Thomas Massie Names 14 Epstein Associates as He Pushes for More Files — and the Political Stakes Keep Rising

The fight over Jeffrey Epstein’s files has entered another dramatic phase in Washington, with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie once again putting the issue directly before Congress.

On August 31, 2026, Massie used a speech on the House floor to name 14 people whom he described as Epstein “co-conspirators” or associates who, in his view, should be investigated and potentially prosecuted. Among the names were former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley, billionaire investor Leon Black, retail billionaire Les Wexner, magician David Copperfield, businessman Thomas Pritzker and former Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. (Law Commentary)

Massie’s intervention was not simply another speech about Epstein. It was part of a broader attempt to pressure the Justice Department to release more records and to force Congress to confront what he says is an unresolved transparency problem.

At the same time, the dispute has become increasingly political. Massie has already lost his Republican primary to Ed Gallrein, a Trump-backed challenger, after years of increasingly public disagreements with President Donald Trump. The Epstein files were one of the major issues separating the two men, although their broader conflict also involved foreign policy, spending and other matters. (AP News)

Now, with only a limited amount of time left in Congress, Massie is attempting one more legislative push: the Epstein Files Transparency Act II.

The proposal would create new ways for victims, state attorneys general and members of Congress to challenge the Justice Department over records they believe were unlawfully withheld, delayed or excessively redacted.

But behind the legislation lies an even bigger question: How much more is actually contained in the Epstein files, and what would happen if further disclosures revealed damaging information about powerful people?

That question has made the Epstein files one of the most politically explosive transparency battles in Washington.

Part 1: Thomas Massie Puts 14 Names on the Congressional Record

Thomas Massie’s latest intervention began with a short but highly consequential speech.

Standing on the House floor on August 31, the Kentucky Republican read out the names of 14 people he said were connected to Epstein and whom he believed should be investigated.

The list included Jes Staley, Leon Black, Les Wexner, David Copperfield, Lapo Elkann, Thomas Pritzker, Glenn Dubin, Frédéric Fekkai, Edoardo Teodorani-Fabbri, Jean-Luc Brunel, Daniel Siad, Ramsey Elkholy, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lesley Groff. (Law Commentary)

Massie said his goal was not simply to publicize the names.

He wanted the Department of Justice to investigate what he described as potential connections to Epstein’s criminal network and, where evidence supports it, pursue prosecution.

His message was essentially a challenge to federal authorities: if the documents contain evidence of wrongdoing, why are more of those records not being made public and investigated?

Massie has previously argued that the government cannot claim to have achieved full transparency while millions of records remain unavailable to the public.

During his latest push, he said the government was still withholding more than three million files. Spectrum News reported that Massie has used that claim as the central justification for introducing his second transparency bill. (Spectrum News 1)

His speech attracted enormous attention because some of the people he named are among the most recognizable figures in business, entertainment and international society.

But there is an important distinction that should not be lost amid the headlines.

Being named in an Epstein-related document does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct.

The Epstein files are a massive collection of records gathered from different investigations, lawsuits, witness accounts, emails and other sources. Some documents may contain allegations, some may contain references to people who had legitimate or social relationships with Epstein, and some may contain information that has not been independently established.

Roll Call specifically noted that appearing in the files does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing. (Roll Call)

The Justice Department has also warned that the released material can include documents, images or videos submitted to investigators that may be false or sensationalized. In its January 2026 release, the DOJ said it had included responsive material even when it could not independently establish the truth of every item submitted to the FBI. (Department of Justice)

That makes Massie’s call for further investigation different from a declaration that everyone he named committed crimes.

Several people on the list have denied wrongdoing.

For example, reporting on Massie’s speech noted that Staley, Black, Copperfield and Pritzker have denied wrongdoing connected to Epstein. (The Times)

That distinction is particularly important when discussing individuals who have never been charged with an Epstein-related crime.

The most controversial name may be Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew.

Massie accused him during his speech of having committed sex crimes in the United States. Andrew has faced allegations from Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual abuse when she was 17. He denied the allegations and settled her civil lawsuit in 2022 without admitting liability. He has not been criminally charged in the United States in connection with those allegations. (The Times)

Massie’s decision to make such statements on the House floor was also significant for another reason.

The constitutional protection behind Massie’s strategy

Members of Congress have a special constitutional protection known as the Speech or Debate Clause.

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution protects lawmakers from being questioned elsewhere for legitimate legislative speech and debate.

The protection is designed to preserve Congress’s independence from interference by the executive or judicial branches. It is not a blanket license for lawmakers to say anything anywhere without legal consequences, but statements made as part of legitimate legislative activity receive substantial constitutional protection. (Law Commentary)

Massie has previously discussed using that protection to read names into the congressional record rather than making the same allegations publicly outside Congress.

That strategy makes the House floor an unusually powerful venue for his campaign.

