After the justice department botched file rollout under the original act, lawmakers now want legislation with teeth
AsJeffrey Epsteinsurvivors and their supporters continue searching for justice and transparency in the US, a bipartisan group of politicians is trying to rework legislation that heralded the release of long-hidden investigative files on the scandal.
While the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), signed into law byDonald Trumpon 19 November, mandated that the justice department release all investigative files within 30 days with limited exceptions, survivors and their supporters have repeatedly grappled withmissed deadlinesand what they say are incomplete disclosures.
They have also accused the justice department of disclosing survivors’ personal information while withholding names of men involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse of teenage girls and young women.
So now politicians from the Senate and the House and both main political parties announced on 15 July the introduction of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II (EFTA II). The planned law addresses what legal observers and public records advocates have described as shortfalls in the original EFTA – namely, the lack of a robust enforcement mechanism. Under the EFTA II, state attorneys general, local district attorneys, Epstein survivors and Congress members would have standing to fight the justice department in court if it doesn’t release files as required.
If theproposed legislationbecomes law, survivors would also have the right to “full, unredacted records concerning themselves or the harm they suffered”, including transcripts of FBI interviews. The justice department would also have to provide “state and local prosecutors with unredacted records needed for investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings, including secure access to classified materials”.
The EFTA II would also “enforce compliance with the existing law by subjecting [justice department] and FBI officials to existing federal criminal penalties for knowingly concealing, destroying, falsifying, withholding or misrepresenting files”, supporters said.
Legal veterans say this proposed law does have the potential to foster transparency, but noted that practical issues remain. Not only does this bill face political hurdles to actually pass into law, but – if it does – record seekers would also have to deal with the same justice department necessitating it in the first place.
Oleg Nekritin, an attorney with the Law Offices of Robert J De Groot, said that the EFTA was a “pretty robust bill” enabling state attorneys general to get records they demand.
“Under the first Epstein Files Transparency Act, people were permitted to search for various records, but people criticized those specific records, because a lot of them were redacted, they were difficult to read, and critics said they didn’t even disclose individuals who may have been involved … in various criminal acts,” Nekritin said.
This bill, Nekritin explained, grants state attorneys general access to unredacted records. “If they aren’t provided access by the US attorney’s office, they’re permitted to file actions.”
Nekritin noted that many state attorneys general think that theTrump administrationhas acted unlawfully in a variety of areas. With Epstein, “they may believe that the United States government isn’t taking sufficient steps to investigate or prosecute obscene crimes”.
So if state attorneys general can get all records, “they may do their own investigations, follow leads, etc”. He also noted that survivors will have access to records that involve them.
“If passed, it will be a gamechanger for individuals who want to investigate further or learn more about Epstein or individuals associated with them.”
Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond School of Law, said his “first thought” was: “Can it pass?”
