Vivian Salama: The aftershocks of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes are rumbling once again.

And here in Washington, all roads lead through President Trump's Justice Department, which is withholding files that contain allegations against him.

That omission is just the latest incident, drawing pushback over the government's handling of documents linked to the disgraced financier.

Tonight, is the DOJ bungling a politically radioactive case or is something more deliberate at play, next.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

I'm Vivian Salama in tonight for Jeffrey Goldberg.

It is possible the Justice Department had just stumbled repeatedly when it comes to its handling of the Epstein files, but after a year of overpromising and under-delivering, backpedaling and some flip-flopping, the Justice Department was forced by law to release most of its files related to the late sex offender.

But even that didn't go as it should have.

The DOJ missed the deadline to make public all the documents in its possession.

And in fairness, there are millions, but still, it was striking when it emerged this week that files containing allegations against President Trump were withheld from the public.

There's a lot to sort through and luckily we have an expert panel to walk us through this and the ensuing political fallout.

Andrew Desiderio is a senior Congressional reporter at Punchbowl News, my colleague Sarah Fitzpatrick, is a staff writer at The Atlantic, Stephen Hayes is the editor of the Dispatch, and Tarini Parti is a national politics reporter at The Wall Street Journal.

It's so great to see you all.

Sarah, I'm going to start with you because there's probably no one who has covered this more closely and for as long as you have.

Just walk us through, give us an overview of how we got to this moment with regards to the government's handling of the Epstein files and where we stand on just the release of those files.

Sarah Fitzpatrick, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: So, I think the key thing to remember about the Epstein story is that it is a case that has been mishandled for decades, but the reason that we're hearing about this now and why it's exploding into public view is, because for the first time, Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress were willing to openly defy their leadership and call for the release of these files.

That has never been done before, and I think that that really is changing the political landscape in ways that we are still just starting to learn.

Vivian Salama: And, obviously, there's been a big focus, Tarini, on how the DOJ has handled this under Attorney General Pam Bondi specifically.

You know, what do we know about what documents they've released, what documents they've withheld and their position overall on this issue?

Tarini Parti, National Politics Reporter, The Wall Street Journal: Yes.

The person who's been most frustrated by DOJ's handling is the president himself.

He's been so frustrated with Pam Bondi.

She's been on thin ice with him.

And his -- the source of his frustration has been the sort of back and forth in the backpedaling that we mentioned.

And we reported, you know, months ago that his name has been in the files, and now we've learned that DOJ actually, you know, removed some of these files.

And so this back and forth has really sort of frustrated him.

We've also seen that, you know, they've tried to change their story, including a cabinet official this week, who -- Howard Lutnick had initially said, you know, he had cut ties with Epstein when he learned of his behavior, but then he had to backtrack.

So, the president is so frustrated with these constant back and forths.

He wants the story to go away, is the bottom line.

And DOJ continually mishandling releasing information, taking it back is not really helping his case.

Vivian Salama: But do they acknowledge that there are files that exists referencing President Trump that they haven't released?

Tarini Parti: We know that there are files with his name in it that we've reported exist.

They just have gone back and forth in terms of releasing his name in some files and then removing them.

Vivian Salama: Stephen, a lot of this was driven initially by Republicans who were calling for transparency.

Take us behind that.

What was inspiring that kind of push among Republicans?

Stephen Hayes, Editor, The Dispatch: Well, I mean, yes.

If you go long before President Trump's reelection, you had Republicans on the campaign trail, this was popular among the right wing broadcasting, podcasting set, making claims about the Epstein files and claiming that they were going to get Democrats.

I mean, most of this came from a partisan place, not surprising given where we are in the country.

But what's been so striking is how many of those very same Republicans who were calling for the release of the files had promised to get to the bottom of them are now saying things that are just the opposite.

I mean, you're talking about Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, the number two at the FBI, made this you know, one of the things he talked about incessantly, and then when he came in, he was less interested in what was there.

I think because they learned that Donald Trump's name was in these files quite a lot, and that the things that we'd heard and seen from Donald Trump in public raised more questions about why he was in the files than they were able to -- Vivian Salama: Not just President Trump.

We're talking several members of the cabinet, you know, Tarini just mentioned commerce Secretary Lutnick, who we're going to get to in a few minutes, but even Trump Aide Steve Bannon who's repeatedly been in there, Elon Musk.

This used to energize the base and now it's uncertain.

It's unclear where the base stands on this because it's been so divisive.

Stephen Hayes: Yes.

