Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase transparency and accountability by compelling financial regulators to release Epstein-related records and investigate financial institutions and executives for complicity in his illicit activities.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that federal financial regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, and SEC, publicly disclose all supervisory records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their associates and entities. It also requires these agencies to immediately launch investigations into financial institutions and their senior executives with ties to Epstein, to determine if federal banking, securities, or anti-money laundering laws were violated. Furthermore, it mandates that agencies impose industry prohibitions or civil penalties on executives found to have committed misconduct and refer potential criminal violations to the Attorney General.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for ensuring justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by exposing the financial networks that enabled his crimes and holding powerful institutions and individuals accountable. They contend that full transparency of supervisory records will shed light on any regulatory failures and help prevent similar illicit financial activities in the future, restoring public trust in the financial system.
Opponents contend
Opponents, while generally supporting accountability, might raise concerns about the broad scope of the definitions for 'covered institution' and 'associate,' potentially leading to overreach or undue burden on financial institutions. They may also argue that the mandatory nature of investigations and penalties could set a precedent that infringes on due process or creates an overly punitive regulatory environment, potentially impacting financial stability or privacy for individuals not directly involved in Epstein's crimes.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the bill as the 'Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026'. This title is used for easy reference and identification of the legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps to immediately convey the purpose and focus of the legislation, making it easier for the public and policymakers to engage with the bill.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as short titles are standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None apparent, as this is a standard procedural element of legislation.
Section 2(a)
Definitions of Key Terms
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as 'covered institution' (any financial institution with known or alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their associates/entities), 'covered record' (supervisory records related to these individuals/entities), 'financial regulatory agency' (FRB, OCC, FDIC, SEC), and 'senior executive' (directors, officers, controlling stockholders, or employees with substantial managerial, compliance, investment, or client relationship management responsibilities). These definitions establish the scope of the bill's mandates.
Section 2(b)
Mandatory Production and Public Disclosure of Supervisory Records
This provision requires each financial regulatory agency to submit all 'covered records' to specific Congressional committees within 90 days of enactment. Furthermore, within 120 days, these agencies must make all 'covered records' publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format. A crucial caveat is the requirement to withhold or redact personally identifiable information (PII) of victims, or their personal/medical files, and to provide a written description for each redaction.
Section 2(c)
Mandatory Investigations into Covered Institutions and Senior Executives
This section requires each financial regulatory agency to immediately commence investigations into 'covered institutions' and their 'senior executives'. These investigations must determine if federal banking, securities, or anti-money laundering laws were violated and evaluate the extent of business conducted with Epstein/Maxwell/associates, oversight failures, monetary value of relationships, adequacy of controls, communications, and any document destruction.
Section 2(d)
Mandatory Consideration of Industry Prohibition and Civil Penalties for Executive Misconduct
This section requires the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and SEC to impose specific remedies if, following an investigation and hearing, a 'senior executive' is found to have violated or aided violations of federal banking, securities, or anti-money laundering laws in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's financial accounts or transactions. For banking regulators, remedies include prohibiting participation in the affairs of any insured depository institution and imposing civil penalties. For the SEC, remedies include barring association with various securities entities and seeking civil penalties in court.
Section 2(e)
Criminal Referrals for Federal Law Violations
This section mandates that if, during the course of an investigation required under subsection (c), a financial regulatory agency reasonably finds that a violation of Federal criminal law may have occurred, that agency must refer the matter to the Attorney General.
Section 2(f)
Report to Congress on Investigation Findings and Outcomes
This section requires the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairperson of the FDIC, and the Chairman of the SEC to submit a report to specific Congressional committees within 180 days of the Act's enactment. The report must detail the findings and outcomes of the investigations required under subsection (c) and any criminal referrals made to the Attorney General.
Requires financial regulatory agencies to withhold or redact the segregable portion of a covered record that contains personally identifiable information (PII) of victims (or the personal or medical files of victims) when making covered records publicly available.
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include necessary privacy protections within broader disclosure mandates, ensuring that the pursuit of transparency does not inadvertently harm vulnerable individuals.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause is essential for protecting the privacy and dignity of victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It prevents further harm or re-traumatization that could result from the public disclosure of highly sensitive personal or medical information, ensuring that the focus remains on accountability for the perpetrators and their enablers, not on victim exploitation.
Case against: While generally supported, some might argue that any redaction, even for victim PII, could theoretically reduce the completeness of the public record, potentially hindering full transparency or independent analysis. However, this argument is weak given the ethical imperative to protect victims.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the privacy of potentially hundreds or thousands of victims whose sensitive information might appear in these records, ensuring their personal details are not exposed to the public.