Democracy Defenders Fund Supplemental Documentation for DOJ Inspector General EFTA Audit
Snapshot
On September 9, 2026, the Democracy Defenders Fund submitted a supplemental letter and supporting FBI records to the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. The submission concerns the Inspector General’s ongoing audit of DOJ compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The 131 page filing contains a five page letter followed by FBI records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Democracy Defenders Fund, also known as DDF, argues that its FOIA productions contain dozens of records that could not be located in the official DOJ Epstein Library, along with less redacted versions of records that were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The identified records include communications involving FBI Director Kash Patel, former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, DOJ personnel, FBI personnel, and officials involved in the federal review and redaction of Epstein records.
DDF contends that the discrepancies raise questions about whether responsive records were withheld, delayed, or redacted for reasons prohibited by Section 2(b)(1) of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That provision prohibits withholding, delaying, or redacting records because of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity involving government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries.
The filing presents evidence of apparent disclosure inconsistencies. It does not establish why each record was omitted or redacted, whether every document remains absent from the DOJ database, or whether political considerations caused the discrepancies.
| Field | Information |
|---|---|
| Document title | OIG Epstein Files Transparency Act Audit; Supplemental Documentation |
| Date | September 9, 2026 |
| Recipient | Hon. Don R. Berthiaume, Inspector General |
| Agency | United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General |
| Authors | Norman L. Eisen, Virginia Canter, and Christopher Swartz |
| Organization | Democracy Defenders Fund |
| Document length | 131 pages |
| Enclosure | FBI records produced through FOIA |
| FOIA matter | FBI FOI/PA No. 25 cv 2791 |
| Primary issue | Apparent differences between records produced through FOIA and records published through the EFTA |
| Audit status | Ongoing as of September 14, 2026 |
What the Filing Says
The Democracy Defenders Fund letter states that DDF received two interim FBI productions in response to a July 2025 FOIA request. The request sought communications among senior DOJ and FBI officials concerning the review of Epstein related records.
The officials identified in the request included:
- Former Attorney General Pam Bondi
- Attorney General Todd Blanche
- Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove
- FBI Director Kash Patel
- Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino
DDF says it compared approximately 130 pages of FOIA records with the DOJ Epstein Library. Researchers used quotations from the FOIA documents as search terms and reviewed the DOJ search results for corresponding records.
According to DDF, dozens of documents in the FOIA production could not be located through the DOJ Library’s native search system. Other records appeared in the EFTA release with government employees’ names removed even though those names were visible in the FOIA versions.
DDF provided the records to the Inspector General as supplemental evidence for the ongoing compliance audit.
The DOJ Inspector General Audit
On April 23, 2026, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General announced an audit of the Department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The audit’s preliminary objective is to evaluate DOJ procedures for identifying, redacting, and releasing records required by the Act. The Inspector General identified three principal areas of review:
- DOJ identification, collection, and production of responsive material.
- DOJ guidance and procedures for redacting or withholding material.
- DOJ procedures for addressing problems discovered after publication.
The Inspector General may examine additional issues if circumstances warrant. The OIG states that it will issue a public report after completing the audit.
DDF had previously submitted letters on January 7, January 23, and February 6, 2026. Those letters alleged over redaction, withheld responsive records, an improperly limited review scope, unexplained document modifications, and other compliance failures.
The April 2026 audit announcement followed those requests.
Records DDF Could Not Locate in the DOJ Epstein Library
DDF identified seven major examples in its September 9 letter.
