US House set to vote on Epstein files release
On Friday, President Donald Trump attacked Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene on Truth Social, calling her a “traitor” and saying he no longer supports her. On Sunday, Greene told CNN’s State of the Union that she still backs Mr Trump but will not support efforts to keep unclassified “Epstein files” sealed. BBC News and CNN both reported the exchange over the weekend.
The proposal at the centre of this row is the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Supporters say it would require the US Department of Justice to release all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials linked to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender who died in custody in 2019. The stated aim is more transparency while respecting legal limits on classified material and victim privacy.
A vote in the US House is expected this week. Republican congressman Thomas Massie told ABC News on Sunday that as many as 100 Republicans could support the measure. That number matters because a simple majority is needed for passage before any Senate consideration.
Greene argues the dispute is about openness, telling CNN “it’s all come down to the Epstein files”. She questioned why Mr Trump is pushing to keep records from public view and warned that his language could radicalise people against her, saying such rhetoric puts her safety at risk. This is a good moment for us to notice how heated words from public figures can spill into real life.
Mr Trump’s Truth Social post went well beyond policy, calling Greene “wacky” and a “ranting lunatic” and claiming she “complain[s], complain[s], complain[s]”. The insults follow weeks of tension as Greene pressed for full disclosure from the Justice Department about Epstein-related material.
Mr Trump and Epstein moved in similar social circles in the early 2000s. Mr Trump says they fell out before Epstein’s legal troubles began and he has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Greene told CNN that victims she has spoken to said Mr Trump did nothing illegal; that is her account. He has nonetheless faced bipartisan criticism over how case records have been handled, according to prior reporting across US outlets.
When we talk about “Epstein files” here, we mean unclassified Justice Department materials-records, documents, communications and investigative summaries. If Congress passes the Act, the department would be instructed to make those items public. What the public actually sees will depend on the bill’s final wording and any legal challenges that follow.
Here’s the civics bit we can learn together. A bill is introduced, usually reviewed by a committee, and can be amended after hearings or debate. The House leadership then schedules floor time, and members vote. If it passes, the Senate takes up its own version. Only when both chambers agree on identical text does the bill go to the President to sign or veto. Implementation-in this case, the Justice Department gathering and releasing records-comes after that.
Greene also told CNN she wants to help end toxic political rhetoric that divides families, friends and neighbours. That is a shift in tone. She has previously been criticised for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories and for amplifying violent content online-including liking a post that called for the executions of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, and sharing a photo of herself posing with a gun beside images of three progressive congresswomen.
When CNN’s Dana Bash raised those examples, Greene reiterated her earlier apologies and said forgiveness is central to her Christian faith. Whether voters accept that shift is a political question; for our classroom and newsroom readers, it’s a reminder that accountability and memory are part of media literacy.
A quick media literacy check as we follow this story. Treat social posts-even from presidents and members of Congress-as claims to verify. Primary sources here include Mr Trump’s Truth Social posts, Greene’s interview on CNN and the bill text itself. ABC News’s on-air headcount offers context, but the roll-call vote will provide the definitive record of who supported release.
What to watch next is straightforward. If the House approves the Act, debate will turn to how quickly records must be released, how victims’ identities are protected and how any ongoing investigations are shielded. If the bill stalls, expect talk of committee tactics or subpoenas. Either way, let’s keep our focus on process as much as personality-transparency and responsible speech both serve the public.