Epstein Files Transparency Act II Would Let Survivors and States Sue the Justice Department

UpdatedOctober 19, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

On July 15, 2026, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, legislation designed to enforce the disclosure requirements of the original Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The House bill, H.R. 9694, was introduced by Representative Thomas Massie with Representatives Ro Khanna and Teresa Leger Fernández. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ben Ray Luján are leading the Senate version.

The proposed law would allow Epstein survivors, state attorneys general, district attorneys, authorized state officials, and members of Congress to sue the United States attorney general over unlawfully withheld, redacted, delayed, concealed, removed, or unpublished Epstein records.

The bill would also give survivors a right to obtain unredacted federal records concerning themselves and the harm they experienced, including relevant FBI FD 302 interview reports.

Key Takeaways

The Epstein Files Transparency Act II was introduced as H.R. 9694 on July 15, 2026.
The legislation has not yet become law.
The bill would create a right to sue the United States attorney general over violations of the original Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Epstein survivors could request complete records concerning themselves, including relevant FBI FD 302 reports.
State and local prosecutors could obtain unredacted federal records needed for investigations, prosecutions, and court proceedings.
Members of Congress could demand unredacted access and file suit if the Justice Department failed to comply.
Federal officials could face existing criminal penalties if they knowingly concealed, destroyed, falsified, withheld, or misrepresented covered records.
The bill would prevent the Justice Department from relying on certain common law privileges or internal regulations to evade the original disclosure requirements.
Classified materials could be reviewed securely by authorized state officials but would not automatically become public.

Why Congress Introduced a Second Transparency Act

The original Epstein Files Transparency Act became Public Law 119 38 on November 19, 2025.

The law required the Justice Department to publish searchable and downloadable unclassified records related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It covered investigative materials, communications, travel records, flight logs, and records identifying people referenced in connection with the cases.

The law permitted limited withholding to protect survivors, preserve properly classified information, and avoid harming active federal investigations. However, it prohibited withholding records merely to prevent embarrassment, reputational damage, or political sensitivity.

Congress required the records to be released within 30 days. The original law did not provide survivors, states, or members of Congress with a clear private right to bring an enforcement lawsuit.

The sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II argue that this missing enforcement mechanism allowed the Justice Department to delay releases, maintain excessive redactions, and avoid meaningful consequences for alleged noncompliance.

What H.R. 9694 Would Change

The official text of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II would add an enforcement section to the original law.

The bill does not replace the first Epstein Files Transparency Act. Instead, it would amend the existing law by creating legal procedures for enforcing its disclosure requirements.

The proposal addresses five major areas: lawsuits against the attorney general, survivor access to personal records, access for state prosecutors, congressional enforcement, and penalties for federal officials.

Survivors Could Sue the United States Attorney General

H.R. 9694 would allow a survivor to bring a civil action against the United States attorney general over the unlawful withholding, redaction, delay, removal, concealment, or failure to produce a covered record.

A survivor could bring the case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in a federal district court located in the survivor’s state of residence.

Available remedies could include declaratory relief, court orders compelling disclosure, monetary relief, legal costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other appropriate equitable relief.

The bill instructs courts to advance these cases on their dockets and resolve them as quickly as practicable.

This provision would give survivors a direct enforcement tool instead of requiring them to depend entirely on congressional oversight or voluntary Justice Department compliance.

Survivors Could Obtain Records About Themselves

The bill would require the attorney general to provide a requesting survivor with complete and unredacted records that identify, describe, quote, summarize, document, or otherwise concern that survivor or the harm the survivor experienced.

This right would expressly include relevant FBI FD 302 reports. These reports document information collected during FBI interviews and are potentially important for understanding what investigators learned from survivors and witnesses.

The right would also cover records concerning the survivor’s parents, siblings, or legal guardians when those records relate to the survivor or the harm suffered.

The Justice Department could continue redacting information that identifies another survivor. A requesting survivor would not gain automatic access to private records belonging to someone else.

This distinction attempts to provide survivors with control over their own records while protecting the privacy of other people harmed by Epstein and his associates.

State Attorneys General and Prosecutors Could Bring Lawsuits

The proposed law would allow a state attorney general, district attorney, or other authorized state official to sue the United States attorney general over noncompliance with the original transparency law.

A state could claim harm based on interference with an investigation, an inability to corroborate reports, an inability to obtain a victim statement, informational injury, harassment, financial harm exceeding $100, or another injury caused by federal noncompliance.

The bill would apply to investigations that were already active when the law took effect. This provision is especially relevant to jurisdictions conducting continuing investigations connected to Epstein’s properties, associates, alleged recruiters, or possible accomplices.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez supported the proposal. He stated that his office had waited for unredacted federal records needed for its criminal investigation.

State Prosecutors Could Obtain Unredacted Records

H.R. 9694 would require the Justice Department to provide state and local prosecutors with unredacted records needed for investigations, enforcement actions, prosecutions, civil cases, and other judicial proceedings.

Authorized officials could possess, review, copy, retain, use, and disclose the records when necessary for official proceedings.

Records containing survivor information would remain subject to protective orders and privacy protections. Sensitive portions would generally need to be filed under seal unless a court determined that disclosure was lawful and would not expose identifying information about a survivor.

The proposal would not limit state officials to viewing records privately in a judge’s chambers. They could possess and use the records as required for an investigation or court case, subject to appropriate safeguards.

