Epstein Survivors Use Super Bowl Sunday to Pressure Pam Bondi Over Unreleased Files

Eight women stood before a camera, photographs of their younger selves pressed to their chests, black marks smeared across their mouths. None of them spoke at first. For a few seconds, silence carried the weight of everything they had endured, everything still hidden from public view.

When they did speak, their message cut through the noise of one of America’s most commercially saturated days with a single, unambiguous demand aimed at the highest levels of the federal government.

A 40-second video released on Super Bowl Sunday by anti-trafficking advocacy group World Without Exploitation placed Epstein survivors front and center, calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all remaining records from the sex-trafficking case that has consumed public attention for years. Black redaction marks painted across each woman’s mouth served as a stark visual metaphor for what survivors believe remains suppressed within millions of pages of government documents.

A Law, A Deadline, and a Broken Promise

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with near-unanimous support in November 2025, and President Donald Trump signed it into law on November 19. Lawmakers from both parties rallied behind the legislation, which set a firm 30-day deadline for the Department of Justice to publish its complete cache of files on Jeffrey Epstein, who died in a New York jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

What followed fell far short of expectations. On December 19, the DOJ released only a small portion of documents. A slightly larger batch came four days later, on December 23. Five weeks after that, on January 30, the department published its most substantial release yet, consisting of roughly 3.5 million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the January release as the end of the road. At a White House press briefing, he said the 3.5 million files represented everything the DOJ could safely make available from a total cache exceeding six million pages. He argued that remaining documents needed to stay classified to protect victims and preserve active investigations.

Blanche also pushed back against speculation that the department was shielding powerful figures. He said there was a “built in assumption that somehow there’s this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about that we’re covering up or that we’re choosing not to prosecute,” before adding that such assumptions were false. Survivors and their congressional allies saw it differently.

Why Survivors Say It’s Not Enough

For the women who appeared in the video, half the story remains locked behind closed doors. Of the six million pages in DOJ possession, roughly three million have never reached the public. Reasons cited for withholding range from attorney-client privilege and deliberative process protections to concerns about identifying alleged victims and material depicting violence.

Deliberative process privilege allows federal agencies to shield internal decision-making documents, while attorney-client privilege guards communications between lawyers and their clients. Both are standard legal protections, but their application in a case of such public magnitude has drawn fierce criticism.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican and one of the law’s chief sponsors, has argued that the DOJ failed to comply with the statute. He planned to visit the department on Monday to review withheld files in a private reading room equipped with a secure terminal, access made available to members of Congress according to a letter obtained by NBC News.

Survivors echoed that frustration through the ad itself. In the video, they said, “After years of being kept apart, we’re standing together. Because we all deserve the truth.”

Each woman held a photograph from her younger years, a reminder that the abuse they suffered at Epstein’s hands happened when she was a child and a teenager. By placing those images beside their adult faces, the ad forced viewers to reckon with the passage of time and the persistent absence of full accountability.

Redaction Errors Add Fuel to an Already Heated Debate

Beyond the sheer volume of withheld material, the documents that were released carried their own problems. Inconsistent redaction practices plagued the published files. Some pages arrived heavily blacked out, obscuring what survivors and researchers consider essential information. Others, paradoxically, failed to redact names that should have been protected.

DOJ officials said they acted quickly to correct redaction errors once flagged. But for survivors who have spent years fighting for transparency, the mistakes reinforced a sense that the government’s handling of the case has been careless at best and deliberately obstructive at worst.

In the ad, black marks painted across the survivors’ mouths turned the government’s own redaction practices into a protest symbol. Where the DOJ used black ink to conceal, survivors wore it to represent silencing.

Political Reactions Land Along Predictable Fault Lines

Within minutes of the video’s circulation on social media, lawmakers began weighing in. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reposted the clip on X and called it “the most important ad you will see on Super Bowl Sunday.”

He continued with a pointed rebuke of those who have suggested the country should move past the Epstein saga, writing that exposing the largest sex-trafficking ring in the world should take priority over political convenience.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, who has spearheaded Democratic inquiries into Epstein-related matters in the House, posted a similar message. Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Massie, a bipartisan pair who co-sponsored the transparency legislation, also amplified the video.

On the other side, President Trump has said it is time to “move on” from the Epstein file controversy. His position puts him at odds with members of his own party, including Massie, who remain vocal about the DOJ’s incomplete compliance.

Right-wing commentator Matt Walsh questioned the survivors’ motives on X, accusing them of launching a publicity campaign that “curiously didn’t start until the exact moment Biden left office.” He suggested survivors should simply name their abusers rather than pursue a media strategy. In a follow-up post, Walsh proposed that survivors could give names to congressional allies, who could then read them aloud from the floor under legislative immunity.

Musk Steps Into the Fray

In 2015, Epstein took a photo of his dinner with Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and sent it to himself
by
u/ThrowawayGreenWitch in
popculturechat

Elon Musk responded to Walsh’s post with an offer that immediately became its own headline. He wrote, “I will pay for the defense of anyone who speaks the truth about this and is sued for doing so.”

His statement did not specify how he would determine which allegations qualify as true, leaving the offer open to interpretation. But its timing raised eyebrows, given what the latest batch of files revealed about Musk’s own correspondence with Epstein.

Among the January 30 documents were several email exchanges between Musk and Epstein. In one, dated November 2012, Musk asked Epstein about the “wildest party” on his island. In another, sent on Christmas Day of that year, Musk wrote that he had been working intensely and wanted to “hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose,” adding that a “peaceful island experience” was the opposite of what he wanted.

Musk has long maintained that he refused repeated invitations to visit Epstein’s island or fly on his private jet. After the files became public, Musk said on X that he had “very little correspondence” with Epstein and that some emails “could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name.”

A photograph found in the released documents showed Musk dining with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Epstein had emailed the image to himself in August 2015, though the disgraced financier did not appear in the picture. A related email from Epstein referenced dinner with “zuckerburg, mu=k, thiel hoffman, wild,” apparently naming LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and Palantir chairman Peter Thiel. Musk also pointed out that no one pushed harder than he did to have the files released.

Super Bowl Spotlight, But Not a Super Bowl Ad

One clarification emerged as the video gained traction. While World Without Exploitation timed its release to coincide with Super Bowl Sunday, the ad did not air during the broadcast itself. A 30-second commercial slot during the game costs upward of $8 million, a price well beyond the reach of a nonprofit advocacy group.

Instead, the video spread through social media, propelled by reposts from lawmakers, public figures, and ordinary viewers who encountered it between football commentary and beer commercials. Its reach, while impossible to quantify against a traditional Super Bowl ad buy, benefited from the cultural moment and the emotional power of its content.

By choosing the most commercially saturated day on the American calendar, the group ensured that their message competed for attention against some of the most expensive advertising ever produced. Whether it broke through to the casual viewer or preached to an already engaged audience remains an open question.

Capitol Hill Moves to Force the Next Chapter

Several immediate developments followed the ad’s release. Massie and other lawmakers visited the DOJ on Monday to review the withheld files in a secure setting. How much they will be permitted to discuss publicly remains unclear, though Massie has shown little reluctance to speak openly about what he considers a failure of government transparency.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted associate, currently serving a 20-year sentence, was scheduled to appear before a congressional committee on Monday as well. Her legal team indicated she agreed to testify under oath but would invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent unless granted legal immunity. How her testimony, or refusal to testify, will affect the broader push for disclosure adds another unpredictable element to a story with no shortage of them.

For now, roughly three million pages of documents remain out of public view. Survivors and their advocates show no signs of relenting. Having brought their fight to the biggest advertising stage in American culture, even if only by proximity, they have made clear that silence is no longer something they are willing to accept.

Whether the DOJ, the Attorney General, or the political establishment will answer their demand with action or continued resistance is the question that hangs over every redacted page still locked behind government doors.