The release of millions of files related to the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein has ignited significant controversy and political scrutiny in the United States.

Both top House Democrats and Republicans have criticized the handling of these documents and are demanding accountability.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress in November, mandated the public release of these files, but the redaction process and revelations about prominent figures have sparked a firestorm.

House Judiciary Ranking Member Jamie Raskin sharply criticized the Justice Department after reviewing unredacted Epstein files.

On the first day of lawmaker access, Raskin identified what he called “mysterious redactions” that obscured the names of alleged abusers while allowing the identities of Epstein’s victims to become public.

He described the Justice Department’s actions as either “spectacular incompetence and sloppiness” or a “deliberate threat to other survivors”, accusing the department of being “in acover-up mode” and violating the law.

Many names were redacted for reasons Raskin called “baffling or inscrutable”, including Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner, whose association with Epstein is publicly known.

Raskin also highlighted an unredacted email from Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell, containing an account from Epstein’s lawyers of a conversation with attorneys representing Donald Trump around 2009.

The email quoted Trump as stating that Epstein was a guest at Mar-a-Lago but was never asked to leave, contradicting previous statements from Trump.

Raskin announced plans to question Attorney General Pam Bondi before the House Judiciary Committee about these “flawed results” and to press for the release of millions of additional documents.

Meanwhile, Maxwell, serving a prison sentence for child sex trafficking, refused to answer questions during a deposition by the House Oversight Committee.

Republican House Member Thomas Massie also weighed in, calling for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a known Trump ally, to resign over his ties to Epstein.

Massie, a co-author of the transparency law, said Lutnick “has a lot to answer for” and suggested his resignation would “make life easier on the president.”

Drawing a parallel to the UK, where the Epstein scandal implicated figures such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson, Massie implied Lutnick should similarly face consequences.

The files revealed that Lutnick had discussed visiting Epstein’s private island, Little St. James, in 2012 — four years after Epstein was convicted for procuring a minor for prostitution.

Emails between Lutnick and Epstein’s assistant detailed travel arrangements and political fundraising.

In December 2012, Lutnick emailed Epstein about his family’s Caribbean travel plans and inquired about Epstein’s exact location for dinner; Epstein responded with an invitation to “little st james on the map.”

While the documents do not explicitly confirm a visit, Massie asserted that Lutnick “clearly went to the island if we believe what’s in these files.”

The disclosures also show Lutnick inviting Epstein to a private fundraising event for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and consulting him about a museum renovation that might obstruct their shared park views in 2018.

Despite the Commerce Department downplaying these interactions as “very limited,” other lawmakers, including California Democrat Robert Garcia, have echoed calls for Lutnick’s resignation and demanded he answer questions.

Raskin emphasized that the files include discussions regarding girls as young as nine years old, highlighting the “absolute gravity of the crisis” and its profound implications for public trust and accountability, both in the U.S. and internationally.

He contrasted the U.S.’s comparatively subdued reaction with the “huge political scandal” in the UK.