A House petition just cleared the one hurdle that kills most bills before they ever get a vote: 218 signatures, enough to drag Jeffrey Epstein’s files out from behind Justice Department doors whether leadership likes it or not.
Quick Take
- Rep. Thomas Massie and allies gathered 218 signatures on a discharge petition, forcing a House vote on a new Epstein files bill.
- The bill, H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, adds legal enforcement teeth the first law lacked.
- State attorneys general, Epstein’s victims, and members of Congress would gain standing to sue the Justice Department over withheld records.
- The push follows the original Epstein Files Transparency Act, which passed the House 427-1 in November 2025 after a similar petition drive.
- Discharge petitions almost never work; only two have become law since the modern rule began in 1931, underscoring how unusual this is.
A Second Round After the First Law Passed
Congress already fought this fight once. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna forced a House vote last November by collecting 218 signatures, and the Epstein Files Transparency Act cleared the chamber 427-1, ordering the attorney general to release all Justice Department records tied to Jeffrey Epstein. That lopsided vote signaled near-total agreement that the files should come out. It did not, however, guarantee the Justice Department would actually hand them over on any set timeline.
🚨This morning we reached the required 218 signatures on my discharge petition for Epstein Files Transparency Act II !
I’m working closely with @RepJayapal, @RepTeresaLF and @RepRoKhanna to get this to the floor for a vote soon.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 11, 2026
What Epstein Files Transparency Act II Actually Does
Massie, Khanna, and Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez, Jeff Merkley, and Ben Ray Luján introduced H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, to close that gap. The bill gives state attorneys general, Epstein’s victims, victims of his co-conspirators, and members of Congress the legal standing to sue the Justice Department directly in federal court if officials withhold, redact, delay, or hide records covered under the original law.
That detail matters because the first bill set a mandate without a built-in referee. The sequel bill turns a request into something closer to a court order, letting named parties challenge noncompliance instead of waiting on the Justice Department’s own schedule.
Why Lawmakers Needed a New Petition
Getting a bill like this to the floor normally runs through committee chairs and party leadership, who control what gets a vote. A discharge petition sidesteps that entirely. Once 218 members sign, a majority of the House, the bill is guaranteed floor time whether leadership schedules it or not. Massie and Khanna used that exact tool again, collecting the final signatures needed to force consideration of the enforcement bill.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes publicly urged Congress to pass the second act, reflecting support from state-level officials who would gain legal standing under the bill. That kind of outside pressure, paired with a frozen list of House signers entered into the official record, leaves leadership little room to quietly let the measure die in committee.
The Rare History of Discharge Petitions
This tool is a blunt instrument that almost never gets used successfully. Since the current discharge rule took effect in 1931, lawmakers have filed 563 petitions, but only 47 reached the 218-signature threshold, and just two of those became law. Political scientist Sarah Binder told Axios that the recent run of successful petitions this Congress has been “mind-blowing” by historical standards, a sign that rank-and-file members are increasingly willing to bypass leadership entirely.
Whatever one thinks of individual lawmakers involved, the underlying principle here tracks with basic accountability: a law Congress passed 427-1 deserves teeth that make it enforceable, not just a polite request the executive branch can slow-walk indefinitely. Victims and state prosecutors having standing to go to court is a reasonable check, not an overreach.
Sources:
cbsnews.com, massie.house.gov, congress.gov, justice.gov