| FOIA Bates number | Record described by DDF | Apparent disclosure issue |
|---|---|---|
| 2 through 6 | An earlier version of the FBI’s Epstein Overview | DDF found substantial differences between this record and EFTA00172473 |
| 9 through 11 | Emails concerning contact information requested by Kash Patel for Antonia Marshall and Lady Victoria Hervey | DDF could not locate the correspondence in the EFTA release |
| 18 | Email concerning redaction of the audio from Todd Blanche’s prison interviews with Ghislaine Maxwell | DDF could not locate the email chain in the EFTA release |
| 169 | Communications involving Emil Bove and Dan Bongino about FBI evidence processing | Related information appears in EFTA01649116, but the Bove and Bongino communications do not appear there |
| 246 | Emails involving Patel and Bongino that may concern the July 2025 DOJ and FBI memorandum | DDF could not locate the chain in the DOJ Epstein Library |
| 295 | Protected disclosure sent to Kash Patel | DDF could not locate it and could not determine whether the sender was a survivor or whistleblower |
| 380 through 381 | Patel inquiry about whether two unidentified people had been investigated for fraud | DDF could not locate the record in the EFTA release |
These records concern the government’s handling of Epstein evidence. Their inclusion does not establish that the named government officials participated in Epstein’s crimes.
FBI Bates 2 Through 6: The Earlier Epstein Overview
FOIA Bates 2 through 6 contains a version of an FBI document titled “Epstein Overview.” It describes the FBI’s effort to locate, collect, process, redact, and deliver Epstein related records between February and April 2025.
A later version appears in the EFTA production as EFTA00172473. DDF states that the FOIA version contains substantial differences that are not present in the EFTA version.
The FOIA version identifies six Epstein related FBI case files:
- 50D NY 3027571
- 72 MM 113327
- 31E MM 108062
- 90A NY 3151227
- 90C NY 3154599
- 9A NY 3144791
The document says that revised DOJ guidance dated March 22, 2025 narrowed the main transparency project to case files 50D NY 3027571 and 31E MM 108062.
The overview also records that the FBI initially processed all six identified case files using victim name only redactions. It states that the production involved 116,792 pages. DOJ subsequently directed the FBI to apply additional categories of redactions to the two selected case files.
The additional categories included witnesses, law enforcement personnel, Assistant United States Attorneys, and grand jury material.
The document reports a total victim list of 1,115 names. According to the footnote, that list included survivors and members of survivor families as identified by SDNY and SDFL.
This record is important because it provides a contemporaneous account of how the project’s scope and redaction instructions changed before the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law.
The March 2025 Review and Redaction Process
The FOIA records describe an intense interagency review involving FBI New York, FBI Headquarters, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the National Security Division, DOJ attorneys, technical personnel, and multiple FBI divisions.
A March 22, 2025 email from FBI official Shannon Parry stated that the project had completed approximately 97 percent of all processing phases before DOJ approved additional redaction categories.
Those phases included:
- Initial redaction
- Initial review
- Final quality assurance review
The email stated that the nearly completed files already had the names of survivors, survivor identifying information, and FBI and DOJ personnel redacted.
Later messages show DOJ and FBI personnel discussing revised project scope, sealed material, Privacy Act issues, interagency documents, training materials, and new redaction instructions.
The records further show that FBI and DOJ attorneys discussed the plan during an extended weekend call on March 22, 2025. DOJ personnel approved the revised plan late that evening. Training was scheduled for the following morning.
These communications are relevant to the audit because they may help identify:
- Who created each redaction category.
- Whether those categories were consistent with the later EFTA requirements.
- Which officials approved the procedures.
- Whether the same procedures were used for the public EFTA production.
- Whether records were reviewed again after the Act became law.
FBI Bates 9 Through 11: Patel’s Request for Contact Information
FOIA Bates 9 through 11 concerns contact information for Antonia Marshall and Lady Victoria Hervey. Some FBI messages misspell Hervey’s surname as Harvey.
A March 6, 2025 message from the FBI legal attaché in London told Director Patel that Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, had contacted the office and believed Patel wanted Victoria Hervey’s contact information.
Patel responded by asking who Hervey was.
A later email stated that the legal attaché understood Patel had met Antonia Marshall and Victoria Hervey at Trump International Golf Course and had requested their contact information. The message identified Marshall as Sarah Ferguson’s personal assistant and Hervey as a British socialite, former romantic partner of Prince Andrew, and public defender of Andrew concerning allegations connected to the Epstein investigation.
Patel thanked the sender for the information.
DDF says this correspondence was not located in the official EFTA production even though it referenced people connected to Prince Andrew and the Epstein investigation.
