Epstein Bill Has Foreign Policy Loophole

“kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy”

The narrative around the Epstein story is driven by:

• trying to make it a partisan thing, so each establishment party can blame the other, providing endless fuming and distractions;

• trying to ensure the subject of blackmail and deal making is kept off the agenda — most obviously, Maxwell is being treated quite well in prison and Trump won’t rule out pardoning her;

• keeping it away from foreign policy, especially Israel.

As it happens, the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” says that the Attorney General shall make public “all unclassified records”. So what’s stopping them from only classifying the really important stuff? The legislation actually has something of a carve-out for material “kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.”

It says that it requires justification for “redactions” — see below. And it also states: “No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

Some might hope the esteemed Attorney General shall perform her duties…properly.

I noted some of this on X just before Congress passed the bill. Now, the New York Times is noting limitations of the disclosure, but not that critical one about foreign policy.

The NYT headline reads “Trump Approves the Release of the Epstein Files, but Loopholes Remain” but there’s no mention of “national defense or foreign policy” loopholes. The NYT writes: “Mr. Trump’s signature does not guarantee the release of all the files. The bill contains significant exceptions, including a provision protecting continuing investigations, which could mean many documents would stay confidential.”

Such limitations on disclosure of information are not unique to this case. Massive over-classification on “national security” grounds is a systemic problem. Which makes it all the more urgent, especially given the role of imperial Israel in all this given its centrality in US foreign policy.

What does that even mean, “kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy”? Are there years-old military movement information in the files that somehow still endanger the troops? How can we take such secrecy seriously in a system that refuses to acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons? Are there names of spooks in the files? Doesn’t that exactly speak to why they should be made public?

I should give backhanded credit to Michael Tracey, who pretty much sank whatever credibility he had by backing up the Hamas-slaughtered-babies propaganda, since he has been noting limitations in the Epstein legislation. But so far as I could tell, not for the purpose of making it stronger. He claims there’s no there there — which might be the case…because of the limitations of the bill.

The rarely highlighted limitations of this bill remind me of the rhetoric around transparency and Covid origins. Back then we were hearing great pronouncements about the need for transparency from some Republicans like Josh Hawley, but if you looked at the specifics, the disclosures were stacked. I wrote in March 2023:

Hawley stressed on March 1 on Fox that the legislation would “declassify all of the information the federal government has on Covid origins”. In fact, it only instructs the Director to declassify information “relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19).” This is doubtlessly a small portion of what the DNI has.

Further, Hawley cast his legislation as getting to the bottom of the story: “we can get this thing done. Listen, the American people, it’s past time, let’s show them what the government has. Let everybody see it for themselves, let everybody read it.” In fact, large amounts of information are currently unclassified but are being withheld. FOIA requests by U.S. Right to Know, The Intercept and others have been massively redacted.

The language from the Epstein bill:

(1) The Attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that—

(E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

(3) To the extent that any covered information would otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that classified information to the maximum extent possible.

(A) If the Attorney General makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security, the Attorney General shall release an unclassified summary for each of the redacted or withheld classified information.

(1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.

Full text is here.