BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – A rare bipartisan alliance in Congress is turning up the heat on the Department of Justice (DOJ), after the agency failed to hand over all documents tied to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — despite a legal requirement to do so. The controversy has sparked an unusual push for “inherent contempt” proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi, including the threat of daily fines until the full cache of files is released.
The Dispute Over Epstein Records
Earlier this year, lawmakers passed legislation mandating the DOJ to make public all federal documents related to Epstein, whose death in federal custody in 2019 continues to fuel questions about his network of associates and possible enablers. The bill — backed across party lines — was seen as a step toward transparency in one of the most notorious criminal cases in recent memory.
However, reports emerged last week that the DOJ had only delivered a portion of the mandated files, withholding several categories of records. According to congressional aides cited by Politico and The Hill, these missing documents include internal communications, investigative notes, and certain sealed grand jury materials that lawmakers say should have been reviewed for public release under the new law.
Massie and Khanna’s Bipartisan Push
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) — an unlikely pairing from opposite ends of the political spectrum — co-led the original transparency bill and are now spearheading the enforcement effort. In a joint statement, they accused the DOJ of “flouting the clear will of Congress” and undermining public trust.
Their solution: invoking Congress’s inherent contempt powers, a rarely used tool that allows lawmakers to directly penalize executive branch officials without going through the courts. Historically, this power has been employed to compel testimony or document production, though its use in the modern era is virtually unheard of.
Under their proposal, Attorney General Bondi could face monetary fines until the DOJ hands over the full tranche of Epstein-related records.
What Is “Inherent Contempt”?
The inherent contempt process dates back to the 19th century, when Congress asserted its authority to enforce subpoenas by detaining or fining noncompliant witnesses. While the Supreme Court has upheld the power in principle, it has fallen out of favor in the last century, replaced by criminal contempt referrals to the DOJ itself — an awkward arrangement when the DOJ is the target.
Massie and Khanna argue that the exceptional nature of the Epstein case warrants reviving the old enforcement mechanism. “When the agency breaking the law is the one that normally prosecutes contempt, Congress has to act for itself,” Massie said in recent interviews.
Why It Matters
The DOJ’s partial release has reignited public suspicion over Epstein’s connections to prominent figures in politics, finance, and entertainment. Transparency advocates say withholding the documents fuels conspiracy theories and undermines accountability for potential crimes beyond Epstein’s own convictions.
Bondi, a former Florida attorney general appointed to lead the DOJ last year, has defended the department’s approach, saying certain materials are too sensitive to release for reasons ranging from ongoing investigations to privacy concerns for individuals not charged with wrongdoing.
Still, with both Republicans and Democrats pressing for full disclosure — and willing to test the boundaries of congressional enforcement — the standoff could set a precedent for how lawmakers respond when executive agencies defy statutory mandates.
What’s Next
The Massie-Khanna resolution for inherent contempt is expected to be formally introduced in the coming weeks. If adopted, it could trigger a high-profile constitutional clash between Congress and the DOJ, potentially landing before the courts if Bondi challenges the fines.
Political analysts note that while bipartisan cooperation on transparency is rare, the Epstein case has cut across partisan lines due to its disturbing subject matter and unanswered questions. Whether this unity holds through a drawn-out enforcement battle remains to be seen.
Bottom line: The fight over the Epstein files is more than just a dispute over documents — it’s a test of Congress’s ability to compel compliance from the executive branch in the face of resistance. If Massie and Khanna succeed, they could revive an enforcement power unused for decades, reshaping the balance between the legislative and executive branches.
Blue Press Journal 
Leave a comment