In recent weeks, Congress has witnessed a fraught political battle over the release of internal Department of Justice and FBI documents pertaining to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The controversy has exposed deep partisan rifts as key votes in both chambers determined whether records, formerly covered by secrecy, would be made public or remain under tight control. The push for broader disclosure has been driven in part by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who jointly introduced a discharge petition to force a floor vote compelling the DOJ to release all unclassified Epstein documents. They argued that the public has a right to understand the full scope of Epstein’s financial transactions, government communications involving Epstein, and any investigative files still withheld. House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, pushed back. Johnson labeled the proposal “inartfully drafted,” criticizing it for lacking adequate protections for victims’ identities and for being redundant given the work of the House Oversight Committee. Nonetheless, the committee under GOP leadership moved to issue subpoenas for DOJ records, Epstein’s estate, and other parties. But the internal dynamics in the GOP have not been grand. Some Republicans joined Democrats in backing these efforts. In July, for example, a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee voted 8-2 (including three Republicans) to Epstein-related files from the Justice Department. Still, Speaker Johnson delayed broader floor votes by abruptly recessing the House early, citing the desire to avoid what he termed “Democrat side shows.” On September 10, the Senate held a pivotal vote: a motion to table an amendment (S. Amdt. 3849) that would have directed the Attorney General to make documents about Epstein publicly available. The motion to table passed 51–49, effectively killing the amendment. All Democrats and some Republicans opposed the motion to table (i.e. they wanted the amendment to be considered). On the Republican side, prominent senators including Susan Collins, Dan Sullivan, John Cornyn, and Jon Husted joined in voting to table the amendment, siding against compelling the release. Their votes drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who accused them of siding with secrecy and powerful interests over transparency. From the Democratic side, including those in swing states, the vote was uniformly in favor of forcing disclosure. The narrowness of the roll call underscores just how finely balanced the Senate is on this issue. On the House side, the battle has had facets both overt and procedural. In July, the Rules Committee considered an amendment offered by Rep. Ro Khanna that would affirm Congress’s authority to demand the release of Epstein files and require the DOJ and FBI to report on delays or suppression of evidence. That amendment was defeated in committee, with an 8 to 4 vote. In that committee vote, Nick Langworthy (R-NY) voted “no,” calling the amendment a “political gimmick”. Ralph Norman (R-SC), conversely, was among a small number of Republicans who supported the Khanna amendment, saying “the public’s been asking for it.” Separately, on September 2, the House considered a resolution (the “Epstein Files Transparency Act”) calling for a floor vote on the matter. Langworthy again voted against it, with Norman also opposed. The resolution was seen by proponents as a path to force the House leadership to act, with opponents characterizing it as “procedurally flawed”. With the Senate having rejected, via procedural motion, the push to compel release, all eyes now turn to the House and its ability to sustain pressure for a full floor vote. The Massie-Khanna discharge petition remains active, and proponents hope that further Republican defections will create the leverage to force leadership’s hand. Victims’ groups and press freedom advocates are likely to continue pressing for wider release of files, especially those that might implicate third parties. Legal battles over redactions, grand jury privileges, and privacy protections are expected to follow. The votes in Congress have opened a door, but they have not ensured full transparency. The coming days will test whether institutional inertia or political calculation continues to prevail over pressured public demand for answers.