Epstein Files Transparency Act II
- Sponsor
- Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance transparency and accountability regarding the Epstein/Maxwell criminal network by empowering state legal officials, victims, and Congress with direct legal recourse to compel the release of federal investigative records and by removing traditional federal privilege claims.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Epstein Files Transparency Act II," amends the existing Epstein Files Transparency Act to significantly expand enforcement mechanisms and access to records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their criminal network. It authorizes state attorneys general, district attorneys, and victims to sue the U.S. Attorney General for unlawful withholding or redaction of these records, mandates unredacted access for victims to their own related files, and clarifies that common law privileges cannot be invoked to withhold information. It also grants enhanced access and enforcement powers to Members of Congress and establishes criminal penalties for federal officials who obstruct compliance.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the original Act did not go far enough to ensure full transparency and that federal agencies have been too slow or resistant to release critical information. They contend that empowering state attorneys general, victims, and Congress with direct legal standing and removing federal privilege claims will accelerate justice, aid ongoing state-level investigations, and provide closure for victims by ensuring they receive comprehensive, unredacted access to relevant materials.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could compromise ongoing federal investigations, expose sensitive law enforcement techniques, or inadvertently disclose information that could harm other victims or witnesses if not properly handled. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for a flood of litigation against the Attorney General, diverting resources, and the precedent of overriding established federal legal privileges for specific cases, potentially straining inter-branch relations.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for a quick review by an informed reader.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(a) to Public Law 119-38
Authorization for State Attorneys General, District Attorneys, and Victims to Bring Civil Actions
This provision allows state attorneys general, district attorneys, other authorized state officers, and victims to sue the U.S. Attorney General in federal court if federal records related to the Epstein/Maxwell network are unlawfully withheld, redacted, or delayed. It specifies that courts should expedite these cases and defines 'harm' broadly to include investigative harm, harassment, informational injury, and financial harm over $100. It also explicitly states that federal 'Touhy' regulations (which govern federal employee testimony and document production in litigation) do not apply, and other causes of action are not precluded.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for ensuring federal transparency and accountability. They believe it provides necessary teeth to the original Act, allowing state and local law enforcement to pursue justice without federal obstruction and empowering victims to access information vital for their healing and legal pursuits. The broad definition of harm and expedited docket consideration are seen as essential to prevent further delays.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision could lead to an overwhelming number of lawsuits against the Attorney General, diverting federal resources and potentially interfering with ongoing federal investigations or national security interests. They may also argue that it creates an unusual precedent by allowing state officials to sue the federal government over document production in this specific manner, potentially undermining federal-state comity.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for transparency and victim access to information against potential impacts on federal law enforcement operations, resource allocation, and the traditional balance of power between federal and state legal authorities.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(b) to Public Law 119-38
Mandated Unredacted Access for Victims to Personal Records
This section grants victims the right to request and receive full, unredacted federal records, documents, communications, or investigative materials (including FD-302 files) that directly relate to them, their immediate family, or the harm they suffered. It allows redaction only for personally identifiable information of *other* victims to protect their privacy, explicitly stating that a requesting victim is only entitled to records pertaining to themselves. Victims also gain standing to sue for non-compliance.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(c) to Public Law 119-38
Unredacted Access to Publicly Redacted Records for State Investigations
This section requires the U.S. Attorney General to provide full, unredacted access and copies of records that were permitted to be withheld or redacted from public view under the original Act (e.g., grand jury information, ongoing investigation details) to state attorneys general, district attorneys, or other authorized state officers for their investigations or judicial proceedings. These state officials can possess, review, copy, retain, use, and disclose such records, subject to protective court orders to safeguard victims' personally identifiable information, but not to limit possession or use for investigation.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(d) to Public Law 119-38
Access to Classified Materials for State Investigations
This section mandates that the U.S. Attorney General make classified records related to the Epstein/Maxwell network available for full, unredacted review to state attorneys general, district attorneys, or other authorized state officers for their investigations or judicial proceedings. Access is to be 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 proceedings under seal, in camera, and ex parte if necessary, but public release is only allowed under specific conditions of the original Act.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(e) to Public Law 119-38
Enhanced Congressional Access and Enforcement Powers
This section requires the Attorney General to provide any Member of Congress with full, unredacted access to any record described in the Act within 7 calendar 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 granted a cause of action in federal court to compel compliance, declare non-compliance, enjoin withholding, or declare justifications false, and can be awarded costs and attorney's fees.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(f) to Public Law 119-38
Criminal Penalties for Federal Officials
This section specifies that any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, 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, shall be subject to fines or imprisonment under existing federal statutes (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1505, 1519, 2071), provided the relevant intent requirements are met. It clarifies that congressional review and compliance proceedings are deemed 'proceedings before a department, agency, or committee of Congress' for obstruction purposes, and compliance with the Act is a 'matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency' for records destruction.
Section 2(b), amending Section 2(b) of Public Law 119-38
Prohibition on Invoking Common Law Privileges
This amendment explicitly states that the Attorney General may not 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 under subsection (c) of the original Act (which allows redaction for other victims' PII or classified info under specific conditions).
Defines 'victim' broadly to include individuals directly harmed by the Epstein/Maxwell network who have been identified by federal agencies, are associated with investigative records, or submit a sworn declaration. It explicitly excludes individuals whose claim arises from their own participation/facilitation of the criminal conduct, unless their involvement originated from being trafficked or abused by the network. It also defines 'criminal network' broadly to include any individual or entity that knowingly participated in, assisted, facilitated, funded, concealed, profited from, obstructed investigation of, or otherwise enabled the criminal conduct.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(g) to Public Law 119-38
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end of a section. However, the specific exclusions and broad inclusions are substantively important for determining the scope of the Act's application.
Case for: Supporters argue that these definitions are crucial for ensuring that the Act's protections and enforcement mechanisms apply to all legitimate victims while preventing those who willingly facilitated the crimes from claiming victim status. The broad definition of 'criminal network' ensures comprehensive investigation.
Case against: Critics might argue that the broad definition of 'criminal network' could lead to overreach in investigations, while the exclusion clause for victims might be difficult to apply in complex cases where coercion and participation are intertwined.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of individuals and entities covered by the Act's transparency and enforcement provisions, potentially affecting hundreds or thousands of individuals.
States that the provisions of this Act apply to any investigation currently pending before a state attorney general, district attorney, or other authorized state officer on the date of enactment, regardless of when such investigation was initiated. It explicitly clarifies that the section is not limited to investigations commenced after enactment.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4(a)(6) to Public Law 119-38
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to include applicability clauses, but its placement might make it less prominent. It ensures immediate effectiveness for ongoing efforts.
Case for: Proponents argue this is vital to ensure that ongoing state investigations immediately benefit from the new transparency and enforcement powers, preventing federal agencies from claiming the Act only applies to future inquiries.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such applicability clauses, as they clarify legislative intent. However, federal agencies might implicitly oppose the immediate retroactive application due to increased workload.
Estimated impact: Ensures immediate impact on all current state-level investigations, potentially accelerating progress in numerous jurisdictions.