🚨 BREAKING: Trump ERUPTS After Ben Meiselas DROPS Epstein BOMBSHELL on LIVE TV — Sources Say He Completely LOST CONTROL 💥

WASHINGTON — A dispute over the release of records connected to Jeffrey Epstein escalated sharply this week after allies and critics of Donald Trump accused his administration of violating a congressional mandate requiring full transparency, intensifying scrutiny of the Justice Department and fueling a fresh political firestorm.

The controversy gained momentum after Ben Meiselas, a progressive commentator and co-founder of the MeidasTouch Network, asserted on live television that the administration planned to release only a portion of the Epstein-related documents required under a recently enacted transparency law. That statute, passed with bipartisan support, calls for the complete release of federal files related to Epstein by a fixed deadline.

Administration officials have said that hundreds of thousands of documents would be made public immediately, with additional materials released later. Critics argue that this staggered approach contradicts both the letter and spirit of the law. “Survivors were promised the truth,” Representative Ro Khanna of California said earlier this week in a related hearing. “What they received instead were blacked-out pages.”

The White House has not directly responded to Mr. Meiselas’s allegations, but President Trump reacted angrily on social media, publishing a barrage of posts overnight that dismissed the criticism as politically motivated and accused Democrats and the media of orchestrating a smear campaign. Allies of the president described the dispute as another example of partisan overreach, while opponents said the reaction underscored the stakes of the disclosures.

The Epstein files have long been a source of intense public interest, in part because of Epstein’s associations with powerful figures across politics, business and entertainment before his death in federal custody in 2019. Survivors and their attorneys have repeatedly argued that sealed or redacted records contain information about other individuals who may have enabled or concealed abuse.

In recent days, attention has focused not only on the documents themselves but also on who controls their release. Critics have singled out Pam Bondi, accusing the Justice Department of slow-walking compliance. Representative Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview that continued redactions could amount to obstruction. “If the law says release them, then release them,” he said.

Adding to the controversy were renewed claims aired by Michael Wolff, a journalist and biographer of Mr. Trump, who recounted past encounters with Epstein and alleged that sensitive materials involving Mr. Trump may exist. Mr. Wolff said he had previously described these claims to federal investigators. The White House has denied the allegations, and no evidence has been produced publicly to substantiate them.

Legal experts caution that the mere existence of allegations does not establish wrongdoing, but they note that the political ramifications of continued secrecy could be significant. “This is no longer just about Epstein,” said Norman Eisen, a former White House ethics lawyer. “It’s about whether Congress can compel transparency from the executive branch when politically inconvenient.”

The Justice Department has said it must balance transparency with privacy rights and ongoing legal considerations, a position echoed by some former prosecutors. Others counter that judges have already ordered the release of certain materials, making broad redactions difficult to justify.

For survivors, the debate has reopened old wounds. Advocacy groups said the partial disclosures felt like a betrayal after years of promises. Several survivors have indicated they plan to return to Capitol Hill in the coming months to press lawmakers for full compliance.

The administration, for its part, argues that it is acting responsibly and lawfully. A senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the volume and sensitivity of the records made immediate, unredacted release impractical.

Still, the political costs appear to be mounting. Some lawmakers have openly discussed potential remedies ranging from contempt proceedings to impeachment inquiries targeting Justice Department officials if the impasse continues. Such measures remain unlikely in the short term, but their mere mention reflects the growing intensity of the dispute.

What began as a debate over document production has evolved into a broader test of trust in institutions — and of a presidency that once pledged full disclosure. Whether the remaining files will resolve lingering questions or deepen them further remains uncertain. What is clear is that the Epstein records, years after his death, continue to exert a powerful and destabilizing force on American politics.