The correspondence does not explain why Patel wanted the information, what was discussed during the reported meeting, or whether any later contact occurred.
FBI Bates 18: Redaction of the Maxwell Interview Audio
FOIA Bates 18 concerns audio recordings from Todd Blanche’s July 24 and July 25, 2025 prison interviews with Ghislaine Maxwell.
An August 1, 2025 email informed Dan Bongino that FBI personnel had received a call from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General concerning the potential public release of the recordings. FBI New York, the Operational Technology Division, and DOJ personnel were preparing to redact selected portions of the audio.
The correspondence shows that personnel requested detailed instructions identifying the material to be removed. It also indicates that designated personnel had been granted access to a OneDrive folder containing the Maxwell recordings.
DDF says this email chain could not be located in the DOJ Epstein Library.
This correspondence is relevant to the Ghislaine Maxwell DOJ interview because it documents the operational process used to prepare the audio for public release. It does not disclose the substance removed from the recordings or establish that any redaction was improper.
FBI Bates 169: Processing Sensitive Digital Evidence
FOIA Bates 169 contains a March 2025 request to process four FBI evidence items identified as 1B136, 1B144, 1B145, and 1B146.
The request described the items as follows:
| Evidence item | Description in the FBI correspondence |
|---|---|
| 1B136 | A portable hard drive containing highly responsive images and videos, including material that could contain child sexual abuse material |
| 1B144 | Two LTO 6 cartridges containing a backup of digital evidence |
| 1B145 | Three LTO 6 cartridges containing a backup of digital evidence |
| 1B146 | A DVD containing administrative logs and forensic processing reports |
The FBI correspondence stated that 1B144 and 1B145 might contain a backup of all digital evidence in the principal case file. Personnel needed to restore the tapes before reviewing or comparing the material with the Relativity database.
Related information appears in EFTA01649116. DDF states that the FOIA version includes communications involving Emil Bove and Dan Bongino that do not appear in the EFTA version.
Rye Howard Stone’s The Urgent 85 Gigabytes independently analyzes the underlying EFTA records. Stone reports that the FBI urgently reviewed the 85 gigabyte item 1B136 while two much larger backup sets remained substantively unreviewed because accessing them would reportedly require a new search warrant.
The FOIA and EFTA records do not establish that those larger tapes contained evidence implicating any particular person. They do establish that officials believed the tapes could contain a broad backup of digital evidence and that the tapes were treated differently from 1B136.
FBI Bates 246: The July 2025 DOJ and FBI Memorandum
DDF identifies FBI Bates 246 as an email chain involving Kash Patel and Dan Bongino that may relate to the July 2025 DOJ and FBI memorandum.
The July 2025 memorandum announced that DOJ and the FBI had conducted an extensive review of Epstein related evidence. It stated that investigators had found no incriminating client list, no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent people, and no evidence sufficient to open investigations into uncharged third parties.
The memorandum also declared that no further disclosure was appropriate or warranted.
DDF says the related Patel and Bongino email chain was not found in the DOJ Epstein Library. If the correspondence concerns the drafting, review, approval, or factual basis of the memorandum, it could be relevant to understanding how officials reached and communicated those conclusions.
The available record does not establish the chain’s complete subject, who drafted the final memorandum, or whether the correspondence contains evidence of an improper purpose.
FBI Bates 295: Protected Disclosure
FOIA Bates 295 contains an email to Director Patel concerning a protected disclosure.
DDF says the record does not reveal whether the disclosure came from a survivor, a whistleblower, or another protected source. That distinction matters because the Epstein Files Transparency Act permits protection of survivor identifying information while imposing different disclosure considerations on government communications and whistleblower material.
The document’s absence from the searchable EFTA collection raises several questions:
- Was the disclosure reviewed for EFTA responsiveness?
- Was the entire record withheld or classified as nonresponsive?
- Did DOJ determine that the record identified a survivor?
- Was the record covered by a privilege or another statutory exception?
- Was the disclosure referred for investigation?
The existence of the email does not authenticate the underlying disclosure or establish that its contents were true.
FBI Bates 380 Through 381: Patel’s Fraud Inquiry
FOIA Bates 380 through 381 contains an email from Patel asking whether two unidentified people had been investigated for fraud in connection with Epstein or through another matter.
The available material does not reveal the identities of the two people or fully explain why Patel asked about them or what information prompted the inquiry. The chain includes partially visible replies on February 19 and 20, 2026, but substantial portions are redacted.
DDF says the correspondence does not appear in the EFTA Library despite its express reference to Epstein.
This record may help the Inspector General evaluate how DOJ defined responsive material. A communication can fall within the Act’s disclosure scope even if it does not ultimately substantiate criminal conduct.
Redacted Government Officials’ Names
DDF also found differences between the redactions applied to the FOIA records and those applied to EFTA records.
According to the September 9 letter, DOJ redacted the names of numerous FBI and DOJ employees in the Epstein Library. Many of the same names were visible in the FOIA production.
This is notable because FOIA normally permits the government to invoke privacy, law enforcement, privilege, and internal deliberation exemptions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act was designed to require broader disclosure, subject to its stated exceptions.
The discovery that some names were available through FOIA but concealed in the EFTA production therefore raises questions about whether DOJ used an overly broad redaction system.
American Freakshow’s Unmasking the Redacts documents additional examples of inconsistent redactions across the public Epstein files. The investigation identifies names concealed in one version of a document but visible in another and examines DOJ’s changing explanations for withholding information.
These independent findings do not prove that every inconsistent redaction was intentional. They demonstrate why duplicate comparison is a necessary part of auditing the DOJ release.
DOJ’s Public Position
On January 30, 2026, the Department of Justice announced that it had published nearly 3.5 million pages in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
DOJ said that more than 500 attorneys and reviewers participated. The Department stated that withheld records fell into four principal categories:
- Duplicates.
- Privileged records.
- Material covered by statutory exceptions.
- Material unrelated to the Epstein or Maxwell cases.
DOJ also stated that redactions were limited to protecting survivors and their families. It asserted that notable people and politicians were not redacted from the released files.
The DDF records directly test those claims. DDF says the FOIA production contains responsive and nonduplicative government communications that were not released through the EFTA. It also says government officials’ names were hidden in EFTA versions but visible in FOIA copies.
The contradiction is not fully resolved by the September 9 filing. That determination belongs to the Inspector General and may depend on internal collection logs, review instructions, withholding decisions, database records, and unredacted comparison copies.
Search Limitations and Evidentiary Caution
DDF acknowledges an important limitation in its methodology.
The organization searched the DOJ Epstein Library using quotations taken from FOIA records. Because the Library contains millions of pages, incomplete optical character recognition, scanned handwriting, image only pages, and inconsistent indexing, some records may exist without appearing in the search results.
The DOJ Epstein Library itself warns that handwritten and unusually formatted records may not be electronically searchable and may produce unreliable results.
Accordingly, the most accurate conclusion is that DDF could not identify the listed records through its search. A definitive finding that a record was never released requires comparison against DOJ’s complete production inventory, document hashes, Bates ranges, duplicate logs, and unredacted master collection.
The same limitation does not explain why a less redacted FOIA copy would reveal government names hidden in a corresponding EFTA version. Those comparisons can be evaluated directly when both versions are available.
Why the FOIA and EFTA Comparison Matters
FOIA and the Epstein Files Transparency Act are separate disclosure systems.
FOIA contains numerous exemptions that may protect personal privacy, law enforcement methods, internal deliberations, privileged communications, classified information, and other protected material.
The EFTA created a specific disclosure obligation for Epstein related records. It also expressly prohibited withholding information merely because its release could embarrass or politically harm powerful people.
If the government released a record through FOIA but omitted it from the EFTA production, investigators must determine:
- Whether DOJ classified the record as responsive.
- Whether it was excluded as a duplicate.
- Whether an EFTA exception was invoked.
- Whether the record was collected after the primary review.
- Whether database indexing prevented DDF from locating it.
