Massie and Khanna Say 218 House Members Have Committed to a Second Epstein Files Discharge Petition
The pair say they have the commitments needed to force a vote on H.R. 9694, though the petition cannot be formally signed to 218 until the House returns from its pre-election recess in November.
Two Republicans, Every Democrat, and a Number That Isn't Official Yet
Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna said on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, that they'd lined up 218 House members ready to force a vote on a new Epstein records bill[1][24]. That's the exact number needed to bypass Speaker Mike Johnson and bring H.R. 9694 to the floor. There's just one problem: the House was already gone.
Johnson had canceled the week's remaining votes the day before and sent everyone home until after the Nov. 3 midterms[12]. A discharge petition only counts signatures added in person, at the Clerk's desk, while the House is in session. No proxies, no mail-ins[6]. So the 218 Massie and Khanna are describing are commitments, not signatures on paper — and nothing can happen until members physically return in November[2].
That gap between "we have the votes" and "the votes are recorded" is where this whole story lives. Massie says four Republicans — himself, Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — have agreed to join every Democrat[1][24]. He opened the petition for signatures on the floor back on Sept. 1[17][20]. Getting there took weeks. Making it stick will take until November.
What a Page Count Doesn't Settle
The bill itself, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, would let state attorneys general, local prosecutors, Epstein's victims, and members of Congress sue the U.S. attorney general if they believe records are being illegally withheld[3][4][5]. It would also require the government to hand victims unredacted documents on request[3][4]. That's a direct response to a fight over whether the first version of this law actually worked.
Congress passed the original Epstein Files Transparency Act almost unanimously, and President Trump signed it on Nov. 19, 2025[4][18]. The Justice Department says it delivered: nearly 3.5 million pages released, along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images, which it calls compliance with the law[7][8]. Massie disagrees. He says the department made "illegal redactions" and held back documents that would implicate Epstein's associates[9]. House Judiciary Democrats have sent similar written complaints to the department[22].
Here's why both sides can be telling the truth. The 2025 law bars withholding records for reasons like embarrassment or political sensitivity — but separate laws still protect grand jury material and the identities of victims[3][4]. So "DOJ released 3.5 million pages" and "DOJ withheld records it shouldn't have" aren't contradictory claims. Nobody with legal standing has forced a court to sort out which redactions were lawful and which weren't. That's the gap H.R. 9694 is built to close, by handing that standing to state officials, victims, and members of Congress[3][4].
Why the Speaker's Objection Isn't Just Spin
It's tempting to read Johnson's opposition as pure damage control, especially since he's called Massie's push "meaningless" and accused him of teaming up with Democrats for political effect right before an election[10]. But the discharge petition mechanism is something every Speaker of either party has resisted, regardless of the bill attached to it. It exists specifically to strip the Speaker of calendar control — the core tool that lets leadership decide what gets a vote and what doesn't[6]. Handing that power to 218 members acting outside leadership's control is a structural threat to how the Speaker's office runs the floor, not just a threat to this one bill.
Johnson's substantive argument is that the issue is already handled: millions of pages are out, and a new lawsuit-enabling law mostly produces litigation and headlines rather than more disclosure[7][10]. He's also noted that Massie didn't push this hard during the Biden years, framing the timing as political[10]. Massie's counter is that Johnson's own proposed alternative is a "placebo resolution," and that the early recess was partly designed to run out the clock on him[10].
Politically, Johnson has real reasons to want this vote gone. A floor vote on Epstein records would split his own party in public, right as vulnerable Republicans head into a midterm where they'd rather not choose between the president and a broadly popular transparency measure[13]. The early recess didn't kill the petition — it just delayed it. But it also let Johnson dodge several hard votes at once, including a separate Massie resolution to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth[12].
The People Caught in Both Directions
Epstein survivors and their attorneys have a complaint that cuts against both the "DOJ complied" and the "just release everything" framings. Some of what they wanted kept private — names, photos, personal details — has already been published without redaction. Meanwhile records they actually want, like unredacted FBI interview reports, have stayed hidden[9][22]. H.R. 9694 tries to answer both problems at once: victims would get a right to demand unredacted copies for themselves, plus standing to sue if the government withholds what it shouldn't[3][4].
The Justice Department, for its part, argues that redactions aren't evidence of defiance — they're required by law in some cases, whatever this new bill says. Grand jury secrecy and victim privacy protections exist independent of the 2025 act[9][22]. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the department's handling as an "unprecedented commitment to transparency" before she was replaced[21]. That replacement is itself part of the story: Trump fired Bondi on April 2, 2026, amid criticism of how the files were handled, and her successor, Todd Blanche, personally ran the release process that's now under fire[14][16]. He can't easily distance himself from a process he oversaw.
What the Coverage Left Out
Outlets split largely along the lines you'd expect, though the gaps matter more than the tone. Fox News led with Johnson calling the effort a stunt, largely leaving out the substance of whether DOJ actually complied with the law[10]. The Washington Examiner covered the same ground more neutrally, framing it as Massie "convincing" Republicans to cross leadership[11]. MSNBC's MaddowBlog cast the petition as members going "around" Johnson "again," treating the recess as concealment with little room for leadership's floor-control argument[13]. NBC News leaned into the substance, measuring DOJ against its own deadline and noting only "a fraction" of records were out, treating the department's 3.5-million-page count as rebuttal rather than the main frame[9]. Forbes stated flatly that the bill "will go up for a vote" when the House returns — treating pledged signatures as a done deal, when commitments made before a midterm can still be withdrawn before the petition legally ripens[2][6].
Whoever wins control of the House on Nov. 3 will be the ones actually taking this up, whether the current pledges hold or not. Even if H.R. 9694 clears the House, it would still need the Senate and the president's signature — something the original bill managed, after Trump initially opposed it[18]. The number to watch in November isn't 218. It's whether that number survives contact with an actual floor vote, or whether some of the names attached to it in September quietly come off the sheet once the election is over[6].
Summary
Reps. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, that they have lined up the 218 members needed to force a House vote on a second Epstein records bill[1][24]. The bill is H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II[3]. It would let state attorneys general, local prosecutors, Epstein victims and members of Congress sue the U.S. attorney general when they believe the government is illegally withholding or redacting records[4][5].
There is a catch, and it is procedural. A discharge petition only counts signatures physically added at the Clerk's desk on the House floor, and no one may sign by proxy[6]. The House left town on Wednesday, Sept. 16, after Speaker Mike Johnson canceled the rest of the week's votes and sent members home until after the Nov. 3 midterm elections[12]. So what Massie and Khanna have announced are commitments, not a completed petition. Massie said four Republicans — himself, Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — have joined every Democrat[1][24]. A vote cannot happen until the House returns in November[2].
The real dispute underneath is whether the Justice Department already obeyed the first law. President Trump signed the original Epstein Files Transparency Act on Nov. 19, 2025[18]. The Justice Department says it published nearly 3.5 million pages 'in compliance with' that law[7]. Massie says the department made 'illegal redactions' and held back documents that would implicate Epstein associates[9]. Congressional Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have made similar complaints in writing to the department[22].
Republican leaders do not frame it that way. Johnson has called Massie's effort 'meaningless' and accused him of teaming with Democrats for political effect weeks before an election[10]. Massie, in turn, called a leadership-backed alternative a 'placebo resolution' and said Johnson recessed the House partly to stall him[10].
The Event
On Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced they had secured commitments for the 218 signatures needed to discharge H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, from committee and force a House floor vote[1][24]. Massie said four Republicans — himself, Ralph Norman, Nancy Mace and Brian Fitzpatrick — had agreed to sign alongside every Democrat[1]. Massie opened the petition for signatures on the House floor on Sept. 1, 2026[17][20]. The House had adjourned on Wednesday, Sept. 16, after Speaker Mike Johnson canceled remaining votes and sent members home until after the Nov. 3 midterms, meaning no further signatures can be added until the chamber returns[12][2].
Undisputed Facts
- H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, was introduced in the 119th Congress by Reps. Khanna, Massie and Teresa Leger Fernández, with Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ben Ray Luján leading a Senate companion[3][4][5].
- The bill would give state attorneys general, Epstein victims and members of Congress standing to sue the Justice Department over failure to disclose materials required by the 2025 law, and would require unredacted documents be given to victims on request[3][4].
- President Trump signed the original Epstein Files Transparency Act into law on Nov. 19, 2025, as Public Law 119-38[4][18].
- The Justice Department stated it published nearly 3.5 million responsive pages, including more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images, 'in compliance with' the Act[7][8].
- A discharge petition requires 218 signatures added in person at the Clerk's desk while the House is in session; proxy signing is not allowed[6].
- Speaker Mike Johnson canceled House votes on Sept. 16, 2026, sending members home more than six weeks before the midterm elections; they are not due back until the second week of November[12].
- Johnson said of Massie: 'I would describe virtually everything Thomas Massie says, as related to this issue, as meaningless'[10].
- Trump removed Pam Bondi as attorney general on April 2, 2026, and Todd Blanche — who had overseen the Epstein files release — was confirmed as her successor in August 2026[14][16].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The floor calendar is the Speaker's main power
- In the House, a bill normally reaches a vote only if the Speaker schedules it. The discharge petition is the rules' one escape hatch: get 218 signatures at the Clerk's desk, wait seven legislative days for the motion to 'ripen,' and then a signer can call it up on a designated discharge day[6]. That is why leadership of both parties has always fought the tool, regardless of the bill attached to it — and why sponsors treat it as their only route.
- The recess is the real clock
- Signatures cannot be added by proxy or by mail[6]. With the House gone until the second week of November[12], the petition is frozen at whatever it held on Sept. 16, no matter how many members have promised to sign. Time, not persuasion, is the binding constraint right now.
- Members can un-sign
- A signature on a discharge petition can be withdrawn before the motion ripens[6]. Commitments made in September, before an election, are not the same as names on the sheet in November, after one. This applies to both parties' members.
- Compliance is a legal question, not a page count
- Both 'DOJ released 3.5 million pages'[7] and 'DOJ withheld records and redacted illegally'[9] can be true at once. The 2025 law bars withholding for embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity, but other law still shields grand jury material and victim identities. Nobody has yet had clear standing to make a court decide which redactions were lawful — which is precisely what H.R. 9694 is designed to change[3][4].
Material realityRoughly 3.5 million pages are public and, by critics' count, about 2.5 million remain unreleased, with much of what is out heavily redacted[7][9]. The House is empty until November, so the petition sits below 218 by rule, not by choice[6][12]. Whoever wins the Nov. 3 elections controls the chamber that would take up the bill in the next Congress if it stalls. The files issue has already removed one attorney general — Bondi was fired on April 2, 2026 — and her successor, Todd Blanche, personally ran the disclosure process, so he cannot distance himself from it[14][16]. Even if H.R. 9694 passed the House, it would still need the Senate and the President's signature; the original bill did clear both, after Trump initially opposed it[18].
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. Massie and Khanna want you to see a settled fact — '218' — and an executive branch defying a law Congress already passed nearly unanimously; announcing the count during a recess, when it cannot be tested on the floor, is itself a pressure tactic. Johnson and House GOP leaders want you to see a motive rather than a merit: a gadfly Republican teaming with Democrats weeks before an election, on a problem they say millions of released pages have already addressed. The Justice Department wants the page count to be the story and the redactions to be routine legal caution about grand jury secrecy and victim privacy. Survivors' advocates cut across all three and are the least amplified: they say the government hid what they needed and published what they did not. Watch two things in November — whether the petition actually reaches 218 signatures on paper, and whether anyone who pledged in September withdraws after the vote is behind them.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir case is that a law without teeth is not a law. Congress voted almost unanimously in 2025 to open the files, and the executive branch then decided for itself what 'compliance' meant[9]. Massie says the department made 'illegal redactions' and withheld documents implicating Epstein associates[9]. So the fix is not another resolution — it is a courtroom key handed to people outside the executive branch: state attorneys general, local prosecutors, victims, and Congress itself[3][4]. They also argue the discharge petition is not a stunt but the only tool left. If the Speaker will not schedule a bill, the House rules give a majority of members a way to schedule it themselves[6]. Massie calls leadership's alternative a 'placebo resolution'[10].
