Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Epstein Files Transparency Act
2025 US federal law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
The Epstein Files Transparency Act is a law passed by the 119th United States Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on November 19, 2025. It requires the United States Department of Justice to "make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format" all files pertaining to the prosecution of the deceased child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (if needed, declassifying them to the extent possible) within 30 days of passage, and then to give the Judiciary Committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate an unredacted "list of all government officials and politically exposed persons" named in the files.
.svg)
In September 2025, Representative Thomas Massie, a member of the Republican Party, filed a discharge petition in support of the bill. On November 12, the discharge petition received the minimum-required 218 signatures needed, from 4 Republican representatives and 214 Democratic Party representatives, forcing a House vote on the bill.
The House of Representatives voted 427–1 to pass the act on November 18, 2025, with Republican representative Clay Higgins casting the lone nay vote.[1] The next day, the Senate passed the bill via unanimous consent, and Trump signed the bill into law.[2][3][4][5] Given that the Department of Justice has been given a 30-day deadline to release the documents, the files are expected to be made public on or around December 19, 2025.[6]
Remove ads
Background
Summarize
Perspective
During the 2024 presidential election, the Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump, when asked by Rachel Campos-Duffy on Fox News in June 2024 whether he would release the Epstein files as president, answered "yeah, I would."[7] In September, while appearing on Lex Fridman's podcast, Trump promised to release the Epstein files if elected.[8] Trump won the 2024 election in November.
In February 2025, the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, stated in a Fox News interview that the Epstein client list was "sitting on my desk right now to review."[9] Later that month, the White House gave binders to several prominent conservative and right-wing figures, including Liz Wheeler and Scott Presler, reading "Epstein Files: Phase 1" and "Declassified". Later that day, Representative Anna Paulina Luna criticized the event, stating that they released "old info".[9]
On July 7, Bondi released a statement saying that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) found "no incriminating 'client list'", contradicting her February statement. That day, DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that no further files from the Epstein investigation would be released.[9] Bondi's statement drew outrage from conservative figures; Wheeler called it "unforgivable behavior", while the Hodgetwins called for Trump to fire Bondi.[10]
On July 11, reports emerged that Dan Bongino, the deputy director of the FBI, had a heated confrontation with Bondi over her handling of the files, and was considering resigning.[11] Bongino was later demoted to Co-Deputy Director on September 15, 2025.[12]
On July 12, Trump defended Bondi and referred to Epstein as "somebody that nobody cares about." On July 16, Trump referred to the Epstein files as "a big hoax." On July 23, reports emerged that earlier in May, Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche informed Trump that his name was "among many in the Epstein files." Trump denied this report.[9]
Trump's change in position drew criticism from prominent podcasters close to Trump, as well as many conservatives. Joe Rogan accused the Trump administration of gaslighting the public, while Andrew Schulz said Trump was "insulting our intelligence".[13]
In August 2025, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Bondi's request to unseal grand jury files from the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution case.[9]
On September 9, the House Rules Committee rejected a motion by a vote of 8 to 4 that Democratic Representative Jim McGovern request to vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act in the House. All eight dissenting votes were Republicans.[14]
Remove ads
Legislative history
Summarize
Perspective
Discharge petition
On September 2, 2025, (the first day the House was back in session after the August recess) Representative Thomas Massie moved to force the House to vote to require the Justice Department to release the files, through a discharge petition.[15] Trump and other Republicans launched a pressure campaign to prevent the release of the files, with one anonymous official calling voting for Massie's discharge petition a "very hostile act to the administration".[16]
Within several days, Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene signed the discharge petition, alongside many Democrats.[17] Later that month, Greene tweeted: "The Epstein rape and pedophile network must be exposed. ... Release all the Epstein information by any means possible." She added that "if something happens to me, I ask you all to find out" who might be trying "to stop the information from coming out."[18]
The petition's final two signatures came from Democrats: James Walkinshaw, who won the Virginia 11th District special election on September 9[19] and was sworn in the next day, and Adelita Grijalva, who won the Arizona 7th congressional district special election on September 23[20] and was sworn in on November 12.[21]
In the hours before Grijalva was sworn in, Bondi, Blanche, and FBI director Kash Patel met with Boebert regarding the House effort. However, Boebert did not remove her name from the petition, and once Grijalva was sworn in and provided the 218th signature, it was no longer procedurally allowable for any signatories to remove their names.[22][23][24]
Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, had delayed Grijalva's swearing-in, generally attributing his decision to the 2025 government shutdown, arguing that the House could not swear in new members during pro forma sessions or during a government shutdown. However, some critics noted that Johnson had sworn in two Republican members, Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine, during a pro forma session in April.[25] On October 21, the Arizona attorney general, Kris Mayes, sued Johnson, seeking to force him to swear in Grijalva.[26] That day, Johnson told Fox Business that the delay "has zero to do with Epstein", given that "the Epstein files are being released"[27] (seemingly referring to the House Oversight Committee's releases).
Interval period
On November 12, 2025, Johnson stated that the House would vote on the bill the following week (November 16–22).[28]
In the following days, Republican representatives Don Bacon,[29] Andy Biggs,[30] Rob Bresnahan,[29] Tim Burchett,[29] Eli Crane,[31] Warren Davidson,[32] Carlos A. Giménez,[33] Nicole Malliotakis,[33] Max Miller,[32] and Derrick Van Orden,[33] none of whom signed the discharge petition, stated that they will vote in favor of the legislation. Representative María Elvira Salazar stated when asked that she was still "thinking" over her vote.[34]
Politico reported that, according to anonymous sources, over 100 Republicans were expected to defect from Johnson and vote for the bill.[29] Representative Ro Khanna predicted that 40–50 Republicans might vote for release, while Massie similarly anticipated that Republican support could "snowball",[35] later predicting a deluge of "100 or more" Republican votes.[36]
On November 15, Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate Epstein's involvement with banks and prominent Democratic figures, including Bill Clinton, Lawrence Summers, and Reid Hoffman. On Truth Social, Trump wrote: "This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats". Bondi subsequently assigned the investigation to U.S. attorney Jay Clayton.[37]
On November 16, Massie commented on the DOJ's new investigation ordered by Trump, saying:
The president's been saying this is a hoax. He's been saying that for months. Well, he's just now decided to investigate a hoax, if it's a hoax ... I have another concern about these investigations ... If they have ongoing investigations in certain areas, those documents can't be released. So, this might be a big smoke screen, these investigations, to open a bunch of them ... as a last-ditch effort to prevent the release of the Epstein files.[38]
Massie also added that he does not believe Trump himself is implicated in the files, but "instead is trying to protect a bunch of rich and powerful friends, billionaires, donors to his campaign, friends in his social circles".[38]
Several hours later,[38] Trump posted on Truth Social, reversing his stance, writing that "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files ... it's time to move on from this Democrat Hoax".[39] Representative Robert Garcia commented on Trump's reversal, arguing Trump was "panicking ... he is about to lose this Epstein vote to force the Department of Justice to release the files ... Trump has the power to release all the files today ... instead, he wants to continue this cover-up and launch bogus new investigations to deflect and slow down our investigation."[40] Massie also responded, commenting that Trump "got tired of me winning."[41]
On November 17, Trump said that he would sign the bill, but did not want it to "take it away from us". Massie responded to Trump on Twitter, writing: "Looking forward to attending this bill signing."[42] That day, Johnson also stated that he might support it, if it could be improved in the Senate to better protect victims' identities.[43] Additionally, on that day, Mark Epstein, the brother of Jeffrey Epstein, claimed there was an active coverup to "sanitize" the files by "scrubbing the files to take Republican names out." Mark Epstein claimed he had heard as such from a "pretty good source" and it was the reason for Trump's sudden shift on releasing the files.[44][45][46]
On November 18, Massie, Khanna, and Greene hosted a press conference at Capitol Hill alongside Epstein abuse survivors.[47]
House vote
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on the act on November 18, 2025, just before 3 p.m. Eastern Time. The bill was considered by the House "under a suspension of rules", meaning it required a two-thirds majority (290) vote to succeed.[48]
The vote passed 427–1. Representative Clay Higgins, a Republican, was the lone vote against the bill, arguing that the release of the identities of innocent witnesses and family members related to the case would cause undue harm.[49] Five representatives – Democrats Don Beyer, Greg Casar, and Mikie Sherrill; and Republicans Michael Rulli and Steve Womack – did not vote on the bill.[50][51]
Senate vote
After passing the House, the bill would require 60 votes to pass in the U.S. Senate.[52] That night, the Senate unanimously agreed to pass the bill as soon as it was received from the House.[53] The bill arrived in the Senate on November 19 and was formally transmitted from the Senate to the President's desk that morning.[54]
Signing
Trump stated on November 17, 2025, that he would sign the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law if it reached his desk.[55] House speaker Mike Johnson, who had previously expressed staunch opposition to the release of the files, said on November 18: "I am deeply disappointed in this outcome. ... It needed amendments, I just spoke to the president about that. We'll see what happens."[56][57] A presidential veto did not occur, but it could have been overridden had both chambers voted by a two-thirds majority, which they had easily reached in the previous votes on the act.[58]
The act reached the presidential desk on the morning of November 19.[4] A senior White House official had told reporters that "the bill will be signed whenever it gets to the White House". In the evening, the White House told reporters that Trump would not appear on camera for the rest of the day,[59] after which Trump announced on Truth Social that he had signed the bill into law.[5]
Remove ads
Release
Summarize
Perspective
On November 19, Bondi said that the Department of Justice had obtained "new information" about Epstein that could potentially justify withholding the release of certain files.[60]
Her statement led to public warnings from Republican senators, including Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, and John Kennedy, who advised her to avoid withholding files. Murkowski warned Bondi that Americans will feel "duped" if files are withheld, while Tillis stated that "You can adjust for whatever investigations are going on, but if you do a blanket hold, I think that they're going to have a lot of people angry."[61] Democratic senators also began to publicly criticize Bondi, with Peter Welch predicting that Bondi would work to conceal files.[61]
That week, Bondi also filed an expedited motion in the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida for the release of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case.[60]
U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Berman ordered the Department of Justice to describe, by December 1, which materials it possesses and how it will protect survivors' privacy.[62]
On December 5, Judge Rodney Smith ordered the release of Florida grand jury transcripts, determining that the Epstein Files Transparency Act overrode a law prohibiting the release of grand jury materials.[63]
Unreleased documents
As of November 26, the Department of Justice's unreleased Epstein documents consist of nearly 100,000 pages, as well as 40 computers, 70 CDs, 26 storage drives, and six recording devices, which contain a collective 300 GB of data.[64]
According to The New Republic, physical evidence in the FBI's possession also includes "photographs, travel logs, employee lists...blueprints of Epstein's island and Manhattan home...a logbook of visitors to Epstein's private island, and a list [of names]".[64]
Special Redaction Project
On November 25, Jason Leopold of Bloomberg News began to report on the Epstein Files, after partially receiving redacted copies from the FBI; Leopold filed a FOIA request and a lawsuit against the FBI for the files. Leopold received a variety of files, mostly emails, which also revealed the existence of the "Special Redaction Project" (also internally referred to as the "Epstein Transparency Project").[65]
Leopold reported that between January 2025 and July 2025, FBI personnel worked 4,737 overtime hours, costing the U.S. government over $851,000, to redact files related to the Epstein investigation.[65]
Remove ads
Reactions
Summarize
Perspective
Journalists
In an opinion article in The Hill, journalist and attorney Chris Traux argued that the Epstein files were a "a political albatross hanging around [Trump's] neck", while being Trump's equivalent of the Hillary Clinton email controversy. Traux also argued that the bill's overwhelming success in Congress showcased the weakened influence of Trump's political power.[66] Contributor A. Scott Bolden similarly argued in The Hill that Trump's initial opposition to the bill proved to be a failure, while arguing that Bondi's new investigations were Trump's eleventh-hour attempt to withhold select files.[67]
Journalist Harrison Berger in The American Conservative argued that the bill granted too much power to Bondi to redact content while realizing the Epstein files. Berger argued that the Trump administration would likely abuse the bill's provision in order to hide Epstein's political and foreign ties. For example, Berger pointed to Drop Site News's report that Epstein worked on Israel's behalf with Ehud Barak during the Syrian civil war, in order to help remove Bashar al-Assad from power.[68]
Public opinion
A September 2025 Marist Poll, surveying 1,477 adult Americans, found that 90% of Americans answered that they wanted at least some of the Epstein files released, with the victims' names redacted. Among these surveyed, 77% stated that they wanted all of the Epstein files to be released, 13% wanted some of the files released, and 9% were opposed. Additionally, 84% of Democrats, 67% of Republicans, and 83% of independents answered that they wanted all of the Epstein files to be released.[69]
Remove ads
See also
Notes
- 23 Democratic and 1 Republican
References
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads