FBI Director Kash Patel is facing increasing criticism from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. They accuse him of avoiding clear answers about whether the bureau has followed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This law aims to uncover long-hidden records related to Jeffrey Epstein. What should have been a simple update on transparency has turned into a political fight, with Patel in the middle of it.
The Transparency Act requires federal agencies to release materials connected to Epstein unless a clear legal exception applies. Since taking charge, Patel has avoided saying directly whether the FBI has fully met those obligations. Lawmakers from both parties say that his careful wording looks less like caution and more like stonewalling.
Pressed yet again this week, Patel said the FBI is trying to navigate a maze of legal restrictions. “Well, we are working with our partners at the Department of Justice… to release what we can lawfully, legally produce,” he said. He added that the bureau is prepared to release “anything more from the Jeffrey Epstein files that can be released to the public.”
That explanation did little to calm the critics. They argue that Patel’s answers repeat the same talking point without clarifying whether the FBI is withholding documents simply because it can, rather than because it must. The bigger concern is that government agencies could use vague exceptions in the law to keep politically sensitive material under wraps, undermining the very purpose of the act.
Straight to the Point Exclusive: FBI Director Kash Patel@FBIDirectorKash said FBI is working with DOJ to meet the Epstein Files Transparency Act 30 day deadline to produce records.
Herridge: “So, more charges are possible in the Epstein case?
Director Patel: Based on the… https://t.co/fIQFRN3G5l pic.twitter.com/gnMVAQJXmR
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) November 25, 2025
Attorney General Pam Bondi complicated matters further by revealing that the Department of Justice has recently identified new information in the files. She offered no specifics, only saying that the department “will comply with all legal requirements for disclosure.” Bondi also acknowledged that the law includes legal carve-outs that may limit what can be released publicly, a point lawmakers fear could be stretched far beyond its intent.
Meanwhile, the political pressure around the case continues to intensify. President Donald Trump recently directed Bondi to have federal prosecutors in New York investigate alleged Epstein ties to Democratic figures.
Patel insisted the FBI would not play favorites. “Based on the new referral, we’ll take a look at that and see what evidence comes,” he said, emphasizing that the bureau would follow facts “without political bias.” But he also reminded Congress that the FBI is not free to dump every document it has. “Protective orders and orders to seal in place… legally prohibit the disclosure of information related to any investigation when there’s a court order of that fashion,” he explained.
Patel also offered a distinction that some lawmakers say only added to the confusion. There is a difference, he said, between “the information that the government possesses versus the information that the Epstein estate possesses.” That raised more questions than answers, including whether the estate is holding records the public has never seen.
Patel is trying to balance legal caution with political pressure. However, each round of questioning appears to raise more suspicions in Congress. The longer the FBI waits to provide a definitive accounting of what it can and cannot release, the more lawmakers and the public are left wondering what exactly is being held back and why.
