ST.In a blistering Capitol Hill clash, Rep. Thomas Massie thrust sealed FBI victim interview reports—known as 302s—into the spotlight, confronting FBI Director Kash Patel with sworn testimonies naming at least 20 powerful men Jeffrey Epstein allegedly trafficked underage girls to, directly challenging Patel’s insistence that no credible leads exist beyond Epstein himself.
In a heated House Judiciary Committee hearing on January 6, 2026, Republican Representative Thomas Massie directly challenged FBI Director Kash Patel over sealed FBI interview summaries—known as FD-302 forms—containing victim testimonies that allegedly name at least 20 powerful men to whom Jeffrey Epstein trafficked underage girls.
Massie’s confrontation underscored growing bipartisan frustration with the Department of Justice’s handling of Epstein files, despite the mandates of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Massie, a key sponsor of the 2025 Act that compelled full disclosure, waved excerpts from redacted 302s obtained through congressional oversight. He asserted that these forms, summarizing interviews with survivors dating back to the 2000s, include credible accusations against prominent figures in politics, finance, entertainment, and academia.
“These victims named names—bankers, billionaires, producers, even government officials—yet the FBI claims no further leads?” Massie pressed. He demanded Patel explain why no investigations have pursued these allegations, especially after Patel testified in September 2025 that there was “no credible information” implicating anyone beyond Epstein himself in trafficking.
Patel maintained that the bureau has reviewed all materials and found insufficient evidence for new charges, citing victim privacy and the need to avoid re-traumatization. He emphasized ongoing redactions to protect identities and insisted no formalized “client list” exists.
However, Massie countered by highlighting inconsistencies: partial releases in December 2025 included flight logs and photos but omitted key 302s, fueling accusations of selective withholding.
The exchange highlighted broader tensions. Signed by President Trump in November 2025, the Transparency Act required unredacted release of all unclassified Epstein-related documents by mid-December, with narrow exceptions for victim protection.
Yet, only fractions have emerged, heavily blacked out, prompting threats of contempt against Attorney General Pam Bondi and calls for special masters to oversee compliance.
Massie, joined by Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin, argued the sealed 302s represent missed opportunities from earlier probes, including the controversial 2008 plea deal. Survivors’ advocates, present at the hearing, echoed demands for full access, arguing delays perpetuate injustice.
No new prosecutions have stemmed from the files, but the testimonies—describing recruitment, abuse, and introductions to elites—revive questions about accountability.
Patel’s responses drew criticism for deflection, as he referenced court orders and prior administrations’ failures. Massie warned that withholding credible victim statements erodes trust, stating, “If these 20 names lead nowhere, prove it—release the forms with redactions for victims only.”
As millions of pages remain under review into 2026, the confrontation signals escalating congressional pressure. Bipartisan coalitions, rare in polarized Washington, unite on transparency, viewing the Epstein saga as a test of institutional integrity amid elite networks.
Ultimately, Massie’s push exposes the gap between promises of reckoning and reality: victim voices in sealed files clash with official narratives of closure, leaving the public to question what remains hidden.
