Bipartisan Bill Would Let Epstein Survivors and State Officials Sue DOJ Over Files Release

A New Bill to Force the Issue

On July 16, 2026, a Kentucky Republican and a California Democrat stood together to introduce a new bill about Jeffrey Epstein's files. Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, joined by Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, unveiled the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, known as H.R. 9694^[1][4]. Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ben Ray Luján introduced a companion bill in the Senate^[1].

The bill would do something the original law does not: give people a direct way to sue the Justice Department in court^[1][5]. Three groups would get that power, known as legal standing, which simply means the right to bring a case before a judge. Epstein survivors, state attorneys general and members of Congress could all sue the U.S. Attorney General if they believe the department is not following the law^[1][5].

The bill would also let survivors get their own unredacted records and let state prosecutors see unredacted files^[1][4]. And it would stop the DOJ from citing certain legal privileges as a reason to keep files secret^[4][5].

What Everyone Agrees Happened

The story starts in November 2025. The House passed the original Epstein Files Transparency Act by a vote of 427 to 1, the Senate passed it too, and President Trump signed it into law the next day^[9][10]. That law told the Justice Department to release its Epstein-related records.

The DOJ acted on January 30, 2026. It released about 3 million pages, roughly 2,000 videos and about 180,000 images^[7][8]. But the department had flagged more than 6 million pages as potentially relevant, meaning it released only part of what it had identified^[7].

That gap is the center of the fight. The bill's sponsors say the DOJ broke the law by holding back more than 3 million additional files and by blacking out too much of what it did release^[4][6]. The Justice Department says it followed the law and only redacted material to protect victims' private information^[7][11]. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said publicly that the department had met its legal obligations^[7].

Then a court weighed in, though not with a final answer. On June 25, 2026, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the DOJ had likely violated the disclosure law^[12]. A preliminary injunction is an early, temporary ruling a judge makes before a full trial, based on which side seems more likely to be right. Sullivan ordered the DOJ to release more unredacted material or explain its reasoning by July 2, 2026. The DOJ missed that deadline, refused to comply, and is now appealing the ruling^[12]. That means the legal question is still open, not settled.

Why "Standing to Sue" Is the Whole Bill

Here is the mechanism at the heart of this bill. Right now, if the DOJ fails to comply with the original transparency law, ordinary citizens, survivors, and state officials have no clear, built-in path to sue over it^[5]. The lawsuit that produced Judge Sullivan's June ruling exists, but it relies on general administrative law, not a specific right written into the Epstein transparency law itself^[5][12].

That distinction matters. General administrative law lets someone challenge a federal agency's actions in broad terms, but it is not tailored to this law and this situation. The new bill would write a specific right to sue directly into the statute, naming exactly who can bring a case: survivors, state attorneys general and members of Congress^[1][5].

Without that kind of built-in enforcement tool, a law's requirements can be hard to enforce in practice, even when nearly everyone in Congress voted for it. The sponsors argue that a law nobody can enforce works more like a suggestion than a mandate^[1][4]. Giving specific people the right to sue is their answer to that gap.

The Pressure Underneath the Fight

This dispute is partly about separation of powers, a term for the divide between what Congress decides and what the executive branch controls. Congress passed a law and wants it followed. The Justice Department holds the files and, until now, has been the one deciding whether it complied^[5]. The bill would shift some of that power to courts and outside parties instead.

There is also a political incentive on both sides of the aisle. The Epstein issue splits the Republican base while uniting transparency advocates across parties, which is part of why a libertarian-leaning Republican like Massie and a progressive Democrat like Khanna are co-leading this effort^[1][4]. Both gain from being seen pushing for disclosure on a cause with broad public support.

And the Justice Department has its own institutional stake, separate from the specifics of this case. Any executive agency has reason to want fewer avenues by which outside parties can sue it and more control over sensitive investigative and personal material^[7][11]. That interest exists regardless of what is actually in the Epstein files.

How Each Side Sees It

The bill's sponsors frame this as accountability. They argue Congress passed a nearly unanimous law and the executive branch is refusing to obey it, and that survivors deserve direct legal power rather than having to trust the DOJ to police itself^[1][4]. They also point to what they call a reversal of the law's intent: some victims' identities appeared visible in released files while alleged co-conspirators' identities were redacted^[7].

The Justice Department and the Trump administration frame it as a department doing its job under a genuinely difficult law. Officials say they released millions of pages and withheld material only where the law allows, such as protecting victims' private and medical information or shielding child sexual abuse imagery^[7][11]. They note that members of Congress can already view unredacted files in person, and they argue that letting many parties sue the Attorney General could flood the courts with litigation, including from political opponents^[7].

Epstein survivors argue the law was written for them, and that the process so far reversed its purpose by protecting powerful men's identities while exposing victims'^[6][7]. They want their own complete, unredacted records and a real path to hold the government accountable^[4][6].

State officials, including New Mexico's attorney general, argue they need unredacted records to pursue their own investigations if the federal government will not act^[3]. They frame it as a matter of federalism, meaning states stepping in where they see Washington falling short^[3][4].

How the Coverage Split

Right-leaning outlets like The Daily Caller described the bill as a tool to "compel" the release of records being "unlawfully" withheld, a framing that adopts the sponsors' own legal conclusion, and put Massie's role as the Republican sponsor front and center^[4]. Fox News covered a related DOJ visit by Massie and Khanna in more neutral, event-focused terms^[7].

Progressive outlets like Common Dreams framed the story around "Trump DOJ violations," centering the president as the antagonist and stating as settled fact a question that is, for now, only preliminarily decided in court^[6][12]. Center-leaning outlets including NPR and CBS News stuck closer to attributed claims, describing the DOJ's compliance claim as the department's own position rather than an established fact^[7][8].

International coverage, such as Al Jazeera's, focused less on U.S. partisan lines and more on the scale of the release and the international list of names connected to the case^[8]. Across the spectrum, the consistent thread is that most outlets settled on a version of the same unresolved question: whether the DOJ broke the law. A federal judge has ruled, preliminarily, that it likely did, but that ruling is under appeal, not the final word^[12].