In the shadowy world of Washington politics, few controversies have managed to unite and divide lawmakers quite like the ongoing battle over the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The latest chapter in this saga unfolded in early October 2025, as a seemingly procedural delay in swearing in a new member of Congress set off a firestorm of accusations, finger-pointing, and renewed scrutiny of both the Trump administration and the FBI’s handling of the Epstein files.
On October 6, 2025, Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced that, thanks to a recent special election, he had secured the pivotal 218 signatures needed to force a House vote on the release of all Justice Department files concerning Epstein. The timing, however, was anything but routine. Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva, the victor of that special election, had not yet been sworn in as a member of Congress. The delay, orchestrated by Speaker Mike Johnson, quickly became the center of controversy.
Massie didn’t mince words, taking to X (formerly Twitter) to accuse Johnson of deliberate obstruction: “Contrary to what he says, Speaker Johnson is doing everything he can, including delaying the swearing in of the most recently elected member of Congress and spreading misinformation about the legislation, to block a vote in Congress on legislation to release the Epstein files.” According to The New American, Grijalva herself told CNN that she had no idea when she’d be sworn in and hadn’t heard a peep from Johnson’s office.
To many on Capitol Hill, the delay felt suspicious. As Spectrum News reported, three other new members—Florida Republicans Randy Fine and Jimmy Patronis, and Virginia Democrat James Walkinshaw—were all sworn in the day after their victories, even during so-called pro forma sessions when the House wasn’t conducting regular business. The contrast was not lost on House Democrats. Representative Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) wrote to Johnson, warning that Grijalva’s constituents were being “unnecessarily” deprived of representation and questioning whether the delay was a maneuver to avoid the Epstein vote. A large contingent of House Democrats echoed her call, sending Johnson a letter demanding immediate action.
Behind the scenes, the tension was palpable. Massie claimed that, after Grijalva’s win, GOP leaders were “in full panic” and that Republican co-signers of the discharge petition for the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” had been “politically ‘threatened.’” Only four Republicans—Massie, Nancy Mace (S.C.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), and Lauren Boebert (Colo.)—ultimately signed on. The act itself would require the Justice Department to make public nearly all Epstein-related files, with exceptions to protect victims’ identities and national security interests. Some, however, worry that the national security caveat could be abused to keep embarrassing information under wraps.
Speaker Johnson, for his part, has tried to walk a fine line. In a recent MSNBC interview, he declared support for “maximum disclosure” of the Epstein files but stressed the need to protect victims and sensitive information. According to The New American, the act already includes provisions to redact victim information, but the debate over what constitutes a national security risk remains fraught.
Meanwhile, efforts to pry open the Epstein files have taken on a distinctly partisan hue. Congressional Republicans, led by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), have publicly supported the push for transparency. Yet Massie has openly criticized some of these efforts, characterizing them as attempts by the Trump-era Justice Department to “curate” what information actually sees the light of day.
The issue has also spilled over into the Senate. On October 7, 2025, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi with a barrage of Epstein-related questions, including pointed inquiries about President Donald Trump’s alleged connections. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) asked whether the FBI possessed photos of Trump with “half-naked young women,” only to be met with accusations of slander from Bondi. She also deflected by highlighting Whitehouse’s ties to Epstein associate and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman. Despite repeated questioning, Bondi offered little in the way of direct answers, leaving the committee—and the public—frustrated.
Complicating matters further was the role of FBI Director Kash Patel. On October 6, Patel took to X to claim, “The transparency I promised is being delivered by this FBI.” The boast backfired spectacularly. As The Daily Beast chronicled, X users quickly pointed out that the Trump administration had, in fact, delayed the release of additional Epstein files. A Forbes article linked in the replies explained why Patel’s claim was misleading, noting that court orders did not fully block the files’ release. House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) recapped Patel’s recent testimony, highlighting that Patel had refused to answer several questions about Epstein—at one point, he even resorted to reciting his ABCs instead of responding.
PBS NewsHour offered its own summary of Patel’s testimony, further underscoring the administration’s evasiveness. The frustration wasn’t confined to Congress. Attorney General Bondi herself had previously told lawmakers that the files were “on her desk” in February 2025, only to announce in July that no further documents would be released. According to The Wall Street Journal, Bondi informed Trump that his name appeared multiple times in the files—a detail that only heightened public interest.
Trump’s own comments on the matter have been characteristically ambiguous. During a June 2024 interview on Fox and Friends, he said, “I guess I would. I think that, less so, because you don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff in there because it’s a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would.” Later, on the Lex Fridman Podcast, he mused, “It’s very interesting, isn’t it? It probably will be, by the way—probably.” Critics argue that, despite campaign promises to release the files, Trump’s answers have been consistently noncommittal.
Patel’s social media post, viewed over 3.2 million times by October 7, became a lightning rod for criticism. Memes, mockery, and accusations of bungling—especially in the wake of the administration’s release of heavily redacted Epstein documents earlier in the year—flooded the replies. Some users even compared the handling of the Epstein files to the chaotic investigation into Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
The battle over the Epstein files is far from over. The delay in swearing in Adelita Grijalva has become a potent symbol of the larger struggle: between those demanding full transparency and accountability, and those who—whether out of concern for privacy, national security, or political expediency—prefer to keep some secrets locked away. As the public’s appetite for answers grows, so too does the pressure on lawmakers and law enforcement alike to finally deliver the truth, unredacted.