You know, there, there was this moment back in February of 2025, the White House made this big scene of inviting these conservative right-wing influencers to the White House, and they gave them these binders, white binders that said the Epstein files phase one, and said, you know, this is sort of a down payment on things to come.

We plan on being very transparent.

You're going to learn a lot from what's in these files that we're giving you right now.

And the people who had been agitating for the release of more files looked at what they were given and said, this is old, this is out.

And I think that was a moment when people who had trusted Donald Trump and who had looked to capitalize on this as something with which they could attack Democrats said, wait a second.

This is bogus what they're giving us now.

Vivian Salama: Obviously, we want to mention all these names that we're talking about.

Just because they're mentioned in the files doesn't mean that there's criminal wrongdoing.

So, Andrew, one of the big developments this week was that both Hillary and Bill Clinton testified for the House Oversight Committee.

What do we know about their testimony and how did we get to this moment where the Clintons were sitting with them to talk about what they know?

Andrew Desiderio, Senior Congressional Reporter, Punchbowl News: Well, to Steve's point, you know, Trump has been trying to position himself as the Epstein whistleblower, for a lack of a better phrase, right?

And what we've seen is Republicans in Congress, they control the House, they control the Senate, of course, in the House of Representatives, they're more -- it's a more Trumpy bunch, if you will, trying to sort of deflect a little bit from the president in this respect and go after the Clintons.

Now, there are a lot of Democrats in the house too, particularly younger Democrats who have less allegiance or practically no allegiance to the Clintons at all, and didn't mind voting to actually hold them in contempt of Congress for originally not agreeing to testify.

But what we saw over the last two days when both Hillary and Bill Clinton testified, particularly yesterday during Hillary Clinton's testimony behind closed doors, it appeared that Republicans were not treating it with that much seriousness.

I mean, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert took a photo from inside the room and leaked it to a conservative provocateur who then published it online.

They had to stop the deposition after that happened.

You know, Hillary Clinton was asked apparently about the conspiracy theories from 2016, like Pizzagate and all that stuff.

I mean, it just was not a sort of a serious exercise.

And what we're seeing now is more and more -- Vivian Salama: Is that photo that you mentioned?

Andrew Desiderio: Right.

What we're seeing now is more and more Republicans come out and say that some members of President Trump's administration, like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, should testify as well.

With Secretary Lutnick in particular, the issue is that he wasn't very forthright about when exactly he cut off ties with Jeffrey Epstein.

He initially said it was sooner than it actually was, and then the files came out and it and we saw that there was communication many, many years after he had said that they had stopped having any sort of relationship.

Vivian Salama: Yes.

Sarah, you know, you have a great piece out today and also, you know, I have the advantage of sitting over your -- right over my shoulders, so we can talk about a lot of this stuff during the day.

And one of the things that you've mentioned in passing is that, for years, Democrats didn't pursue the release of these files in part because of that Clinton link.

Can you talk a little bit about that and how, as your story talks about, it became a bipartisan issue?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Absolutely.

This is one of the things that I find most fascinating about this story, because all of these files, millions of these files could have been released at any point by a Biden Justice Department, by the first Trump administration.

I mean, these have been there for a very long time.

But the reason that this is coming out now, I think, is because party leadership had been very, very clear to a rank and file, do not pursue this, in part, I think out of concern about donors, about the Clintons, also for the fact that it was viewed as a distraction versus things like healthcare.

But now, I think what we saw as younger Democrats, to your point, realize that this is a transparency issue.

This is a trust in government issue.

And as Khanna says in the piece, the only way that I'm ever going to get other things passed is if people believe in government.

One of the things that's in my piece is that the Clintons were actively lobbying, calling around on Capitol Hill to Democrats to try and prevent this vote and to kind of influence how this was being done.

And I think that really does not -- it just hits the wrong way with Democrats that are already feeling very jaded, given what happened with allegations of a cover-up about Biden's health and Harris' loss.

You know, there's just so much less confidence in the kind of the elder generation and a real belief that voters want transparency and that is the winning issue.

Andrew Desiderio: It is generational too, because Nancy Pelosi was the one actually behind closed doors, admonishing those younger Democrats for even entertaining the idea of voting to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress.

And when I talk to senators, you know, when they come back from a recess, for example, they're home in their states and they come back to Capitol Hill, say, you know, held events, what are people - - you know, what's on people's minds, right?

We're hearing this bubble in Washington.

You know, what are people telling you when you're back home?

The intensity of this issue among the public, right, Democrats, Republicans alike, senators in both parties always say to me, people are pressing me on the Epstein files every single day, every single event I go to.

Every event I'm at, I get a question about this.

Vivian Salama: So, it's a thing voters care about?

Andrew Desiderio: Right.

The public intensity here, I think, should not be lost on anyone.

Tarini Parti: I think even the Democrats who have reluctant to make this an issue, what I've been told by some of them is that they can kind of package it into the broader midterm issue, which is Trump has failed on delivering his promises.

So, you know, you can talk about grocery prices or the economy, but Epstein files is also another thing because it was a big promise to the base that he clearly has not fully delivered on.

So, they can kind of wrap it up into one package.

Vivian Salama: And, you know, even -- let's talk about the way that a lot of this kind of came back to light last year, I mean, way back last summer, if you all can remember, when Elon Musk on his way out was ruffling feathers with the administration, he posted on X a post that alleged that President Trump was mentioned in the files, and that's the real reason they have not made them public.

Of course, that really set off a firestorm.

And so, you know, is Congress sort of thinking about this, Stephen, you know, with regard to Musk's post seeing that there were credible claims to this?

Is that what really made them have to, I mean, hold their head to the fire basically and say like, we have to do something about this?

Stephen Hayes: I mean.

Look, Elon Musk tweets a lot of stuff.

He tweets a lot of stuff that's not true.

I think he was right about that and I think it did lead to sort of more awareness about this.

And it got Democrats, I think, in particular, to perk up their ears.

But, you know, this is this moment, if you go back to July of last summer, the Department of Justice said that they were done releasing these files.

They were sort of, we're moving on, and they weren't.

And everybody knew that there was more there.

Pam Bondi had made promises to release the names.

The Trump administration, whatever we would find out, whatever the ground truth is, it's very clear that they haven't been straightforward, they haven't been transparent, they haven't been honest.

I think that's one of the reasons that Democrats now say whatever the truth is, whatever we find out, we can make an issue of the fact that they haven't been straight with us.

And there are all sorts of -- you know, if you go back, you know, if you go back as long as Sarah's been covering this, there are all sorts of questions that are raised by things that Trump administration officials, things that the president himself, remember, he gave an interview in 2019 when he was asked shortly after Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, he gave an interview, asked about the arrest, and he said, well, I wish her well.

And then he was asked about that again a week later, and he doubled down on that, said, I wish her well.

And you just think she was just arrested for sex trafficking.

Vivian Salama: Right.

Stephen Hayes: And you're saying you wish her well?

Like what's the story behind that?

Vivian Salama: Well, what is -- I mean, Andrew, what do we know from previous mentions of President Trump?

And then Sarah, I'm going to come to you for what we know that we haven't seen from the DOJ yet.

Andrew Desiderio: Well, we could learn a lot more after Trump is done being president now because the precedent has been set.

We talk about precedents all the time on Capitol Hill.

The precedent has now been set that a former president can be compelled to testify before a Congressional committee, right?

Bill Clinton did that today.

When Democrats are back in the majority one day, which they will be at some point, they will be able to do the same thing to Donald Trump when he is out of office, and those answers could potentially come out when he is under oath.

Now, he'll fight it legally as much as he possibly can.

But remember with the Clintons, this came to the point of them being potentially held in contempt of Congress, which means a referral to the U.S.

attorney for the District of Columbia.

I mean, so it's a very serious legal issue, right?

And so the precedent has been set.

I would not be shocked at all if Donald Trump is forced to testify at some point in time, not while he's president, right, but after he's done being president in front of Congress under oath and then subject to those same sort of, you know, legal requirements like perjury.

Vivian Salama: Assuming that he shows up, of course.

And, Sarah, there's been reporting by you and others that DOJ may have withheld files related to President Trump's alleged conduct with minors in particular, allegations that the White House denies.

What can you tell us about that?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: So, what we know, from a couple different avenues, I reported for the first time today that nine people familiar with material that has been provided to the FBI and to the DOJ in recent years.

That specific material is not among the files that has been released.

And so we know that it's a much broader potential amount of material that has been withheld.

And specifically some of those documents included Trump's name and allegations of misconduct.

So, it is a much broader thing than one or two documents that just by chance may have been mishandled or misplaced.

The New York Times and other independent journalists, NPR has done some reporting about a specific allegation against Donald Trump that involves a minor that was featured.

Actually, it's the first mention on a presentation that the Justice Department, Trump's own Justice Department, put together last summer about notable people in the file that had allegations.

So, what we know from that -- and those files are missing, Vivian Salama: Right.

Sarah Fitzpatrick: So, what we know about that is that's not some offhand -- there's all sorts of tips that go into the FBI, but this is something that had clearly been elevated to a high enough level that even a year ago the Justice Department is identifying it as important.

And the reason why all of this is important is because this wasn't a subpoena.

This was a law that was passed.

And most importantly, it's a law that will continue on even after Trump is out of office.

So, there could be real ramifications, legal ramifications for withholding this information.

I mean, that could be tampering with evidence.

I think it's a major, major development and I think it's something -- that's where this story is going.

Vivian Salama: And briefly, even if even if those allegations remain unproven, isn't that -- I mean, wouldn't that, you know, spark a firestorm within the -- among the base, or do they want to see proof and even then it's kind of questionable?

Sarah Fitzpatrick: To be honest, I don't really fully understand what the strategy is here, but I will say a big problem among Republicans on Capitol Hill is that they -- you know, there's what's been said publicly by the president, but there's also what's been said privately.

He has called lawmakers to the White House.

He put lawmakers in the Situation Room to try and lobby them to vote against this.

And so there have been personal assurances, things that have been said to Republicans that have proven not to be true, and that is putting his -- the very people that are keeping him politically going are now behind closed doors.

Really wavering on that support, and that's a really explosive development.

Vivian Salama: Tarini, you mentioned Commerce Secretary Lutnick, and I want to revisit that.

The commerce secretary, who's also President Trump's longtime friend, has come out with several public comments quite contradictory.

Let's take a listen.

Howard Lutnick, Commerce Secretary: Massage table in the middle of your house?

How often you have a massage?

And he says, every day.

And then he like gets like weirdly close to me.

And he says, and the right kind of massage.

Now my wife is standing here.

My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.

So, I was never in the room with him socially, for business or for even philanthropy.

If that guy was there, I wasn't going because he's gross.

I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation.

My wife was with me as were my four children and nannies.

I had another couple with -- they were there as well with their children.

And we had lunch on the island.

That is true, for an hour, and we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together.

We were on family vacation.

We were not apart to suggest there was anything untoward about that in 2012.

I don't recall why we did it.

Vivian Salama: Tarini, this is arguably one of the most radioactive topics for the Trump administration.

How is the White House receiving these comments?

Tarini Parti: Yes, that was definitely a real flip-flop there.

And the president himself, my colleagues have reported, had a conversation with Lutnick about this and questioned him on this back and forth and has expressed how frustrated he is with the commerce secretary.

Again, he wants the story to go away, and having his own cabinet official go back and forth like this is not a good look for the administration, Stephen Hayes: But the president himself has said that he had never flown on Epstein's plane.

He's in the flight logs.

I mean, everybody involved in this has offered those kinds of -- I mean they're flip-flops is generous.

They're just lies.

Like what he did was lie there.

And he was sending emails to Epstein as late as 2018, maybe later than that.

But what's striking about this, and, look, I mean, I've been around here, been in Washington for a long time.

I'm not new to politicians exaggerating or lying, but it's sort of breathtaking.

The way in which they're willing to say things that are just fundamentally demonstrably, provably untrue again and again and again, and it's this sort of moment of desperation from the White House.

Vivian Salama: And Republicans are taking notice.

Andrew Desiderio: Exactly.

And one of the things I wanted to add too is that this is not the first time it's been a scandal in a Trump administration.

In the first Trump administration, Alex Acosta was forced out of his cabinet position after details were revealed about the sweetheart plea deal that he gave to Jeffrey Epstein when he was U.S.

attorney down in Florida at the time.

And, you know, to your point about, of course, Republicans more and more are willing to entertain the idea of bringing Howard Lutnick under oath, for example.

Congresswoman Nancy Mace, for example, who is running for governor in South Carolina, would definitely benefit from an endorsement from Donald Trump, is still sticking her neck out on this issue and saying things that she knows will rattle the president in his inner circle.

Vivian Salama: Unfortunately we're running out of time, but, of course, we want to stress that in all of this, that we have to remember the survivors most importantly out of this whole entire crisis.

So, we're going to have to leave it there.

Thank you so much to our guests for joining me, and thank you at home for watching.

For more on the fight over the Epstein files, checkout Sarah's article at theatlantic.com.

I'm Vivian Salama.

Goodnight from Washington.