The United States has moved a step closer to an unprecedented release of federal documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein after Congress approved a bipartisan bill requiring the Department of Justice to disclose long-sealed investigative files, court materials and agency records. The legislation, passed late Tuesday, now heads to President Donald Trump, who must decide whether to sign a law that could expose one of the most politically sensitive archives in modern U.S. history. Lawmakers framed the vote as a long overdue act of transparency, while legal experts warned it could trigger complex court challenges over victim privacy, sealed proceedings and grand jury protections.

Passed by wide margins in both chambers, the bill mirrors recent congressional pushes to declassify records on events of major public concern, from the JFK assassination files to the 9/11 inquiry. Yet the Epstein legislation sits in a category of its own because the files involve not national-security events but a long-running criminal case entangled with wealthy financiers, former presidents, foreign royalty, academics, corporate executives and political donors. For nearly two decades, disclosure battles have played out in courtrooms and through Freedom of Information Act requests, with only a fraction of documents ever released.

After years of deadlock, Congress took the initiative. Lawmakers said their aim is to restore public trust in institutions that failed to fully investigate Epstein’s network and the circumstances that allowed him to evade more serious consequences after his 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida. That agreement, later ruled illegal for violating victims’ rights, has become a symbol of what critics describe as a two-tiered justice system.

“Sunlight in this case is not optional, it is necessary,” one senior senator said during the debate. Members of both parties echoed the sentiment, arguing that transparency is the only way to settle years of speculation and ensure accountability for institutional failures documented in past court decisions and inspector-general findings.

The vote places President Trump at the center of a politically delicate moment. Trump has publicly encouraged the release of Epstein files for months, telling lawmakers he supports full transparency. But presidential backing now carries higher stakes because the bill compels federal agencies to review, redact and publish documents under strict timelines.

The law orders the Department of Justice, FBI, and other agencies to disclose materials “to the maximum extent consistent with victim protection, ongoing investigations and federal law.” That phrasing reflects the fundamental legal tension: while much of the file can be released, grand jury materials cannot be unsealed without a court order, and certain victim-identifying information is protected under statute.

The Justice Department is expected to argue that portions of the records fall under these exemptions. Legal scholars predict months of negotiations between Congress, federal judges and the DOJ on how to structure the release. Still, the bill’s passage signals congressional intent that secrecy should no longer be the default.

Internationally, the move is being closely watched. European officials, anti-corruption advocates and human-rights monitors have repeatedly cited the Epstein case as a troubling example of opacity within a system that champions rule of law abroad. The congressional vote gives Washington a rare chance to counter that narrative by voluntarily opening its files.

Modeled in part on the JFK Records Act, the legislation requires agencies to:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of Epstein-related files.
• Redact only information that clearly falls under legal protection.
• Produce a public database of releasable documents.
• Submit written explanations for each withheld or redacted item.
• Meet periodic disclosure deadlines overseen by an independent review board.

The review board, composed of legal, judicial and transparency experts, will serve as a check on agency claims of exemption. Congress has the authority to subpoena records if it believes agencies are withholding more than necessary.

For victims who have spent years seeking answers, the bill is a potential breakthrough. Advocacy groups welcomed the vote, saying it marks the first time the U.S. government has formally committed to reviewing the entire investigative record. Lawyers representing several survivors emphasized that disclosures must prioritize privacy and avoid exposing details that could retraumatize victims.

If President Trump signs the bill, the administration will preside over one of the largest forced transparency exercises in U.S. criminal-justice history. Supporters argue Trump has little political downside: he has already positioned himself as a champion of releasing the Epstein files, and signing the bill aligns with that message.

But behind the scenes, agencies may warn him that the process could reveal institutional failures by the FBI, the Department of Justice, and federal prosecutors who handled earlier cases. Trump must decide whether full disclosure strengthens his transparency record or risks exposing failures that predate his presidency but remain tied to U.S. institutions.

If he refuses to sign, Congress is nearly certain to gather the votes necessary to override a veto, according to several lawmakers. Such a confrontation would be politically costly for the White House and would contradict Trump’s repeated calls for disclosure.

The Epstein files touch networks that extend far beyond U.S. borders. Foreign governments, financial regulators, intelligence agencies and global media organizations have long sought clarity on what U.S. authorities documented about Epstein’s associates and enablers. Transparency advocates in Europe and Latin America point to the case when criticizing elite impunity, arguing that Western democracies lose credibility when powerful actors appear shielded from scrutiny.

The bill’s passage could also shape future global transparency standards. If the U.S. discloses a substantial portion of the record while protecting victims, it may set a template for how democracies handle sensitive cases involving powerful individuals.

Once signed, the first document releases are expected within months, starting with files that carry no active restrictions. High-level summaries, investigative memos and previously redacted court filings could be among the earliest materials published.

The most sensitive documents, including grand jury evidence or sealed testimony, will depend on judicial review. Courts will assess whether the public interest outweighs the need for continued sealing.

Regardless of the final scope, Congress has signaled the era of indefinite secrecy around the Epstein files is ending.

The world will be watching how much the United States ultimately reveals, and whether this moment becomes a milestone for transparency or another reminder of how complex elite accountability can be.