218 signatures put Epstein records enforcement bill on a path to House vote

Rep. Thomas Massie’s discharge petition reached the threshold on November 11, 2026, when California Democrat John Garamendi supplied signature number 218. Washington Democrat Adam Smith had added number 217 the previous day. The official House Clerk roster contains 218 signatures: all 214 Democrats and four Republicans.⁠33

The Republican signers are Massie of Kentucky, Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Brian K. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. ABC News described all four as lame-duck members. Their signatures support bringing the proposal forward; they do not bind those members to vote for final passage. A floor vote has not been scheduled.⁠33⁠3

The proposal’s central idea is straightforward: people seeking records should not have to depend entirely on the department holding them to enforce its own disclosure obligations. The Epstein Files Transparency Act II would give survivors and investigators their own legal tools to challenge alleged noncompliance—and give Congress deadlines backed by a right to sue. Those powers still require enactment.⁠61

On August 8, 2026, we reported Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi’s assessment that President Donald Trump was not cooperating as fully as lawmakers wanted with the Epstein investigation. We also reported Rep. Pete Sessions’s argument that Congress had handed the matter to the Justice Department and made it a “political football.” Those were lawmakers’ assessments, not court findings. What has changed is concrete: a majority has now signed a procedural instrument to pursue stronger enforcement. That does not settle the earlier allegations about executive cooperation.

This is not the first disclosure mandate. Congress overwhelmingly passed the original Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025 after Massie used a discharge petition to force that House vote, and Trump signed it. The new measure would amend that law, Public Law 119-38, rather than create the first obligation to disclose records.⁠3⁠61

Massie introduced the stand-alone proposal, H.R. 9694, on July 15 with Democrats Ro Khanna of California and Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico lead the Senate version.⁠61⁠30

At the introduction, Massie alleged that the Justice Department was unlawfully withholding more than three million Epstein files and maintaining heavy redactions. That was his accusation in July—not a newly verified November inventory or a judicial finding about which records have been unlawfully withheld. The petition’s success proves the signature count, not the allegation.⁠30

For a survivor, the bill would establish a right to request full, unredacted records relating to themselves or the harm they suffered, including FBI interview reports and references to their parents, siblings or legal guardians. The entitlement would cover records or portions relating to that survivor, not an unrestricted right to other survivors’ information. Other victims’ identifying details and protected personal or medical material could remain redacted.⁠61

A survivor alleging unlawful withholding, concealment, delay, failure to respond or an unjustified redaction could sue the attorney general. State attorneys general, district attorneys and other authorized state officers could also bring enforcement cases for their states or residents. Available remedies would include court orders, monetary relief, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, with courts directed to expedite cases as far as practicable.⁠61

The proposed victim definition reaches people directly harmed by abuse, trafficking, forced labor, exploitation or related crimes involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell or their criminal network. Federal recognition, an investigative record or a sworn declaration alleging the harm could establish the specified connection. Claims arising from someone’s own participation in or benefit from the crimes would generally be excluded, while preserving coverage when that involvement began through their own trafficking or abuse. These are proposed legal definitions, not findings about any additional named person.⁠61

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez explained the investigative stakes when he backed the bill on July 15:

That describes his office’s stated concern in July, not a verified account of what it possesses now. The legislation would apply to state investigations already underway at enactment and add to other available remedies. Its significance is that access would become something investigators could seek through a defined enforcement system, rather than merely request and await.⁠61

The bill draws an important distinction between publishing information and giving investigators usable access. State prosecutors could obtain unredacted copies even when records properly remain hidden from public view. They could possess, retain and use them for authorized investigations and proceedings under protective orders safeguarding victims. Access could not be confined to a judge’s private inspection in a way that prevented investigators from possessing and using the records.⁠61

Protected portions used in court would remain sealed or otherwise protected unless lawful public disclosure preserved victims’ identifying and private information. Federal agencies could not invoke the specified Justice Department information-production rules, commonly called Touhy regulations, to block, delay or condition access required by the act.⁠61

Classified material would receive separate handling: full, unredacted review in a secure facility under court-approved procedures. The attorney general could seek storage, handling and filing protections, but classification alone could not justify refusing or delaying the required access. Classified portions could be used under seal or reviewed privately by a judge, excluding the opposing party where necessary. These provisions would not independently authorize publication of classified information.⁠61

Congress would get its own enforcement mechanism. A member’s written request would trigger a seven-calendar-day deadline for full, unredacted access. A written notice alleging a violation would trigger a separate 30-calendar-day deadline to remedy it or explain compliance. After the applicable period, a member alleging noncompliance could sue, seeking orders compelling access and stopping continued withholding. Courts could also reject materially false or misleading justifications and award legal costs and reasonable fees. These are proposed deadlines, not obligations activated by the petition.⁠61

The text would require explanations for “Each redaction,” replacing “All redactions,” and bar common-law privileges—including deliberative-process, attorney-client, work-product and law-enforcement privileges—from being used to withhold covered material except where the statute expressly permits it.⁠61

It also invokes existing federal criminal laws covering false statements, obstruction and destruction or falsification of records, including misconduct by senior Justice Department and FBI officials. But an undisclosed record would not automatically make an official a criminal. Any fine or imprisonment would depend on proving the applicable offense, including its required mental state.⁠61

The House route is more complicated than simply calling up H.R. 9694. Discharge Petition No. 27 targets H.Res. 1430 in the Rules Committee. That resolution would bring forward a legislative vehicle, H.R. 185, replacing its text with the Epstein Files Transparency Act II. Discharging the resolution would not itself adopt the rule or pass the bill.⁠33⁠62

According to ABC News’s November 11 account of the procedure, the discharge motion must remain on the calendar for at least seven legislative days before a signer offers it. The speaker would then have two legislative days to act. Legislative days follow House proceedings; this is not an ordinary seven-day countdown.⁠3

The House would still need to adopt the resolution and pass the legislation. The resolution provides one hour of debate, divided equally between the Judiciary Committee’s majority and minority, and one motion to recommit. If the bill passed, the clerk would have one calendar day to transmit the passage message to the Senate. Senate action and enactment would remain necessary.⁠62

ABC News identified December 2 or 3, after the Thanksgiving recess, as possible earliest dates for floor action—not a confirmed schedule. Supporters have secured the signatures needed to pursue consideration. The harder test is whether that procedural majority becomes a law giving survivors and investigators enforceable access. Until then, 218 means a route to stronger rights, not possession of them.⁠3