It allows Massie to put names and accusations into the official congressional record while making clear that he believes the appropriate next step is investigation.

But constitutional protection does not transform an allegation into a proven fact.

And that distinction will remain central as the controversy develops.

Part 2: The First Epstein Transparency Law

Massie’s current battle cannot be understood without looking back to 2025.

The first Epstein Files Transparency Act was the result of an unusual bipartisan alliance between Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California.

The two lawmakers came together despite being politically very different.

Their common objective was to force the government to make Epstein-related records public.

The effort initially faced resistance from Republican leadership and the Trump administration. But pressure continued to build as survivors, lawmakers and members of the public demanded greater transparency.

A procedural mechanism known as a discharge petition became the key.

A discharge petition allows House members to bypass leadership and force consideration of a bill if it receives the required number of signatures.

The threshold is 218 House members.

In November 2025, the petition reached that number, setting the stage for a House vote.

The House ultimately approved the Epstein Files Transparency Act by a vote of 427–1. The Senate then passed it, and President Trump signed it into law on November 19, 2025. (AP News)

The law required the Justice Department to make covered Epstein-related records publicly available, subject to protections for victims and other legally protected material.

For Massie and other supporters, the law represented a major victory.

But the victory did not end the controversy.

The Justice Department began releasing documents, but critics argued that the process was incomplete and that many records remained heavily redacted or withheld.

On January 30, 2026, the DOJ announced that it had published more than 3 million additional pages.

Combined with previous releases, the department said the total public production had reached approximately 3.5 million pages, along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. (Department of Justice)

The DOJ said it had collected the material from several major sources, including the Florida and New York Epstein cases, the Ghislaine Maxwell case, investigations into Epstein’s death, FBI investigations and an investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

More than 500 attorneys and reviewers participated in the review process, according to the department. (Department of Justice)

From the government's perspective, the scale of the release was evidence that it had made an enormous effort to comply with the law.

The department also explained that some material was withheld because it was duplicative, privileged, unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell cases, or covered by statutory exceptions.

Victim-identifying information was also protected.

But Massie and other critics were not satisfied.

They argued that the government's definition of compliance did not match the intent of Congress.

That disagreement is now the foundation of the second phase of the fight.

Part 3: Why Massie Says Millions of Records Are Still Being Withheld

The central disagreement is no longer whether the government has released millions of pages.

It has.

The disagreement is whether the government has released enough, and whether the remaining redactions and withheld records are legally justified.

The Justice Department says it has released nearly 3.5 million pages in compliance with the transparency law.

Massie says that millions more records remain unavailable.

Those two statements can exist at the same time because the underlying dispute concerns what should count as releasable material under the law.

Massie has argued that the government continues to withhold more than three million files.

He believes that the remaining records could contain information relevant to criminal investigations, the activities of Epstein's associates and the treatment of victims.

In contrast, the DOJ has said that records not released fall into categories protected by privilege, statutory exceptions, duplication or irrelevance.

The department has also emphasized that the massive collection contains material that may not be reliable.

In its January statement, the DOJ warned that documents submitted to the FBI could contain false claims or fabricated material because investigators received information from members of the public. (Department of Justice)

That is particularly important in an investigation as politically charged as Epstein's.

The files contain references to politicians, business executives, celebrities, academics and other prominent individuals.

Some people appear in emails.

Others appear in contact lists, travel records or social correspondence.

Some were business associates.

Others knew Epstein socially.

And some appear because investigators were examining their possible relationships with him.

Those categories are not equivalent.

A person appearing in an email is not automatically a criminal participant.

A person appearing in a contact book is not automatically a co-conspirator.

And an allegation in an FBI file is not automatically an established fact.

That is why the push for transparency creates a difficult balancing act.

Survivors and investigators need access to evidence that could reveal wrongdoing.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether powerful individuals were protected.

But innocent people can also be harmed when raw investigative material is presented online without context.

Massie argues that the answer should be greater transparency and independent investigation rather than continued secrecy.

The DOJ argues that the release process must still protect victims, comply with legal restrictions and prevent unsupported material from being treated as established fact.

That disagreement has now produced a second piece of legislation.

Part 4: The Epstein Files Transparency Act II

Massie's new proposal is designed to address what he considers the enforcement weakness of the original law.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act II would give additional legal avenues to people who believe the Justice Department has failed to comply with its disclosure obligations.

Massie introduced the legislation with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Democratic Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández.

The proposal would allow certain victims, state attorneys general, district attorneys, authorized state officials and members of Congress to challenge the federal government in court over records they believe were unlawfully withheld, redacted, delayed or concealed. (Law Commentary)

The bill also seeks to give lawmakers greater access to unredacted material for oversight purposes.

For Massie, this is crucial.

If state prosecutors believe the federal files contain evidence relevant to crimes under state law, they should be able to obtain the information necessary to conduct their own investigations.

