A new congressional push is reigniting the debate over the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related records. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, a follow-up proposal that would provide state attorneys general, victims, and other authorized officials with a stronger legal path to challenge the federal government over access to Epstein-related documents.  

The lawmakers say the legislation is designed to increase accountability and ensure that state-level investigators can obtain records needed for potential investigations and legal proceedings. 

The bill, introduced as H.R. 9694, comes after continued criticism from lawmakers who argue that the release of Epstein-related files has been incomplete and overly delayed. 

New bill would expand access for state investigators 

The proposed legislation would allow state attorneys general, district attorneys, certain state officials, members of Congress, and victims to challenge the Department of Justice if they believe required records are being unlawfully withheld, delayed, or heavily redacted.  

Supporters of the bill argue that state authorities need access to information when investigating possible violations under state law. 

Massie said the legislation would give states and victims a way to seek enforcement of existing transparency requirements. 

“State attorneys general and victims should have the right to sue the Attorney General of the United States to compel compliance with a transparency law,” Massie said in a statement announcing the bill.  

Khanna, who has worked with Massie on previous Epstein transparency efforts, said the goal is to increase public accountability while protecting survivors. 

“State attorneys general and survivors” should have the ability to demand transparency, Khanna said while announcing the legislation.  

The bill would also require the Justice Department to provide state and local prosecutors with unredacted records needed for investigations and court proceedings, including secure access to certain classified materials where applicable.  

Lawmakers continue to pressure for Epstein records 

The new proposal follows earlier efforts by Massie and Khanna to force the release of Epstein-related documents held by federal agencies. 

Their original Epstein Files Transparency Act required the Department of Justice to release records related to Jeffrey Epstein, including investigative materials held by the department and the FBI.  

That legislation received broad attention as lawmakers from both parties called for more information about how Epstein’s crimes were investigated and handled over the years. 

The issue has remained politically sensitive because Epstein’s case involved allegations of sexual abuse and connections with numerous public figures. However, the presence of a person’s name in government records does not by itself indicate wrongdoing. 

The latest proposal focuses on access to records and legal authority rather than making accusations against individuals. 

The lawmakers’ push comes as questions continue about how the federal government manages the release of sensitive documents, including how officials balance transparency with the need to protect victims’ privacy. 

Why the bill matters beyond Washington 

For many Americans, the debate over Epstein-related records is not only about politics. It is also about whether victims of abuse can get answers and whether government institutions can be trusted to handle some of the most serious allegations brought before them. 

Survivors and their advocates have long pushed for greater transparency, arguing that access to information can help answer lingering questions about how Epstein was able to continue his crimes for years and whether warning signs were ignored. 

The proposed legislation does not automatically determine guilt or wrongdoing for anyone named in government records. Instead, it focuses on who can access records, how those records are reviewed, and whether state officials have enough information to pursue investigations under their own laws. 

For state attorneys general and local prosecutors, supporters say access to additional records could provide a clearer picture when examining possible crimes that fall under state jurisdiction. Different states have different laws, and investigators often rely on available evidence to determine whether further action is possible. 

For families and communities affected by sexual abuse, the issue carries a deeper emotional weight. Many victims of abuse spend years seeking acknowledgment, accountability, and answers about how systems designed to protect them failed. 

The debate also raises broader questions for everyday Americans about government transparency. While officials must protect victims’ identities and sensitive information, many citizens believe public institutions should be open about how major investigations are handled, especially when those investigations involve powerful individuals. 

At the same time, legal experts have warned that releasing large amounts of investigative material requires caution. Government files can contain private information about victims, witnesses, and people who were never accused of crimes. Balancing public access with privacy protections remains one of the biggest challenges surrounding the issue. 

What happens next for the transparency effort 

The Epstein Files Transparency Act II still faces the normal legislative process before becoming law. It would need approval from both chambers of Congress and the president’s signature. 

Supporters say expanding access for state officials could help investigations move forward and provide more answers for victims and the public. 

Critics of broad document releases have argued that sensitive information must be handled carefully to avoid exposing victims or individuals who have not been accused of crimes. 

For now, the bill represents another attempt by lawmakers to force a wider review of Epstein-related records and increase pressure on federal agencies to explain how those documents are handled. 

As the debate continues, the central question remains the same: how much information should be made public, and who should have the authority to access it? 

The bigger question behind the debate 

The push for the Epstein Files Transparency Act II raises a larger question about public trust: how can institutions provide answers while protecting victims and ensuring fairness? 

As lawmakers debate the bill’s future, many Americans will be watching to see whether greater transparency can bring clarity, accountability, and renewed confidence in the systems responsible for handling serious investigations.