US Congress passes Bill to force release Epstein files, sending it to Trump

Yesterday, 18 November, the US House of Representatives passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by an overwhelming margin of 427-1, compelling the Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish unclassified records, communications and investigation materials connected to the late convicted child sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Hours later, the Senate gave its consent by unanimous agreement, ensuring the Bill’s transmission to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. The legislation stipulates that the DOJ must make the documents available in a searchable and downloadable format within 30 days of enactment.

It allows redaction only in cases where victims’ identities must be protected or ongoing investigations might be jeopardised, and explicitly prohibits withholding material merely for embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity.

The passage of the Bill marks a moment of rare bipartisan consensus in a deeply divided Congress. Many lawmakers and survivors of Epstein’s abuses had long demanded full transparency, arguing that the public record of the case remained incomplete and mysterious.

Until very recently, senior Republican leadership, and President Trump himself, had opposed moving the matter to the floor. Indeed, earlier in the year the White House dismissed the push as part of a “Democrat Epstein hoax”. But as the Bill’s support grew and defections from Republican ranks increased, the President reversed course and indicated he would sign the measure.

This legislative shift reopened the spotlight on one of the most controversial relationships in recent American political history: that between Trump and Epstein.

Socially and geographically, the two men moved in overlapping circles. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Epstein and Trump frequented the same Palm Beach and New York elite venues. Trump was quoted in the early 2000s as saying Epstein was “a terrific guy… a lot of fun to be with”, though he later claimed to have severed ties once Epstein became the subject of a criminal inquiry.

The depth and nature of their relationship, however, have been seized upon repeatedly as the public seeks to understand Epstein’s wide network of high-profile associates. For example, in 2003 Epstein’s “birthday book” — compiled by his associate Ghislaine Maxwell — came to light. Among the contributions was a handwritten note attributed to Trump, featuring a crude sketch and the phrase “may every day be another wonderful secret”. Trump denied authorship, but the existence of the document intensified scrutiny.

Meanwhile, investigators and journalists have reported that flight-logs and other materials place Trump on Epstein-associated private flights in the mid-1990s, though there is no verified evidence publicly showing that Trump visited Epstein’s notorious private island or that he’s been charged with any wrongdoing connected to the trafficking allegations.

In July, the DOJ released a memo stating that there was no credible “client list” linking Epstein to black-mailable powerful individuals, and affirming that Epstein died by suicide in custody in 2019. That memo was met with widespread scepticism, particularly among Trump’s support base, many of whom believed the documents would implicate major political figures.

Two months before the Bill passed, the House Oversight Committee released around 33,295 pages of Epstein‐related records — but nearly all were already public, prompting criticism that more must be done.

Yet, even as Congress celebrates the accomplishment, the looming public release of the files has reignited an old and potent fear: that the documents may have been altered, sanitised or selectively purged long before legislators forced their disclosure.

For years, lawyers for survivors and investigative journalists have raised concerns that crucial evidence may have been removed or destroyed — especially after Epstein’s 2019 death, when several key security failures and gaps in the record raised alarms.

Some former officials have privately suggested that politically sensitive names or communications could have been scrubbed during the Trump administration or even earlier, under both Democratic and Republican leadership. The Bill cannot retroactively restore missing material, but its supporters argue that forcing publication now is the only means of assessing what remains — and what might have disappeared.

Trump’s evolving posture during this drama is telling. In September, he branded the investigations into Epstein as a “Democrat Epstein Hoax” on Truth Social, dismissing the urgency around the files. But this month, as the Bill’s passage became inevitable, he shifted to “we have nothing to hide” and signalled he would lend his support. Politicians close to him described his change as pragmatic recognition that the release was unstoppable.

The nexus between Trump and Epstein matters because it encapsulates broader questions about elite networks, power, secrecy and accountability. Epstein cultivated a global circle of finance, politics and celebrity; his ability to avoid full investigation or to leave behind sealed records raised doubts about what he might have known or controlled.

Trump’s past social engagements with Epstein invite the question: did he simply move in overlapping social spheres, or was there deeper intertwining of interests? Though Trump has never been charged with any Epstein-related offence, the optics of the association — and now the looming public release of documents — keep him and many others in the collision zone of political and criminal scrutiny.

With AP/PTI inputs