Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., spearheaded passage of the overwhelmingly bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, but they have said the records published don’t comply with the law, which required that all of them be made public on Friday.

Instead, just a small fraction of the total are out so far, with more expected in the coming weeks, and many of the documents are heavily redacted. The Justice Department maintains that it is in compliance with the law.

In an interview on CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Massie upped the ante in the dispute over obtaining all the Epstein files.

“There are several ways to get at this. Some take longer. Some are shorter. The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi, and that doesn’t require going through the courts,” he said. “Basically Ro Khanna and I are talking about and drafting that right now.”

And unlike the process for impeachment and removal, the Senate’s approval wouldn’t be necessary for inherent contempt, Khanna pointed out.

He added that he and Massie are building a bipartisan coalition to “fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents.”

“Instead of holding them accountable, Pam Bondi is breaking the law,” Khanna said. “And this is the corrupt system, the Epstein class that people are sick of. So I believe we’re going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable, and a committee of Congress should determine whether these redactions are justified or not.”

Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was defiant in the face of potential legal consequences over not fully releasing the Epstein files.

In an interview Sunday with NBC’s Meet the Press with Kristen Welker, he argued that the extensive redactions were necessary to protect victims and that releasing the documents on a rolling basis instead of all at once still complied with the law.

When asked whether he takes threats of impeachment or contempt charges seriously, he replied, “Not even a little bit. Bring it on. We are doing everything we’re supposed to be doing to comply with this statute.”

Either chamber of Congress can hold someone in contempt on criminal or civil charges with a simple majority vote if that person refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry, according to the American Bar Association. 

Any criminal charges would forwarded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but it’s not obligated to prosecute. In that case, the House can pursue civil enforcement in U.S. district court. Inherent contempt is a separate option when the House or Senate holds its own proceedings and cites someone for contempt.

Despite the escalation in the lawmakers’ fight with DOJ, inherent contempt stops short of the more severe threat of impeachment, which Khanna had raised on Friday.

“Impeachment is a political decision, and is there the support in the House of Representatives? I mean Massie and I aren’t going to just do something for the show of it,” he told CNN.

At least 16 files vanished from the DOJ’s public Epstein document webpage less than a day after they were posted Friday. Among them was file 468, an image showing a drawer filled with photographs, including one with Trump alongside Jeffrey Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Another photograph in the drawer showed Trump surrounded by women. 

In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Blanche said the DOJ “learned” after releasing the photo that there were women in it, and there were “concerns about those women, and the fact that we had put that photo up, so we pulled that photo down. It has nothing to do with President Donald Trump.”

He cited the DOJ’s obligation under a New York judge’s order and federal law against releasing material that could identify survivors of Epstein’s crimes.

“But the reality is anybody, any victim, any victim’s lawyers, any victim rights group can reach out to us and say, ‘Hey, Department of Justice, there’s a document, there’s a photo, there’s something within the Epstein files that identifies me.’ And we will then of course pull that off and investigate it.”

However, Meet the Press host Kristen Welker asked whether the image actually contained women who are victims or survivors.

“No, that’s not what I’m saying. If we believed that photograph contained a survivor, we wouldn’t have put it up in the first place without redacting the faces,” Blanche replied. “But notwithstanding what we believe, we don’t have perfect information. And so when we hear from victims’ rights groups about this type of photograph, we pull it down and investigate. We’re still investigating that photo. The photo will go back up. And the only question is whether there will be redactions on the photo.”

The DOJ’s removal of file 468 drew swift criticism online, with the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee repeatedly accusing the White House of executing a “cover up” on Saturday. 

Blanche rejected suggestions that the takedown had anything to do with Trump, calling claims of political motivation “laughable.” He noted that photographs of Trump with Epstein have been publicly available for years and that Trump has acknowledged socializing with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s. 

He also said the photo would be reposted, adding that “the only question” was whether it would require redactions—even as he reiterated that if DOJ believed survivors were depicted, the image would not have been released unredacted in the first place.

Blanche added that the department has no intention of redacting or withholding material related to Trump, beyond what is strictly required by law, and repeatedly guaranteed that every mention and photograph of the president contained in the Epstein files will be released.

Blanche said Trump has insisted since before taking office that the records be made public and has “nothing to hide,” rejecting claims that DOJ is shielding him from scrutiny. He emphasized that the department’s review process applies uniformly to all names that appear in the files and is driven solely by victim-protection obligations and other legal constraints, not political considerations.

The Justice Department has said it will continue releasing Epstein-related records on a rolling basis, citing the time required to review materials for potential redactions. Blanche did not say when the removed files, including file 458, will be reposted, or whether any redactions will ultimately be applied.

A very small percentage of the files have been released, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, said on CNN Saturday evening. 

“There are 300 gigabytes of files, according to [FBI Director] Kash Patel; they released 2.5 of them,” Khanna said. 

That’s less than 1% of the files. The act required the department to release all unclassified Epstein-related records by Friday and sharply limits the grounds for withholding or redaction.

Massie said Sunday that the most “expeditious way to get justice for these victims” is to bring inherent contempt charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi, as they said the initial disclosures failed to meet the statute’s requirements and warned DOJ officials could face consequences, including impeachment, if the department is found to be obstructing compliance.

Blanche dismissed those concerns during the interview with NBC, insisting the department is “doing everything we’re supposed to be doing” under the law and prioritizing victim protection over rigid deadlines. He added the DOJ collected far more material than required and is continuing to review.

Blanche said the department is “not prepared” to bring more charges to anyone based on the release of the files. 

“We learned the names of additional victims as recently as Wednesday of this week — there’s new names that we didn’t have before — that we ran across our database to understand whether they had ever met with law enforcement or ever talked to the FBI, and so we’re always investigating. And it would be premature and not fair for me to to unilaterally say yes or no.”