The Daily Fuckup

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has opened an audit of how the department is carrying out the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In a notice posted April 23, 2026, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General said its preliminary objective is to review DOJ’s processes for identifying, redacting, and releasing records covered by the law. The review also covers how the department handles post-release publication concerns. ([oig.justice.gov](https://oig.justice.gov/ongoing-work/audit-department-justices-compliance-epstein-files-transparency-act?utm_source=openai))

The OIG notice is narrow on purpose. It does not announce findings, and it does not say DOJ violated the law. Instead, it lays out a process check: how the department identified responsive material, what guidance it used to redact or withhold records, and how it responded when complaints surfaced after publication. The office said it will issue a public report when the audit is complete. ([oig.justice.gov](https://oig.justice.gov/ongoing-work/audit-department-justices-compliance-epstein-files-transparency-act?utm_source=openai))

DOJ’s latest public release on the Epstein files came on January 30, 2026, when the department said it published more than 3 million additional responsive pages. DOJ said that brought the total production to nearly 3.5 million pages under the transparency act. The department also said the release included more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images, along with material drawn from multiple Epstein- and Maxwell-related sources. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-publishes-35-million-responsive-pages-compliance-epstein-files?utm_source=openai))

Congress has kept pressure on the department from a second direction. On March 17, House Oversight Chairman James Comer issued a subpoena for former Attorney General Pam Bondi to appear for a deposition on DOJ’s handling of the Epstein investigation and its compliance with the transparency law. The committee’s cover letter set an April 14 deposition date. ([oversight.house.gov](https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-issues-subpoena-to-attorney-general-pam-bondi/?utm_source=openai))

By April, however, the committee’s posture had changed. Reporting and committee statements said Bondi would not appear for the planned deposition and that lawmakers were pursuing her testimony in another format instead. That leaves the subpoena fight active, but not in the same shape it was when the deposition was first scheduled. ([oversight.house.gov](https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-issues-subpoena-to-attorney-general-pam-bondi/?utm_source=openai))

The result is two parallel tracks: an inspector general audit focused on how DOJ handled the records, and a House investigation focused on who at the department made those decisions and how they were explained to Congress. The record release may be large, but the political and oversight fight around it is still very much alive. ([oig.justice.gov](https://oig.justice.gov/ongoing-work/audit-department-justices-compliance-epstein-files-transparency-act?utm_source=openai))