Rep. Massie Issues Ultimatum to DOJ: Release Epstein Names or Congress Will Read Them Into Record
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has escalated his standoff with the Department of Justice, threatening to utilize his Congressional privilege to publicly read a list of alleged Jeffrey Epstein associates on the House floor if the agency fails to fully disclose unredacted records. The ultimatum comes amid a growing confrontation between lawmakers and the DOJ over what critics call a failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Constitutional “Speech or Debate” Immunity as a Loophole
Massie’s threat leverages the “Speech or Debate Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which grants members of Congress immunity from prosecution or civil lawsuits for legislative acts and statements made within the House chamber. This legal shield would allow Massie to bypass potential defamation laws and non-disclosure agreements that have historically silenced victims and kept specific names out of the public eye.
“Survivors have privately compiled their own list,” Massie stated. “If they try to release that list, they’re going to be sued into homelessness… but I am willing to name names in the House of Representatives under Constitutional immunity.”
The strategy suggests a coordinate effort where survivors provide the intelligence, and lawmakers provide the platform, effectively circumventing the DOJ’s redaction protocols.
DOJ Non-Compliance and Legislative Frustration
The conflict stems from the implementation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation passed in late 2025 intended to force the release of all documents related to the deceased financier’s sex trafficking network. While the DOJ has released batches of documents, lawmakers argue the agency is deliberately stalling and over-redacting critical information to protect powerful individuals.
The DOJ missed a key deadline earlier this year to provide a comprehensive report to Congress listing all “politically exposed persons” named in the files. Furthermore, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI officials have maintained that a singular, definitive “client list” does not exist—a claim Massie and his allies dispute as a semantic dodge to avoid accountability.
“They are citing the Privacy Act and trying to pretend like that overrides a law that we just passed,” Massie argued, accusing the department of prioritizing the embarrassment of “powerful men” over public transparency.
Legal and Ethical Objections to Massie’s Approach
Legal experts and Justice Department officials have raised significant objections to the indiscriminate release of names. The primary concern is the distinction between “associates” and “perpetrators.” The files contain names of individuals who may have flown on Epstein’s plane or attended social events but were not involved in illegal activity.
Releasing these names without context or criminal charges could lead to “guilt by association,” potentially destroying the reputations of innocent parties. Additionally, there are fears that bypassing DOJ redaction processes could inadvertently reveal the identities of victims who were minors at the time of the abuse and have sought to remain anonymous.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche previously admitted that “mistakes were made” in prior releases where victim information was not properly redacted, fueling arguments that the DOJ needs to maintain control over the vetting process to protect survivor privacy.
Background: A Saga of Sealed Documents
The demand for transparency originates from the thousands of pages of court documents previously sealed in civil lawsuits, most notably the defamation case between victim Virginia Giuffre and Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. While significant portions were unsealed in early 2024 and late 2025, revealing connections to high-profile figures in politics, academia, and royalty, critics argue the most damaging information remains hidden.
The FBI’s internal position, revealed in recent reviews, is that while they found proof of sexual abuse, they did not locate a formalized “client list” during their initial investigations. This disconnect—between the public’s belief in a “black book” of clients and the DOJ’s insistence on a diffused set of evidence—remains the central point of friction.
With the DOJ currently under threat of contempt of court proceedings initiated by Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), the warning to read names into the Congressional Record represents a “nuclear option” designed to force the executive branch’s hand.
newrepublic.com
seattlemedium.com
wikipedia.org
wikipedia.org
youtube.com
pbs.org
