Lawmakers push for a more robust Epstein Files Transparency Act – but would Trump sign it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/03/epstein-files-transparency-act
Lawmakers push for a more robust Epstein Files Transparency Act – but would Trump sign it?
After the justice department botched file rollout under the original act, lawmakers now want legislation with teeth
As Jeffrey Epstein survivors and their supporters continue searching for justice and transparency in the US, a bipartisan group of politicians is trying to rework legislation that heralded the release of long-hidden investigative files on the scandal.
While the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), signed into law by Donald Trump on 19 November, mandated that the justice department release all investigative files within 30 days with limited exceptions, survivors and their supporters have repeatedly grappled with missed deadlines and what they say are incomplete disclosures.
They have also accused the justice department of disclosing survivors’ personal information while withholding names of men involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse of teen girls and young women.
So now politicians from both the Senate and the House and both main political parties announced on 15 July the introduction of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II (EFTA II). The planned law addresses what legal observers and public records advocates have described as shortfalls in the original EFTA – namely, a lack of an hearty enforcement mechanism. Under the EFTA II, state attorneys general, local district attorneys, Epstein survivors and Congress members would have standing to fight the justice department in court if it doesn’t release files as required.
If the proposed legislation becomes law, survivors would also have the right to “full, unredacted records concerning themselves or the harm they suffered”, including transcripts of FBI interviews. The justice department would also have to provide “state and local prosecutors with unredacted records needed for investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings, including secure access to classified materials”.
The EFTA II would also “enforce compliance with the existing law by subjecting [justice department] and FBI officials to existing federal criminal penalties for knowingly concealing, destroying, falsifying, withholding or misrepresenting files,” supporters said.
Legal veterans say this proposed law does have the potential to foster transparency, but noted that practical issues remain. Not only does this bill face political hurdles to actually pass into law, but – if it does – record seekers would also have to deal with the same justice department necessitating it in the first place.
Oleg Nekritin, an attorney with the Law Offices of Robert J De Groot, said that the EFTA was a “pretty robust bill” enabling state attorneys general to get records they demand.
“Under the first Epstein Files Transparency Act, people were permitted to search for various records, but people criticized those specific records, because a lot of them were redacted, they were difficult to read, and critics said they didn’t even disclose individuals who may have been involved … in various criminal acts,” Nekritin said.
This bill, Nekritin explained, grants state attorneys general access to unredacted records. “If they aren’t provided access by the US attorney’s office, they’re permitted to file actions.”
Nekritin noted that many state attorneys general think that the Trump administration has acted unlawfully in a variety of areas. With Epstein, “they may believe that the United States government isn’t taking sufficient steps to investigate or prosecute obscene crimes”.
So if state attorneys general can get all records, “they may do their own investigations, follow leads, etc”. He also noted that survivors will have access to records that involve them.
“If passed, it will be a gamechanger for individuals who want to investigate further or learn more about Epstein or individuals associated with them.”
Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond School of Law, said is his “first thought” is: “Can it pass?”
“Can they move it in the House or maybe even more difficult, in the Senate?” Tobias said that if House members can convince their colleagues to green-light the bill, there would still need to be 60 Senate votes. Then the question remains: would Trump sign it?
Tobias noted many of the lawmakers publicly behind the bill have long been committed to transparency and describe its intent as a good idea. They include Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, California Democrat Ro Khanna, New Mexico Democrat Teresa Leger Fernández, Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley and New Mexico Democrat Ben Ray Luján
“They’re very dissatisfied with what happened at [the justice department], and so I think they want to provide avenues for victims and for state attorneys general to bring [the justice department] into court and try to bring more transparency.”
after newsletter promotion
Roy Gutterman, director of the Newhouse School’s Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said: “This bill amends the existing law and has more teeth with authorizing a state attorney general and victims to litigate for release of the materials.”
“It has specific terms, definitions and expectations that the US attorney general, upon request from a state AG or victim, would turn over the wealth of materials that have remained withheld for more than a year,” he also said.
But Gutterman warned: “If the [justice department] drags its feet or refuses to turn over the unredacted materials, I am not sure another law will dramatically change delays or outright refusals we’ve seen for the past year.”
The news website Radar Online, which has long been pursuing a public records lawsuit over access to investigative files, called this effort “a step in the right direction”.
But a Radar spokesperson said: “The entire American public already has a private right of action: FOIA” – the Freedom of Information Act.
“The fastest way to achieve true transparency would be to support Radar Online’s nine-year quest for the Epstein Files.”
Backers of this bill are confident that it will force the justice department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This bill “strengthens the enforcement of the original law, which is only necessary because Trump’s Department of Justice refuses to comply with it”, Merkley said.
“No one is above the law, and EFTA II ensures that even Trump and his crony, acting attorney general Todd Blanche, can’t stop the truth from coming to light. And if Blanche continues to side with the Epstein class instead of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, then he has no business serving as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer,” Merkley said in a statement.
Luján voiced similar sentiments. In a statement he said: “With the Trump Department of Justice refusing to comply [with] the law, we must empower state attorneys general and victims to challenge this Department of Justice for failing to provide the transparency and accountability that Epstein’s victims deserve.”
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on the bill or criticism over disclosures.
Trump, who made releasing the Epstein files a key tenet of his campaign, has defended his administration’s handling of the issue. Trump has denied any and all wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
“Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “And by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House oversight committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”
At this dangerous time
We hope you appreciated this article. Before you close this tab, we want to ask if you could support the Guardian at this dangerous time for journalism in the US. For the next several days only, we are offering 50% off our most impactful monthly support option.
According to a leading global watchdog, American democracy is now more imperiled than at any point since the 1960s, marked by a precipitous decline in press freedom – driven by mounting pressure from the Trump administration in the form of threats, criminal investigations, politicized regulation, frivolous lawsuits and, for public media, catastrophic funding cuts.
Meanwhile, organizations that are supposed to be independent like the FBI and the FCC, our radio and television regulator, have also been targeting press freedom under Trump-aligned leadership, with the FBI raiding a reporter’s home and the FCC threatening ABC’s TV licenses after Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Melania Trump.
The response from some ultra-wealthy and corporate media owners, keen to appease the president, has been chilling: CBS News has been taken over by a Trump ally; CNN may be taken over by the same billionaire; Jeff Bezos has continued to impose cuts and editorial interventions at the Washington Post; and multiple outlets have settled multimillion-dollar lawsuits from the administration to protect their business interests.
Democracy is best served by a robust, thriving free press. But when that freedom is under attack, it falls to a determined few news organizations to ensure the full truth still reaches the public. Owned neither by a billionaire nor a corporation, the Guardian remains dedicated to covering this administration with uncompromising moral and factual clarity – and to keeping trustworthy journalism paywall-free for the world.
Despite the risks of maintaining our fierce independence, what sustains us – and fills us with deep gratitude – is the unwavering support we’ve seen from readers. It is no exaggeration to say that we are here because of you: a majority of our funding comes directly from people like you responding to messages like this. Your support not only powers our work, but more importantly, it safeguards the financial independence that underpins our editorial freedom and courage.
We know our requests for support are not as welcome as our reporting, but without them, it’s simple: our reporting wouldn’t exist. Of course, we understand that some readers are not in a position to support us, and if that is you, we value your readership no less.
But if you are able, please support us today. All gifts are gratefully received, but for the next several days only, we are offering a 50% discount for six months off our most impactful monthly support option. (Among the great benefits you get in return: you’ll see far fewer annoying fundraising messages like this.) It takes just 37 seconds to set up. Thank you for considering.
No comments:
Post a Comment