- Whether senior official communications were treated differently from other responsive records.
- Whether the omission resulted from error, process failure, privilege review, or an improper consideration.
The DDF filing gives the Inspector General specific records with which to test DOJ’s collection and publication systems.
What the Filing Establishes
The September 9 submission establishes that:
- DDF obtained FBI records through FOIA concerning the government’s review of Epstein material.
- The FBI FOIA productions include communications involving senior FBI and DOJ personnel.
- Some FOIA documents concern the same review reflected in EFTA records.
- An earlier FBI Epstein Overview differs from the version released as EFTA00172473.
- Communications document evolving review scope and redaction instructions during March 2025.
- Patel and Bongino received information about the review and selected evidence.
- FBI personnel prepared redactions for the Maxwell interview audio in coordination with DOJ.
- The FOIA production contains records that DDF could not locate through the DOJ Epstein Library’s search function.
- Some government employees’ names visible in FOIA records were redacted in EFTA records.
- The DOJ Inspector General has an active audit examining identification, collection, redaction, withholding, publication, and post publication correction procedures.
What the Filing Does Not Establish
The filing does not establish that:
- Every record DDF could not locate is absent from every DOJ data set.
- Any named government official participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation.
- Every redaction was unlawful.
- Every omission was intentional.
- Political sensitivity caused a particular withholding decision.
- The protected disclosure was accurate.
- The two unidentified people in Patel’s fraud inquiry committed fraud.
- The contact request involving Antonia Marshall and Victoria Hervey resulted in an interview or investigative action.
- The omitted communications change the factual conclusions announced in the July 2025 DOJ and FBI memorandum.
Those issues require further records, testimony, technical comparison, and findings from the Inspector General.
Related EpsteinWiki Coverage
The EpsteinWiki report on new FBI disclosure gaps places the DDF filing within the broader September 2026 investigation and document release timeline.
The U.S. Government FOIA Litigation page examines other lawsuits and disclosure efforts seeking federal Epstein records.
The Todd Blanche investigation page documents Blanche’s role in the federal Epstein files process and related ethics disputes.
The Butterfly Bureau Epstein News Updates archive tracks current investigations, court proceedings, survivor advocacy, and disclosure disputes.
Questions for Further Investigation
- What exact collection criteria did DOJ use to identify communications covered by the EFTA?
- Were the Bates 2 through 6, 9 through 11, 18, 169, 246, 295, and 380 through 381 records included in DOJ’s master production inventory?
- If they were excluded, what reason was recorded for each decision?
- Who approved the additional March 22, 2025 redaction categories?
- Did DOJ conduct a complete new review after the EFTA became law on November 19, 2025?
- Why were government officials’ names redacted in EFTA copies when some names were released through FOIA?
- What differences exist between the FOIA Epstein Overview and EFTA00172473?
- What did the protected disclosure sent to Patel concern?
- Who were the two people referenced in Patel’s fraud inquiry?
- What was the purpose of Patel’s reported request for contact information for Antonia Marshall and Victoria Hervey?
- What portions of the Maxwell interview audio did DOJ instruct the FBI to redact?
- Are unredacted versions and processing instructions preserved for Inspector General review?
- Did DOJ create document hashes that would allow reliable identification of duplicates?
- Were documents modified, removed, or replaced after their initial publication?
- Will the Inspector General publish a record level accounting of improperly withheld or over redacted material?
Source List
- Democracy Defenders Fund supplemental letter and FBI documentation, September 9, 2026
- Democracy Defenders Fund announcement concerning the new FBI disclosures
- FBI FOIA records, first tranche
- FBI FOIA records, second tranche
- DOJ Office of the Inspector General EFTA audit
- Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119 38
- DOJ January 30, 2026 production announcement
- DOJ and FBI July 2025 memorandum
- EFTA00172473: FBI Epstein Overview
- EFTA01649116: FBI communications concerning Epstein digital evidence
- Document Zero: The Urgent 85 Gigabytes
- American Freakshow: Unmasking the Redacts
- Joseph Elfelt: Epstein Files Chronology Analysis