Epstein Files Transparency Act II
- Sponsor
- Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 9694 expands legal avenues for state officials, victims, and members of Congress to compel the federal government to release unredacted records pertaining to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Epstein Files Transparency Act II," amends the original Epstein Files Transparency Act to significantly broaden the enforcement mechanisms for obtaining records related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal network. It grants State attorneys general, district attorneys, other authorized State officers, and victims the right to sue the U.S. Attorney General for unlawful withholding or redaction of these records. The bill also clarifies that common law privileges cannot be invoked to withhold information and removes certain permitted withholdings from the original Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for ensuring full transparency regarding the Epstein-Maxwell criminal network, empowering state and local law enforcement, and providing justice to victims. They contend that the federal government has been too slow or resistant in releasing critical information, and this bill provides necessary legal tools to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and ensure public accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could compromise ongoing investigations, endanger witnesses, or reveal sensitive law enforcement techniques by mandating broad disclosure. Concerns could also be raised about potential federalism issues, with state actions potentially interfering with federal jurisdiction, or the administrative burden and costs associated with extensive litigation and record production.
The bill is moderately complex due to its legal language and references to existing statutes, but its relatively short length makes it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A STATE AND BY VICTIMS. (a) Action Authorized."
State and Victim Enforcement Actions
This provision authorizes State attorneys general, district attorneys, other authorized State officers, and individual victims to file lawsuits against the U.S. Attorney General in federal court. These lawsuits can allege unlawful withholding, redaction, or delay of records related to the Epstein investigation, seeking declaratory relief, injunctions, monetary relief, and attorney's fees. Courts are mandated to expedite these cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for accountability, as it provides concrete legal recourse when federal agencies fail to comply with transparency mandates. It empowers state and local authorities to pursue justice and victims to obtain critical information directly.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this provision could lead to a flood of litigation, burdening federal courts and agencies. They may also raise concerns about potential conflicts between state and federal investigations or the risk of sensitive information being inadvertently disclosed through expedited legal processes.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for federal transparency and victim access against potential administrative burdens and the protection of ongoing federal investigations or sensitive information.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (a)(3) Harm."
Harm Definition for State Actions
This subsection broadly defines "harm" for the purpose of state or local law enforcement actions. It includes investigative harm, harassment, inability to corroborate reports, inability to obtain victim statements, informational injury, financial harm over $100, or "any other harm" resulting from noncompliance. This broad definition makes it easier for states to demonstrate standing to sue.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (a)(4) Effect on touhy regulations."
Exemption from Touhy Regulations
This provision explicitly states that the Department of Justice's "Touhy" regulations (28 CFR §§ 16.21-16.29), which govern when federal employees can testify or produce documents in response to subpoenas, do not apply to requests for records under this Act. It prevents federal agencies from using these regulations to withhold or delay records, establishing the Act's framework as the exclusive procedural mechanism for state law enforcement access.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (b) Victim Access to Unredacted Records."
Victim Access to Unredacted Records
This section grants victims the right to request and receive full, unredacted records, documents, and communications that identify, describe, or relate to them, their families, or the harm they suffered. It allows for redaction only of personally identifiable information of other victims to protect their privacy. Victims are also granted standing to sue the U.S. Attorney General for non-compliance.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (c) Production of Records Redacted From Public View."
Production of Records Redacted from Public View for State Investigations
This provision mandates that for state or local investigations, the U.S. Attorney General must provide full, unredacted access to records that would otherwise be withheld or redacted from public view under the original Act (e.g., certain law enforcement techniques or confidential information). State officials can possess, review, copy, and use these records in investigations or judicial proceedings, subject to protective orders to safeguard victim privacy.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (d) Review and Use of Classified Materials."
Review and Use of Classified Materials
This section requires the U.S. Attorney General to make classified records related to the Epstein investigation available for full, unredacted review by state attorneys general or other authorized state officers for their investigations or judicial proceedings. Access is provided in secure facilities under court-approved procedures. The Attorney General cannot refuse access based on classification but can request protective procedures. Classified portions can be used in court under seal.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (e) Congressional Access."
Congressional Access and Enforcement
This provision grants any Member of Congress the right to full, unredacted access to Epstein-related records within 7 days of a written request. If a Member alleges non-compliance, the Attorney General must remedy it or provide a written justification within 30 days. Members of Congress are also granted a cause of action to sue the Attorney General for non-compliance, seeking declaratory relief, injunctions, and attorney's fees.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (f) Penalties."
Penalties for Concealment or Falsification
This section specifies that any officer or employee of the DOJ, FBI, or U.S. Attorneys' offices (including the Attorney General and FBI Director) who conceals, removes, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, withholds, misrepresents, or makes a materially false statement regarding records required under this Act can be fined or imprisoned under existing federal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 1519, 2071), provided the relevant intent requirements are met. It also clarifies that compliance with this Act falls under the jurisdiction of these obstruction statutes.
Section 2(b) amending Section 2(b) of the original Act.
Clarification of Prohibited Withholdings (Common Law Privileges)
This amendment explicitly states that the U.S. Attorney General cannot invoke any common law privilege (including deliberative process, attorney-client, attorney work-product, or law enforcement privilege) to withhold, delay, or redact records described in the Act, except as expressly permitted by the Act's specific permitted withholdings. This significantly limits the DOJ's ability to use these common legal defenses to prevent disclosure.
Section 2(c) amending Section 2(c)(1) of the original Act.
Narrowing Permitted Withholdings
This amendment strikes subparagraph (E) from the list of permitted withholdings in the original Act, which previously allowed withholding of information that would "reveal confidential law enforcement techniques or procedures." By removing this exception, the bill further limits the types of information the Attorney General can legally withhold from disclosure.
This provision clarifies that the new transparency and enforcement mechanisms established by the Act apply to all investigations currently pending before a state attorney general, district attorney, or other authorized state officer at the time of enactment, regardless of when the investigation was initiated.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (a)(6) Applicability to existing investigations."
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope and effective date of new legal provisions, ensuring immediate impact rather than limiting it to future cases. Its placement is logical within the structure of the new enforcement section.
Case for: Ensures that the new transparency and enforcement mechanisms immediately benefit ongoing state and local investigations, preventing delays and ensuring comprehensive justice for past and present cases related to the Epstein network.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against applying new transparency laws to existing cases, as it aligns with the bill's overall intent to enhance accountability and expedite justice.
Estimated impact: Ensures immediate legal effect for all relevant ongoing state and local investigations into the Epstein network, potentially accelerating their progress and expanding their access to federal records.
This section provides comprehensive definitions for key terms such as "victim" and "criminal network." The definition of "victim" includes individuals identified by federal agencies or associated with investigative records, or those who submit a sworn declaration of harm, while explicitly excluding individuals whose involvement in the criminal conduct was not a result of being trafficked or abused. The "criminal network" definition broadly covers any individual or entity that knowingly participated in, assisted, or profited from the related criminal conduct.
Section 2(a) amending "SEC. 4. (g) Definitions."
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms at the end of a section or act. The detailed nature of these definitions is crucial for the precise application of the bill's provisions, preventing ambiguity in who can seek redress and what scope of activity is covered.
Case for: Provides clear and comprehensive definitions for who qualifies as a "victim" and what constitutes the "criminal network," ensuring broad applicability and preventing narrow interpretations that could exclude deserving individuals or limit the scope of investigations. The exclusion clause for participants ensures that genuine victims are prioritized.
Case against: Some might argue the definition of "criminal network" is overly broad, potentially encompassing individuals with tangential involvement, or that the "victim" definition, despite its detail, could still be subject to interpretation disputes in court.
Estimated impact: Determines the precise scope of individuals and entities covered by the Act's protections and enforcement mechanisms, directly influencing who can access records and pursue legal action.