A rogue effort to force a House vote directing the Department of Justice to release its files from the Jeffrey Epstein case is likely to succeed when the chamber returns in September.
Unless the files are released before then, enough House Republicans are willing to team up with Democrats to force a vote, The Washington Times has learned.
House Speaker Mike Johnson declined to bring legislation to the floor this month that would have put congressional weight behind MAGA supporters’ calls to release the Epstein files. The Louisiana Republican shut down the House floor for its annual August recess a day earlier than scheduled, as Democrats relentlessly tried to force a vote, which he dismissed as a political game.
Epstein, a wealthy financier, was arrested in 2019 and charged with sex trafficking minors but died in jail before standing trial. His death was ruled a suicide, although some MAGA supporters have questioned that and floated conspiracy theories about a cover-up for influential Epstein associates.
Mr. Johnson said he supports “maximum transparency” but an immediate House vote was unnecessary with the Trump administration petitioning the courts to unseal grand jury information in the case.
“There’s no point in passing a resolution to urge the administration to do something that they are already doing,” Mr. Johnson said.
SEE ALSO: Justice Department asked Ghislaine Maxwell about ‘100 different people’ over alleged client list
The speaker said if the courts do not unseal the records, the House would “take appropriate action” when the chamber returns from its summer break in September.
A few hours after Mr. Johnson’s comments to reporters on Wednesday, a U.S. district court judge in Florida declined to unseal grand jury transcripts from 2005 and 2007 investigations into Epstein because the government did not provide a legal exception under which she could do so.
The Trump administration still has a pending petition in the Southern District of New York to unseal grand jury information related to Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking charges.
If that judge also declines to unseal the records, a House vote on the matter in September is all but guaranteed.
Mr. Johnson supports a nonbinding House resolution that calls on DOJ to release the Epstein files and could voluntarily bring it to the floor.
That measure was crafted and advanced by the House Rules Committee this month in response to Democratic efforts to force a vote on a similar but binding measure from Reps. Thomas Massie, Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, California Democrat.
Mr. Massie has filed a discharge petition to force a vote on the binding bill, which will ripen for signatures in September. If 218 members sign it, he can trigger a vote. However, Mr. Johnson can counter by trying to table the measure or refer it to committee.
Either way, there will likely be some form of a vote on the Massie bill, as he and Mr. Khanna are confident they’ll have 218 signatures for the discharge petition.
All 212 House Democrats are expected to sign it and, “more than six” Republicans will join them, Mr. Khanna told The Washington Times.
The Florida court ruling against unsealing the grand jury information “just shows that we need to pass this legislation,” he said.
So far, 11 Republicans have co-sponsored the Massie-Khanna measure: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eric Burlison of Missouri, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Eli Crane of Arizona, Cory Mills of Florida, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Max Miller of Ohio, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Keith Self of Texas.
Mr. Burchett, Mr. Mills and Mr. Self told The Times they would sign the discharge petition.
“We want transparency, accountability and justice,” Mr. Self said. “We want to expose the criminals, and we want to protect the victims.”
Mr. Crane told The Times he would “definitely consider” signing the discharge petition, saying he supports transparency and prefers the Massie measure over the nonbinding Rules Committee resolution.
Mr. Burlison said his decision depends on what happens in the following month.
“If it’s clear that they are on task to releasing the documents, and there’s been movement, then I may not sign the discharge petition,” he said.
Potential movement could come as a result of a House Oversight and Government Committee subpoena for the Epstein files. The panel’s federal law enforcement subcommittee voted to approve a motion to subpoena the files, which could give committee members access but does not guarantee public release.
Ms. Mace sits on the subcommittee and voted to subpoena the files. Her office confirmed she will sign the discharge petition.
The Times contacted the offices of Ms. Greene, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Miller but did not receive responses.
Ms. Greene had signaled potential support in telling reporters she is “all for voting on” the Massie bill, but she was not explicitly asked about signing the discharge petition.
“I don’t like the resolution that was passed out of the Rules Committee,” Ms. Greene said. “It has no teeth in it. It’s basically meritless.”
Mr. Massie said the Rules Committee Republicans copied some of the language in his bill for the nonbinding resolution. The lead Republican on that measure, South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman, admits the resolution “pretty much mirrored his discharge petition.”
Both measures call for DOJ to release records from the investigations into Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, but include exemptions allowing child sexual abuse materials and personally identifiable information of the victims to be withheld.
But there are a few key differences in the language.
The nonbinding measure calls for release of all “credible” Epstein case records – a term President Trump has used but is subjective and provides deference to DOJ lawyers. The resolution does not define “credible” but says DOJ can withhold records that “are demonstrably false or unauthenticated.”
Mr. Massie’s bill does not use the “credible” qualification, instead demanding the release of all “unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials.”
The nonbinding measure does not specifically call for the release of investigative materials, which could get filtered out in a determination of what’s credible.
The Massie measure seeks other information, including Epstein’s flight logs and travel records; names of entities and individuals with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks; information on immunity deals or other legal settlements involving Epstein or his associates; any communications on DOJ decisions not to bring charges; and any notes or metadata concerning the destruction or concealment of documents or other evidence.
The nonbinding resolution does not list those things, but some of them could still fall under its records request if deemed “credible.”
With respect to classified information, both measures instruct the attorney general to declassify those records “to the maximum extent possible.”
Mr. Norman said he likes the Massie bill and if nothing is released before September, he would consider signing the discharge petition – although he does not favor that route because it’s “typically is a tool for the minority.”
“I’m for whatever it takes to release all the information,” he said.
One argument Mr. Norman and another Rules Committee member, Rep. Chip Roy, Texas Republican, made in favor of the nonbinding resolution is it only needs the House’s approval, whereas the Massie bill would need to pass the Senate and be signed by Mr. Trump for its force to take effect.
Mr. Roy declined to say whether he’d sign the discharge petition because it’s not yet live.
“Right now, we have resolutions where you’ve got significant members of the House calling for transparency, you’ve got the White House acting on transparency, and we’ll see what happens,” he said.
