# Epstein Files Transparency Act The **Epstein Files Transparency Act** is a federal statute requiring the Department of Justice to publish all unclassified records relating to the investigation and prosecution of [[Jeffrey Epstein]]. It reached the House floor over leadership objections via a discharge petition led by Reps. [[Thomas Massie]] (R-KY) and [[Ro Khanna]] (D-CA), passed the House **427–1** on November 18, 2025, cleared the Senate by unanimous consent the next day, and was signed into law by [[Donald Trump]] under pressure from a MAGA base demanding disclosure — a rare instance of the movement's transparency demand cutting against the administration's own interest. The [[Jeffrey Epstein]] page carries the fuller legislative and scandal background. ## The enforcement fight (June–July 2026) Compliance became the story. Attorney Katie Phang (a former MS NOW anchor) sued the DOJ in April 2026 for failing to abide by the Act. In late June 2026, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan found that acting Attorney General [[Todd Blanche]] "has conceded that he is in violation" of the Act and ordered him either to remove redactions from key files — including notes from FBI interviews with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse, documents on alleged co-conspirators, and emails with obscured sender/recipient identities — or to **show cause** by **July 2** why the department could not comply. He also ordered translation and cataloguing of redacted material. On July 2, 2026 the DOJ **refused** to produce the additional material, arguing its redactions and omissions fell within the scope of the Act, denying that Blanche had conceded any violation, and signaling it would appeal. ## Epstein Files Transparency Act II (July–September 2026) The enforcement failure produced a second bill. On **July 15, 2026** [[Thomas Massie]] introduced **H.R. 9694, the *Epstein Files Transparency Act II***, co-led in the House by [[Ro Khanna]] and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) and in the Senate by [[Jeff Merkley]] and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM). Its premise is that the original Act had no enforcement mechanism a court could act on, so the sequel supplies one: - a **private right of action** letting state attorneys general, district attorneys, other authorized state officials, members of Congress and victims sue the U.S. Attorney General for unlawfully withholding, redacting, delaying or concealing covered records; - a right for victims to obtain **full, unredacted records** about themselves, including FBI FD-302 interview reports; - a requirement that DOJ give **state and local prosecutors unredacted records** for their own investigations and prosecutions, including secure access to classified material — the provision Massie summarizes as bringing "the fight to the state courts," and which New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez endorsed as necessary to complete his office's Zorro Ranch investigation; - exposure of DOJ and FBI officials to **existing federal criminal penalties** for knowingly concealing, destroying or falsifying files; and - an express bar on invoking common-law privileges, including deliberative-process privilege, to evade disclosure. Massie's stated count is that the department "continues to unlawfully withhold over 3 million Epstein files." On **August 31, 2026**, the House having declined to take the bill up, Massie filed a **discharge petition** — the same instrument that forced the original Act to the floor — and said on CNN that night that he needs every Democrat and "at least three other Republicans" to reach **218**. He no longer has Marjorie Taylor Greene's signature; she left Congress in January 2026. Kentucky colleague Andy Barr declined, calling the effort "grandstanding." Massie has also said publicly that if the three Republicans do not come before the midterms, he expects the votes after them should Democrats retake the House — which turns the sequel's fate into a midterm question. See [[Discharge Petition]]. ## Why it's in the KB The Act is a live test of whether a transparency law can be enforced against a DOJ led by the president's former personal lawyer, and a fault line inside the coalition: the base's demand for the Epstein files versus an administration determined to keep them sealed. It connects the [[Jeffrey Epstein]] file to the KB's oversight and MAGA-fracture threads. ## See also - [[Thomas Massie]] — sponsor of both Acts - [[Discharge Petition]] — the instrument used both times - [[Jeffrey Epstein]] - [[Todd Blanche]] — the acting AG ordered to comply - [[Ro Khanna]] — co-sponsor of the discharge effort ## Compliance Failure: The Withheld 302s (September–October 2026) The Act requires release of FBI investigative records on [[Jeffrey Epstein]] and his associates. In **September 2026** investigators for Senator [[Ron Wyden]], ranking Democrat on the [[Senate Finance Committee]], established that the FBI had interviewed a banker tied to Epstein and had **not released the resulting 302** — the bureau's written record of an interview — as this statute required. On **September 30, 2026**, Wyden wrote to Attorney General [[Todd Blanche]] and FBI Director [[Kash Patel]] demanding they produce all 302s related to Epstein investigations, including interviews of employees at [[JPMorgan Chase]], [[Deutsche Bank]] and [[Bank of America]]. > [!quote] Ron Wyden, September 30, 2026 > "the existence of this 302 indicates that it is likely that the FBI possesses additional, > related, FBI 302s that have not been released" This is the first documented instance of the Act being tested against an unwilling executive, and it establishes the pattern: compliance is partial, the gaps are discovered by congressional staff rather than disclosed, and the discovery of one withheld record implies a class of them. Running alongside it, Treasury Secretary [[Scott Bessent]] refused the Finance Committee access to Epstein-related Treasury material including Suspicious Activity Reports, and Senate Republicans blocked Wyden's bill to compel their release — so the statutory route and the legislative route were closed at the same time.