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.