On Capitol Hill, the question of whether the American public will ever see the full trove of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and connections is reaching a fever pitch. In recent weeks, a bipartisan push to force the Justice Department to release all unclassified records on the disgraced financier has come tantalizingly close to success—yet political maneuvering and deep divisions threaten to keep the files under wraps.
On Tuesday, September 9, 2025, the House Rules Committee delivered a blow to transparency advocates by voting 8–4 along party lines to block a motion that would have brought the Epstein Files Transparency Act to a floor vote. The measure, introduced by Democratic Ranking Member Jim McGovern, aimed to compel the Justice Department to release virtually all unclassified records related to Epstein, whose 2019 death in federal custody remains the subject of widespread speculation and suspicion.
“I can see why the administration might want to hide [the Epstein files] if the creepy birthday note from Trump to Epstein is any indication of what might be in those files,” McGovern said before the vote, referencing a 2003 letter released just a day earlier by the House Oversight Committee. The letter, which appeared to bear Donald Trump’s signature and included a suggestive drawing, was found among Epstein’s personal effects and has only heightened calls for transparency. “But if the administration won’t follow through on their promises, Congress should force them to,” McGovern added, insisting that the bill “does exactly that, while protecting the victims and the survivors.”
Despite McGovern’s arguments, all eight Republican members present—Virginia Foxx (North Carolina), Michelle Fischbach (Minnesota), Ralph Norman (South Carolina), Chip Roy (Texas), Nicholas Langworthy (New York), Austin Scott (Georgia), H. Morgan Griffith (Virginia), and Brian Jack (Georgia)—voted to block the measure. Only McGovern and his three Democratic colleagues supported it.
The defeat in committee has not deterred the bill’s sponsors, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who have launched a discharge petition to bypass House leadership. This rare legislative maneuver requires 218 signatures to force a bill to the floor, even over the objections of party leaders. As of early September, the petition was just two signatures short, with all 212 House Democrats and four Republicans—Lauren Boebert (Colorado), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia), Nancy Mace (South Carolina), and Massie himself—signed on. “We will have the 218 votes needed for the Epstein discharge petition by the end of this month,” Massie confidently declared on social media, citing upcoming special elections to fill vacant Democratic seats as the likely tipping point.
Khanna echoed Massie’s optimism, telling reporters that the new members expected from Virginia and Arizona would almost certainly push them over the threshold. James Walkinshaw, favored to win a special election in Northern Virginia, has already promised to sign the petition if elected, and Adelita Grijalva, expected to prevail in Arizona, has signaled similar intent.
Yet even if the discharge petition succeeds, the path to full disclosure is far from clear. According to The New York Times, House leaders retain procedural tools to prevent the bill from reaching the floor, and the White House has been pressuring Republicans who signed the petition to withdraw their support. The political stakes are high: a floor vote would force Republican lawmakers to choose between responding to voters’ demands for transparency and backing former President Trump, who has denounced the effort as a “Democratic hoax” and lobbied to keep the files sealed.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) has been outspoken in his opposition, arguing that the bill is “poorly written” and fails to protect “innocent victims, whistleblowers, or undercover law enforcement agents, which are critical to protect in sex-trafficking investigations, obviously.” Johnson’s office has cited ongoing investigations by the House Oversight Committee—which has already issued subpoenas and released some documents, including the Trump birthday note—as evidence that further legislation is unnecessary. “Since the Oversight Committee – of which she is a member – is already investigating the Epstein Files, the Massie-Khanna bill is entirely unnecessary,” Foxx’s office explained in a statement shared with WGHP. “It does not have the force of law, like the subpoenas that the Oversight Committee has already issued, and the Senate Majority Leader has already indicated that the Senate would not take up legislation related to the Epstein files.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who initially pledged to release the full Epstein files upon taking office, has since reversed course. In a joint memo with the FBI, Bondi reaffirmed that Epstein’s death was ruled a suicide and stated that no further documents would be released beyond those findings. This turnaround has only fueled suspicions and intensified demands from survivors and advocates. Just last week, survivors of Epstein’s abuse held a press conference outside the Capitol, urging Congress to pass the bipartisan transparency bill.
Massie, for his part, has dismissed Johnson’s criticisms as politically motivated. “Virtually nothing he says is believable now,” Massie told The Daily Signal. “He’s just motivated to try and keep these documents from coming out. When one of his reasons falls by the wayside, he makes up another reason. He’s on the wrong side of history, he’s on the wrong side of the Republican base, and he’s frankly jeopardizing a lot of political capital by avoiding this issue.”
Meanwhile, the release of images from Epstein’s “birthday book”—containing notes and signatures from high-profile acquaintances including former President Bill Clinton and President Trump—has kept the controversy in the headlines. According to The Hill, Trump’s allies have disputed the authenticity of his signature, and the former president has declined to comment directly on the revelations.
The battle over the Epstein files is more than a procedural skirmish; it’s a high-stakes test of Congressional transparency, executive accountability, and the limits of partisan loyalty. For Republicans, the looming vote could prove politically toxic, forcing lawmakers to reconcile the demands of their constituents with the wishes of party leaders and the former president. For Democrats and the handful of Republican dissenters, the push for disclosure is framed as a moral imperative—one that, in Khanna’s words, “protects the victims and the survivors.”
As the discharge petition inches toward the critical 218-signature mark, all eyes are on the outcome of the special elections and the willingness of House leaders to allow the process to play out. Whether the public will finally see the full extent of Epstein’s connections and the government’s handling of his case remains uncertain, but the political drama is far from over.