WhyMassie has an established brand as a Republican who defies his own leadership, and he has said publicly the Epstein issue is 'really bad for Republicans'[10]. Khanna gains a nationally visible bipartisan transparency win. Both benefit from a fight in which the opposing move is voting against disclosure[13].
Impact on themIf the petition reaches 218 in November, they force a recorded vote that puts every member on record. If commitments slip after the election — and members can withdraw a signature before it ripens[6] — the effort collapses and the announcement looks premature.
Frames it asLeadership's strongest argument is institutional, not about Epstein. The Speaker's control of the floor calendar is what lets a majority govern at all; a discharge petition takes that away and hands the schedule to an ad hoc coalition, usually the minority party plus a handful of defectors[6]. Johnson also argues the substance is already handled: the Justice Department has published millions of pages, and a new lawsuit-enabling bill mostly generates litigation and headlines[7][10]. His political argument is about motive — he has noted Massie did not press this during the Biden years and moved only after Trump's return[10], and he calls the effort 'meaningless'[10].
WhyProtect a narrow majority through a midterm. A floor vote on Epstein records splits Republicans in public and forces vulnerable members to choose between the President and a popular transparency measure[13].
Impact on themThe early recess removed several politically hard votes, including this one and a Massie resolution to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth[12]. But it also delayed rather than killed the petition, and Johnson absorbed the charge that he ran from a vote[13].
Frames it asThe department's position is that it complied, at enormous scale and on the record. It says it published nearly 3.5 million pages, plus thousands of videos and images[7][8]. Its defenders argue that redactions are not defiance: federal law and court orders independently protect grand jury material, ongoing investigations, and above all the identities of victims — and reporting indicates some survivor names and photos were already exposed in releases[9][22]. On that view, a statute inviting state attorneys general and private plaintiffs to sue the U.S. attorney general is a serious constitutional intrusion, letting 50 states and any victim's lawyer second-guess federal disclosure judgments in court. Pam Bondi, who ran the department until April 2026, has defended its handling as an 'unprecedented commitment to transparency'[21].
WhyProtect executive control over its own investigative files, limit discovery into internal deliberations, and avoid a stream of suits in scattered courts[3].
Impact on themThe files issue has already cost the department its attorney general: Trump fired Bondi on April 2, 2026, after criticism over the handling of the records[14]. Her successor, Todd Blanche, oversaw the releases himself, so any finding of non-compliance lands directly on the sitting attorney general[16].
Frames it asSurvivors argue they are the people the 2025 law was written for and the people it has served worst. Their complaint is two-sided, and both sides are concrete: material they want — unredacted FBI interview reports and internal communications — stayed hidden, while material they never wanted public, including names, photos and personal details, was published unredacted[9][22]. The bill's answer speaks directly to both: a right to demand unredacted records for themselves, and standing to sue when the government withholds[3][4]. Survivor advocates said publicly around Blanche's August 2026 confirmation that the department had failed them[16].
WhyObtain records usable in civil suits and in any state prosecution of Epstein associates, and force accountability for the exposure of their own identities[4][16].
Impact on themThey are the only stakeholder whose privacy has already been breached by the process. A November vote that fails leaves them dependent on a department they say has not delivered[16].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.9
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axios | U.S. center | 2 | 'Epstein files vote 2.0 garners enough support: Massie and Khanna' — attributes the count to the sponsors and flags that the House cannot vote until after the midterms. | Uses 'secured commitments' rather than 'signed,' which is the accurate distinction. Light on why leadership objects. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 3 | 'Massie says he's convinced enough Republicans to pass Epstein Files II discharge petition' — attributes the claim, emphasizes Republican defections. | 'Convinced enough Republicans' centers the party-loyalty angle over the records dispute, but the sourcing is transparent. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | Covers the underlying files story — 'US Department of Justice releases 3 million new Epstein files' and 'Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general' — rather than the House petition itself. | Treats the saga as a test of U.S. institutional credibility and of Trump's standing with his base. Straight on facts; the emphasis is on scandal scale, not legislative mechanics. |
| Forbes | U.S. center / business | 3 | 'New Epstein Files Bill Will Go Up For A Vote When House Resumes—Here's What It Would Do' — explainer framing, centered on the bill's provisions. | States the vote as a near-certainty ('will go up for a vote') when the signatures are still commitments and members may withdraw before the petition ripens. |
| NBC News | U.S. center-left | 4 | 'One month after the Epstein files deadline, only a fraction of the DOJ's records have been released' — measures the department against the statutory deadline. | 'Only a fraction' is a judgment on scale. DOJ's own 3.5-million-page compliance claim appears as rebuttal rather than as the frame. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 6 | 'Johnson accuses Massie of political stunt in Epstein transparency battle' — leads with the Speaker's attack, then Massie's response. | Frames the story as a personality fight inside the GOP. The underlying question — whether DOJ withheld records — is largely absent, which spares the administration. |
| MSNBC | U.S. left | 6 | 'Members go around Speaker Johnson again, advance Epstein Files Transparency Act sequel' — casts the petition as a repeat defeat for leadership. | 'Go around... again' and 'sequel' frame procedure as comeuppance. The recess is presented as avoidance, with no account of leadership's floor-control argument. |
References
- Epstein files vote 2.0 garners enough support: Massie and Khanna — Axios · U.S. center, subscription/advertising-funded digital news
- New Epstein Files Bill Will Go Up For A Vote When House Resumes—Here's What It Would Do — Forbes · U.S. center, business-oriented
- Text — H.R.9694, 119th Congress: Epstein Files Transparency Act II — Congress.gov (Library of Congress) · U.S. government primary source
- Khanna, Massie, Leger Fernández, Merkley, Luján Introduce the "Epstein Files Transparency Act II" — Office of Rep. Ro Khanna · Democratic member of Congress; sponsor's own release
- Massie, Khanna, Leger Fernández, Merkley, Luján Introduce the "Epstein Files Transparency Act II" — Office of Rep. Thomas Massie · Republican member of Congress; sponsor's own release
- Discharge Procedure in the House (R45920) — Congressional Research Service · Nonpartisan research arm of Congress, taxpayer-funded; does not take policy positions
- Department of Justice Publishes 3.5 Million Responsive Pages in Compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act — U.S. Department of Justice · U.S. executive branch; the agency whose compliance is disputed
- DOJ Disclosures — U.S. Department of Justice · U.S. executive branch primary source
- One month after the Epstein files deadline, only a fraction of the DOJ's records have been released — NBC News · U.S. center-left broadcast network news
- Johnson accuses Massie of political stunt in Epstein transparency battle — Fox News · U.S. right, Fox Corporation
- Massie says he's convinced enough Republicans to pass Epstein Files II discharge petition — Washington Examiner · U.S. right, owned by Clarity Media Group (Philip Anschutz)
- House cancels votes, cutting week short before adjourning until after midterms — CBS News · U.S. center broadcast network news
- Members go around Speaker Johnson again, advance Epstein Files Transparency Act sequel — MSNBC · U.S. left, cable opinion-heavy network (MaddowBlog)
- Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general, elevates Todd Blanche — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- US Department of Justice releases 3 million new Epstein files — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Todd Blanche confirmed, and Epstein survivors say DOJ has failed them — The 19th · U.S. nonprofit newsroom focused on gender and policy; progressive-leaning editorial frame
- Post announcing collection of 218 signatures for the Epstein Files Transparency Act II discharge petition — Rep. Thomas Massie (X) · Statement by the bill's Republican co-sponsor
- Epstein Files Transparency Act — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited encyclopedia; used here only for the enactment date and signing
- Congress prepares for another fight over the Epstein files — Deseret News · U.S. center-right, owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Massie seeks signatures to force vote on second Epstein files bill — Spectrum News · U.S. center local broadcast (Charter Communications)
- Bondi defends DOJ's handling of Epstein files — The Washington Times · U.S. right, founded by the Unification Church movement
- Letter from Reps. Raskin, Garcia and Jayapal to Attorney General Bondi on DOJ's Epstein files review, March 19, 2026 — House Judiciary Committee Democrats · Democratic committee staff; partisan primary document
- DOJ omitted communication from Bondi, Patel in Epstein files, watchdog says — Axios · U.S. center digital news
- Massie, Khanna Say They Have Secured 218 Signatures for New Epstein Files Vote — Yahoo News · U.S. aggregator republishing other outlets' political reporting