FBI Stonewalls FOIA Request on Ray Epps, Citing “Privacy” — Despite Public Outcry and National Media Coverage
A fresh layer of mystery now shrouds the already murky story of Ray Epps, the controversial January 6 figure whose brief appearance on the FBI’s Most Wanted list—followed by a quiet removal—has sparked years of speculation and allegations of federal misconduct.
Last week, investigative journalist Yehuda Miller, working on behalf of The Gateway Pundit, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI, seeking documents, communications, and directives involving Epps from January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2025. The request specifically targeted records related to Epps’ removal from the bureau’s Most Wanted list and any interactions he may have had with federal agencies before, during, or after the Capitol unrest.
The FBI responded Thursday. And while it confirmed the existence of the records, it denied access—citing privacy exemptions under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).
The FBI’s Explanation? Privacy.
Despite the magnitude of public interest, the FBI claimed disclosing the records “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” In its formal rejection, the Bureau stated:
“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interests of these individuals.”
This response—categorically denying access despite admitting the records exist—has only intensified suspicion. Critics say the Bureau is hiding behind legal technicalities to avoid transparency in a case that continues to raise more questions than answers.
“Two Options: You Die or You’re an Informant”
Former federal prosecutor and Trump-era intelligence official Kash Patel weighed in on the matter during a 2023 Timcast appearance, suggesting that the sudden disappearance of Epps from the Most Wanted list is highly irregular.
“There are only two ways that happens,” said Patel. “You die or you’re an informant.”
Patel also pointed to broader concerns about undercover federal operatives on January 6, warning that evidence of pre-planned infiltration could unravel the official narrative of an organic insurrection. He referenced testimony from FBI official Jill Sanborn, who refused to answer under oath whether federal agents were involved in inciting the Capitol breach.
“Not Enough Public Interest”? Absurd, Say Critics
The FBI’s assertion that the public hasn’t demonstrated sufficient interest in the Ray Epps saga has been blasted as laughably disingenuous. From viral video footage and primetime news segments to congressional hearings and independent investigations, Epps’ name has become synonymous with unanswered questions about federal involvement in January 6.
“Apparently, the FBI is worried that someone will be hurt if the documents are released,” Miller noted. “They are likely talking about the FBI.”
The Core Issue: Why Was Ray Epps Treated Differently?
Video evidence places Epps at critical flashpoints on January 6. He was seen encouraging protesters to “go into the Capitol,” helping breach barricades, and pushing a giant MAGA sign at law enforcement—a crime that sent several others to prison. Yet unlike many who committed lesser offenses, Epps was never charged.
This double standard, combined with his abrupt removal from the FBI list, has led many to suspect federal protection or even recruitment.
Now, with the FBI admitting it has the records—but refusing to disclose them—the question is no longer whether the public should be suspicious. It’s why they wouldn’t be.
