HR-9694-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Thomas Massie (R-KY)
What it does
This bill would amend the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law 119-38) to add new enforcement mechanisms for the release of federal investigative records related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It would allow state attorneys general, district attorneys, victims, and Members of Congress to sue the U.S. Attorney General in federal court if records are withheld, redacted, or delayed without justification. It would also give victims the right to access unredacted records that specifically relate to them, grant state law enforcement access to classified materials in secure settings, and bar the Justice Department from invoking common law privileges — such as deliberative process or attorney-client privilege — to block disclosure.
Who benefits
Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal network, who would gain a direct legal right to access records about themselves. State attorneys general and district attorneys with active investigations, who would gain access to unredacted and classified federal records. Members of Congress seeking oversight of DOJ compliance. Journalists, researchers, and the general public who may benefit indirectly from greater transparency. Victims' advocacy organizations. State and local law enforcement agencies that have experienced investigative harm from withheld federal records.
Who is hurt
The U.S. Department of Justice and FBI, which would lose discretion to withhold records under common law privileges and face new litigation exposure. Federal officials who could face criminal penalties for noncompliance. Individuals named in Epstein-related records who are not charged with crimes, whose privacy interests could be affected by broader disclosure. Other victims whose personally identifiable information could be inadvertently exposed despite the bill's privacy protections. Federal courts, which would face an expedited docket mandate for these cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the original Epstein Files Transparency Act has been undermined by DOJ's use of common law privileges and bureaucratic delay to withhold records that Congress already mandated be released. They contend that victims have a fundamental interest in accessing records about their own abuse, and that state law enforcement agencies — which may be pursuing independent prosecutions — are being blocked from evidence by federal gatekeeping. The bill's bipartisan sponsorship (Massie, Khanna, and Leger Fernandez) reflects broad agreement that accountability for a documented federal sex trafficking network requires enforceable, not merely aspirational, disclosure obligations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that stripping DOJ of all common law privileges — including attorney-client and deliberative process protections — sets a dangerous precedent that could compromise ongoing federal investigations and expose prosecutorial strategy in unrelated cases. They contend that granting state attorneys general and district attorneys access to classified materials, even in secure settings, creates counterintelligence risks and undermines the executive branch's constitutional authority over classified information. Critics may also argue that the bill's broad definition of "criminal network" and low harm threshold (financial harm exceeding $100) could generate a flood of litigation that burdens federal courts and DOJ resources.