Secure Access to Classified Material

The bill would prevent the Justice Department from refusing access to an authorized state official solely because a covered record was classified.

The records would be reviewed in a secure facility under court approved procedures. The attorney general could request rules governing the storage, handling, review, use, and filing of classified information.

Classified portions could be used under seal in federal or state court proceedings when necessary.

This provision would not authorize the automatic public release of classified information. It would provide secure access for authorized investigations and judicial proceedings.

Members of Congress Would Receive Enforcement Rights

Under the bill, any member of Congress could submit a written request for full and unredacted access to records covered by the original law.

The attorney general would have seven calendar days to provide access.

A member could also send written notice alleging that the Justice Department unlawfully withheld or redacted material. The department would then have 30 calendar days to correct the alleged violation or provide a written justification.

If the department failed to respond or comply, the member could sue the attorney general. A court could order disclosure, declare the department out of compliance, reject a materially false justification, and award legal costs and reasonable attorney fees.

This provision would give individual members of Congress an enforcement mechanism without requiring approval from a full committee or either chamber.

Federal Officials Could Face Existing Criminal Penalties

The Epstein Files Transparency Act II identifies existing federal criminal statutes that could apply to Justice Department, FBI, and United States Attorney’s Office personnel who knowingly mishandle covered records.

The provision includes officials who conceal, remove, destroy, mutilate, falsify, withhold, or misrepresent a record required under the act. It also covers materially false statements or certifications concerning compliance.

The bill references federal statutes concerning false statements, obstruction, destruction of records, and concealment or removal of government documents.

The proposal would not create automatic criminal liability for every delayed or disputed disclosure. Prosecutors would still need to prove the mental state required by the referenced criminal statutes.

Common Law Privileges Could Not Be Used to Evade Disclosure

The proposed law expressly states that common law privileges could not be used to avoid the disclosure requirements of the original act.

This includes the deliberative process privilege, which government agencies sometimes invoke to protect internal discussions and recommendations.

The bill would also prevent the Justice Department from using its Touhy regulations as a reason to withhold, delay, redact, or condition the production of covered records to state officials.

These provisions seek to prevent the department from using internal procedures or broad privilege claims to defeat the original law’s disclosure mandate.

Evidence Preserved by Epstein Data

The records already available through Epstein Data demonstrate the size and complexity of the federal Epstein archive. They also provide examples of records connected to the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

The Justice Department’s motion to unseal Maxwell grand jury transcripts records the department’s official position that its review had not uncovered evidence sufficient to begin investigations of uncharged third parties. The filing documents the department’s conclusion, but it does not independently establish that every investigative lead was fully examined.

The July 24, 2025 Maxwell interview transcript and its corresponding audio recording document senior Justice Department participation in Maxwell’s proffer interview.

The Epstein Data document removal audit examines records that were removed or altered after publication and preserves links to underlying evidence for independent review.

Researchers can also use the Epstein Data full text search to locate individual EFTA records and compare federal releases.

Legislative Status

H.R. 9694 was introduced in the House on July 15, 2026, by Massie, Khanna, and Leger Fernández. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Merkley and Luján announced that they would lead the Senate version.

On October 15, 2026, 17 state attorneys general, including Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, signed a letter urging congressional leaders to pass H.R. 9694 and its Senate companion, S. 5005. They argued that states need unredacted investigative records and survivors need access to records about themselves. The letter supported proposed judicial enforcement rights and restrictions on withholding covered material. It was a request for legislation, not an enactment or a court order requiring production.

The sponsors stated that a discharge petition would be circulated if the House did not consider the bill within seven legislative days. A discharge petition can force House consideration when it obtains the required number of signatures.

Introduction does not make the proposal law. H.R. 9694 must pass the House and Senate in identical form and receive presidential approval, or become law through a successful override of a presidential veto.

Fact Check

The claim that the Epstein Files Transparency Act II was introduced is verified by the congressional bill record, the official bill text, and announcements from the offices of Massie and Merkley.

The House bill number is H.R. 9694.

The original Epstein Files Transparency Act became Public Law 119 38 on November 19, 2025. Congress records a House vote of 427 to 1, followed by Senate passage through unanimous consent.

The second bill would create enforcement rights for survivors, state attorneys general, district attorneys, authorized state officials, and members of Congress.

The bill would permit survivors to obtain unredacted records about themselves, including relevant FBI FD 302 reports. It would still protect identifying information belonging to other survivors.

The bill references existing federal criminal penalties. It does not automatically convict or punish an official whenever a disclosure dispute occurs. The legal requirements of the cited criminal statutes would still apply.

Claims that the Justice Department is unlawfully withholding millions of files are allegations made by the bill’s sponsors. The exact number of unreleased, duplicate, exempt, or responsive records remains disputed.

Why This Legislation Matters

The original transparency law established a disclosure duty. The second bill attempts to establish consequences and legal remedies when that duty is not fulfilled.

For survivors, the proposal could provide direct access to records documenting their own experiences and interactions with federal investigators.

For state prosecutors, it could provide evidence needed to investigate conduct within their jurisdictions.

For Congress, it could create a direct path to judicial enforcement when the executive branch refuses access or provides an allegedly false explanation.

The bill therefore shifts the transparency dispute from political demands toward enforceable legal rights. Whether that change occurs depends on the bill completing the legislative process and becoming law.

Source List

PostedJuly 23, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki