean:
“We found a clause that lets us hold this back indefinitely.”
“Protect victims” can mean:
“We’re redacting so heavily that nothing meaningful remains.”
“Maximum transparency” can mean:
“We released thousands of pages that say almost nothing.”
The real test won’t be in what they say they’re doing — it will be in what they actually release, how quickly, and how complete it is.
Until then, the pattern is hard to ignore:
A president eager to weaponize the Epstein story against political enemies.
An attorney general who appears ready to reshape DOJ’s decisions around his demands.
And a Congress so overwhelmingly in favor of sunlight that any delay now looks less like caution and more like self-protection.
Whether Trump and Bondi can still get away with using “ongoing investigation” as a shield — in a moment when both parties say they want the truth — may be one of the biggest tests of this political era.
