A bipartisan group of US lawmakers is working to strengthen the Epstein Files Transparency Act as survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse continue to seek answers and access to government records. The new proposal, called the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, aims to address concerns that the original law has not delivered the level of transparency many expected. Supporters say the updated bill would give victims, state officials, and members of Congress stronger legal tools to force the release of records. The original Epstein Files Transparency Act became law on November 19. It required the US Department of Justice to release investigative files related to Jeffrey Epstein within 30 days, with only limited exceptions. However, survivors and transparency advocates have argued that the process has been slow. They say some records remain unavailable and many released documents contain heavy redactions. Critics also claim that some disclosures exposed personal details of survivors while failing to reveal important information about individuals connected to Epstein’s crimes. The proposed Epstein Files Transparency Act II seeks to change that situation. Under the new legislation, state attorneys general, local prosecutors, survivors, and members of Congress would have legal standing to challenge the Department of Justice in court if required records are not released. Supporters say this enforcement mechanism is one of the biggest differences between the original law and the proposed update. The bill would also provide survivors with access to full and unredacted records related to their own cases. This could include records, reports, and transcripts of interviews conducted by federal investigators. In addition, state and local prosecutors would gain access to unredacted files needed for investigations and court proceedings. The proposal also includes access to classified materials when necessary for legal action. Another key section of the bill focuses on accountability. Supporters say federal officials could face existing criminal penalties if they knowingly conceal, destroy, alter, withhold, or misrepresent records covered under the law. Legal experts say the proposal could significantly improve transparency if it becomes law. Attorney Oleg Nekritin said the original legislation provided access to records but faced criticism because many documents were heavily redacted and difficult to review. According to Nekritin, the new proposal would allow state attorneys general to seek unredacted records directly. If federal authorities fail to provide those records, state officials could take legal action. He said the legislation could help states conduct their own investigations and follow new leads if they believe federal authorities have not gone far enough. Nekritin also noted that survivors would benefit from greater access to information about their own cases. He described the proposal as a potential game changer for people seeking more information about Epstein and those connected to him. Despite support from both Republicans and Democrats, the bill still faces major political challenges. Legal scholar Carl Tobias said the biggest question is whether lawmakers can secure enough votes to pass the measure. The legislation would need approval in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Senate, supporters would likely need at least 60 votes to move the bill forward. Even if Congress passes the legislation, another question remains. President Donald Trump would need to decide whether to sign it into law. Several lawmakers backing the proposal have publicly expressed frustration with the pace of document releases. They argue that stronger enforcement is needed to ensure compliance with transparency requirements. Free speech and public records experts have also weighed in. Roy Gutterman said the proposal gives the law more strength by allowing victims and state attorneys general to pursue legal action when records are withheld. He noted that the bill includes detailed definitions and expectations for how records should be shared. At the same time, Gutterman warned that legal authority alone may not eliminate delays. He said agencies could still slow the process if they choose not to act quickly. Advocates for public access to records have welcomed the effort. They view the legislation as a positive step toward greater openness and accountability. Supporters of the bill argue that stronger enforcement is necessary because they believe the current law has not been fully implemented. The Department of Justice has not publicly responded to criticism surrounding the proposed legislation. President Trump has defended his administration’s handling of the Epstein records issue. He has denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein and has pointed to document releases, cooperation with congressional inquiries, and support for investigations as evidence of his commitment to transparency. As debate continues, the future of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II may depend on whether lawmakers can build enough support in Congress and whether the White House is willing to approve the stronger transparency measures.