The 6 Wrongly Redacted Names: What Happened with Epstein File Redactions

What Happened

During her five-hour congressional testimony on February 5, 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged that six names had been inadvertently over-redacted in the DOJ Epstein Library release, according to C-SPAN footage, CNN, and the Associated Press. Bondi stated the DOJ would correct these errors in a supplemental release.

The revelation became one of the most discussed moments of the hearing and intensified the broader debate about the DOJ's redaction practices in the Epstein file release.

The Redaction Framework

What the Transparency Act Requires

The Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405) established specific standards for what could and could not be redacted from the released documents. According to the legislation:

• Presumption of disclosure — Documents were to be released unless specific legal exemptions applied
• Narrow redaction grounds — Permitted redactions included protection of victim identities, classified national security information, and materials that could compromise active investigations
• Review process — The DOJ was required to review documents and justify each redaction
• Congressional oversight — Congress retained the ability to challenge redaction decisions

How the DOJ Applied Redactions

According to Bondi's testimony and reporting by the New York Times:

• Teams of DOJ attorneys reviewed the 3.5 million pages
• Redactions were applied for victim protection, ongoing investigations, and classified information
• The process was conducted under significant time pressure — the Transparency Act set a 60-day release deadline
• Automated tools assisted with some redaction decisions, supplemented by manual review

The Six Over-Redacted Names

What Bondi Disclosed

According to CNN and the Associated Press, Bondi testified that:

• Six individuals' names were redacted when they should not have been
• The over-redactions were the result of errors in the review process, not deliberate concealment
• The DOJ would issue a supplemental release correcting these specific redactions
• She declined to identify the six individuals during the public hearing

Why It Matters

The over-redaction of six names is significant for several reasons:

1. Trust in the release process — Even inadvertent errors in redaction undermine public confidence in the completeness of the release
2. Scope of potential errors — If six names were over-redacted and identified, questions arise about whether additional redaction errors exist that have not been caught
3. Transparency Act compliance — The errors raise questions about whether the DOJ fully complied with the spirit of the legislation
4. Political implications — The identities of the six individuals became a subject of intense speculation

The Broader Redaction Controversy

Congressional Criticism

Members of Congress from both parties criticized the DOJ's redaction practices during the Bondi hearing. According to media reporting:

• Several members argued that the overall volume of redactions was excessive
• Questions were raised about whether ongoing investigation claims were being used too broadly to justify withholding information
• Some members called for an independent review of redaction decisions
• Others noted that the six errors suggested the review process was inadequate

The Balance Between Transparency and Protection

The redaction debate reflects a fundamental tension in the Epstein files release:

Arguments for more aggressive redaction:

• Victim identities must be protected from public exposure
• Ongoing investigations could be compromised by premature disclosure
• National security information requires protection
• Individuals not charged with crimes deserve some privacy protection

Arguments for less redaction:

• The Transparency Act was designed to maximize disclosure
• Public interest in accountability outweighs privacy concerns for public figures
• Over-redaction enables continued concealment
• The 2007 NPA demonstrated the dangers of excessive secrecy in the Epstein case

Comparison with Previous Releases

The DOJ Epstein Library redaction controversy can be compared with other high-profile document releases:

• JFK Assassination Records — The model for the Transparency Act, which also faced criticism over continued redactions decades after the events
• Giuffre v. Maxwell unsealing — The 2024 court-ordered release involved judicial oversight of redactions
• FBI FOIA releases — FBI Vault Epstein records contain significant redactions under various exemptions

The Supplemental Release

Bondi committed to a supplemental release correcting the six over-redacted names. According to the Associated Press:

• The DOJ would unredact the six names in a corrected document release
• The timeline for the supplemental release was not specified during the hearing
• The corrected documents would be added to the existing DOJ Epstein Library portal
• The DOJ stated it would continue reviewing documents for additional errors

What We Know and What We Don't

Based on Bondi's testimony and verified reporting:

• Six names were acknowledged as inadvertently over-redacted
• The errors resulted from the review process, not deliberate concealment
• The DOJ committed to correcting these errors in a supplemental release
• Broader redaction practices remain a subject of congressional scrutiny

What remains unknown:

• The identities of the six over-redacted individuals
• Whether additional redaction errors exist beyond the six identified
• The timeline for the supplemental release
• Whether the overall redaction approach will be modified
• How many total names or passages were redacted across the 3.5 million pages

Primary Sources

1. C-SPAN, Bondi testimony — c-span.org
2. CNN, redaction reporting — cnn.com
3. Associated Press, correction commitment — apnews.com
4. New York Times, redaction analysis — nytimes.com
5. Transparency Act, redaction provisions — congress.gov

---

Read the full Bondi hearing analysis or learn about the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Explore the DOJ Epstein Files topic page or browse the document library.