After campaigning on transparency regarding the Epstein files, President Trump became quickly defensive when asked about them shortly after taking office last year - which continued into July, when Trump clapped back at a journalist who asked about Epstein's ties to a foreign intelligence agency, asking; "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?" 

Trump's outburst came months after AG Pam Bondi said she had the entire Epstein client list on her desk, and later revealed that there were "tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn," and that there were "hundreds of victims." 

Then we had the botched Binder release, Patel and Bongino insisting the Epstein list doesn't exist and that Epstein definitely killed hismelf. 

In September of last year, Trump called the Epstein controversy an "irrelevant Democrat hoax," as Democrats, and Reps. Thomas Massie and MTG pushed for the release of the Epstein Files - which eventually culminated in the November passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the DOJ to release Epstein files. And instead of just doing that, they released highly redacted files highlighting Epstein's ties with Democrats. 

In response to the Trump DOJ's redacted releases, Massie and Dem Rep. Ro Khanna pushed for a special master to provide independent oversight and ensure both compliance and speed, the NY Post reports. 

The DOJ responded by saying that it has assigned 500+ reviewers to the project, and has formally moved to block the appointment of a special master. In a six-page letter filed with US District Judge Paul. A Engelmayer, DOJ prosecutors contend that efforts to force production of the Epstein Files are an improper attempt to relitigate a concluded criminal case. 

According to the filing, amici curiae are intended to provide neutral legal analysis—not to introduce new disputes, seek new remedies, or assume an adversarial role. The government argues that Khanna and Massie are attempting to do precisely that by asking the court to oversee DOJ document production, compel testimony from prosecutors, and effectively enforce a statute that provides no judicial enforcement mechanism.

“An amicus cannot initiate, create, extend, or enlarge issues,” the DOJ writes, citing longstanding federal precedent. Because no party to the case has raised compliance with the Act as a live issue, prosecutors argue there is nothing for amici to assist the court with.

The government’s argument goes further: even if the court were inclined to entertain the request, it could not do so constitutionally. -Meidas News

The DOJ further argues that Khanna and Massie lack standing because they were not personally injured by the Trump administration's failure to release the files. 

Dave Smith couldn't have said it better:

See the DOJ filing below: