Kathrine Frich
Lawmakers in the United States have taken a major step toward releasing the long-awaited Epstein Files, sparking fresh debate over what the documents may contain.
The developments prompted renewed scrutiny of the late financier’s ties to high-profile figures in politics, business and royalty.
A rare bipartisan push
On Tuesday, Congress passed legislation with near-unanimous support requiring the Justice Department to publish the full set of documents.
The House of Representatives voted 427–1, wiping away months of political infighting.
Shortly after, the Senate signalled that it would approve the measure unanimously, sending the bill directly to President Donald Trump.
The move marked a dramatic reversal after Trump attempted to block the vote and criticised Republicans backing the release.
His sudden change of position has fuelled speculation about what might emerge and why he initially resisted.
1 Revisiting Epstein’s ties to Andrew
Among the most scrutinised relationships is Epstein’s long association with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
The Duke has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, but unsealed documents last week indicated Epstein had been urged to distance himself from Andrew and Sarah Ferguson to improve his public image after his 2008 conviction.
The materials also described Andrew telling Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell:
“I can’t take any more of this,” referring to allegations made by the late Virginia Giuffre. Any new disclosures may provide further detail about their interactions.
2. Questions surrounding Trump’s objections
Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise to release the files in full, drawing support from voters who believed they would reveal powerful networks surrounding Epstein.
But once in office, he not only failed to disclose the documents but clashed with members of his own party pushing the issue.
His low approval ratings in recent weeks have been partly attributed to his handling of the files, raising further questions about his earlier reluctance.
3. Epstein’s network and possible accomplices
While Maxwell’s role is well documented, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for trafficking minors, uncertainties remain over whether Epstein acted with others.
His lifestyle, frequent travel and access to influential circles have led observers to expect further revelations about additional enablers.
The unreleased files could clarify whether prosecutors identified other individuals involved in his activities between the 1990s and early 2000s.
4. Allegations of blackmail
For years, rumours circulated about whether Epstein collected compromising information on associates.
Publicly available documents have not confirmed the existence of any so-called “client list” or direct blackmail attempts.
If such materials exist, they have not yet appeared in court filings.
The upcoming releases may shed light on whether any leverage was used and who might have been targeted.
5. Possible links abroad
Speculation about foreign involvement surfaced after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene questioned whether Epstein might have worked with another government.
She told CNN: “I think the right question to ask is, ‘was Jeffrey Epstein working for Israel?’”
Her comments referred to Epstein’s communications with former Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak.
No evidence published to date confirms that Epstein operated for any foreign intelligence service.
6. Oversight failures and unnamed figures
Another lingering question is why Epstein avoided serious consequences for so long.
Advocates for the file’s release argue that the documents could provide insight into earlier decisions by authorities.
Representative Thomas Massie has pushed for transparency, noting that other prominent figures might face scrutiny.
He said: “There’s becoming a reckoning in Britain that needs to happen in the United States: a prince lost his title, the ambassador to the United States lost his job. We need to see those same kind of consequences here.”
What happens next
The release is expected to disclose additional names tied to Epstein through correspondence, travel records or investigations.
Lawmakers say the process is essential for public trust and for providing answers long withheld from victims.
“As my colleague Ro [Khanna] said, there shouldn’t be buildings named after these perpetrators of these heinous crimes, there shouldn’t be scholarships named after them, and there needs to be accounting,” Massie added.