Massie has specifically pointed to state-level investigations as an important potential avenue for accountability.

He has argued that the federal government should not be the only institution deciding what information can be used to pursue alleged crimes.

The legislation therefore attempts to shift some power away from the Justice Department.

But getting the bill to the House floor is itself a major challenge.

Massie has again turned to a discharge petition.

He needs 218 signatures to force a vote.

As of September 3, Roll Call reported that the petition had surpassed 100 signatures, including Massie and Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, but still needed substantial additional support. (Roll Call)

Massie has said he needs all Democrats and additional Republicans to reach the threshold.

That is especially difficult because his political position inside the Republican Party has changed dramatically.

One of his strongest allies in the previous Epstein fight, former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, is no longer in Congress.

And Massie himself will not return after losing his Republican primary.

That makes the timing of the new legislation especially important.

The clock is running.

Part 5: Trump, Massie and the Political Battle Over the Epstein Files

The Epstein files have become far more than a question of government transparency.

They have become a test of political loyalty.

Thomas Massie and Donald Trump once belonged to the same Republican political coalition.

But their relationship deteriorated as Massie increasingly challenged the president on several major issues.

The Epstein files became one of the most visible points of disagreement.

Trump ultimately signed the original transparency law, but his relationship with Massie remained deeply antagonistic.

In May 2026, Massie lost his Republican primary in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District to Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL endorsed by Trump.

The Associated Press reported that Trump had handpicked Gallrein after Massie broke with him over multiple issues, including the release of the Epstein files. (AP News)

Reuters reported that Gallrein defeated Massie by approximately 54.9% to 45.1% in a contest that became one of the most expensive House primaries in American history. (Reuters)

The result gave Trump a significant political victory.

But it did not stop Massie's Epstein campaign.

Instead, Massie appears determined to use his remaining time in Congress to push the issue even further.

That is why his August 31 speech was so consequential.

By naming 14 individuals and immediately launching another discharge petition, Massie transformed his remaining months in Congress into a renewed campaign for disclosure.

And once again, Donald Trump's name is inevitably part of the political conversation.

Trump has repeatedly denied involvement in Epstein's crimes.

Importantly, the fact that Trump's name may appear in Epstein-related records does not by itself establish criminal wrongdoing.

That distinction is essential.

Massie's argument is fundamentally about whether the government should investigate and disclose relevant records regardless of whose name appears in them.

The political question, however, is whether additional disclosures could create new consequences for Trump or other powerful figures.

That is precisely why the issue remains so explosive.

The DOJ has already said that the released material includes false or unsubstantiated claims about Trump, while critics argue that the government should not decide unilaterally which politically sensitive records deserve further scrutiny. (Department of Justice)

This creates a dilemma that goes beyond Trump.

If the files contain evidence of crimes, the identity or political influence of the person involved should not protect them.

But if the files contain unverified allegations, publishing them without context could unfairly damage reputations.

The real purpose of transparency, therefore, cannot simply be to produce the biggest possible list of famous names.

It must be to establish what actually happened.

The Bigger Question: What Does “Transparency” Really Mean?

The continuing battle between Massie and the Justice Department raises a fundamental question about government accountability.

Is releasing millions of pages enough?

Or does transparency require making every legally releasable record available, explaining every redaction and giving investigators meaningful access to the remaining material?

Massie clearly believes the latter.

The DOJ argues that it has already undertaken an extraordinary disclosure effort and released approximately 3.5 million pages while protecting victims and complying with legal restrictions. (Department of Justice)

Both sides agree on at least one thing: Epstein's victims deserve justice.

The disagreement is over how that justice should be pursued.

Massie's supporters see continued withholding as evidence that the government is protecting powerful people.

His critics argue that the focus on famous names risks turning a serious criminal investigation into political spectacle.

That concern is not insignificant.

Epstein's network involved people from vastly different backgrounds, and the appearance of someone's name in a document can have many explanations.

A credible investigation must distinguish between documented facts, allegations, associations and actual criminal evidence.

That is why Massie's decision to name individuals on the House floor has generated such intense debate.

The Speech or Debate Clause may protect his legislative speech, but it does not determine whether every allegation he makes is true.

The courts, investigators and evidence still matter.

Ultimately, the Epstein files controversy is no longer simply about whether documents should be released.

It is about who controls the information, who gets to investigate it, how much of it the public gets to see, and whether powerful people receive the same scrutiny as everyone else.

Massie has made it clear that he intends to keep pushing until his final months in Congress are over.

His new transparency bill now faces a difficult test: whether he can gather the 218 signatures necessary to force another House vote.

As of September 2026, he is still far from that threshold.

But the issue that helped define his political break with Trump has not disappeared.

Instead, it has become one of the most closely watched battles over transparency, congressional power and political accountability in Washington.

And as more Epstein-related records are examined, the most important question may not be whose name appears in the files.

It may be what the evidence actually proves.