Massie and Khanna Say They Have the 218 Votes Needed to Force Another Epstein Files Showdown

The bipartisan lawmakers say they have secured enough commitments to force a House vote on additional Epstein disclosures, but the petition cannot formally reach 218 until Congress returns from its pre-election recess.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2026 — Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna say they have secured commitments from 218 House members to force another congressional vote involving government records connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

The announcement marks a major breakthrough for the unlikely Republican-Democratic partnership, which successfully used the same parliamentary strategy during last year’s fight over disclosure of Epstein-related Justice Department records.

Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Khanna, a California Democrat, are promoting what they call the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, intended to strengthen disclosure requirements established under legislation Congress passed last year.

Khanna announced Thursday that the lawmakers had commitments totaling the crucial 218-member majority, including support from every House Democrat and four Republican members.

Those Republicans are Massie himself, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, according to statements from Massie and the lawmakers involved.

But there is an important procedural qualification: 218 members have not yet physically signed the current discharge petition, despite social-media graphics and headlines saying the threshold has already been reached.

Khanna said two Democratic lawmakers were sick when the House left Washington and therefore had not added their signatures before Speaker Mike Johnson sent lawmakers home for the extended recess.

The two lawmakers are expected to sign when the House reconvenes after the November midterm elections, which Massie and Khanna say would formally bring their petition to the required 218 signatures.

That distinction explains the difference between the viral graphic and the congressional record: Massie and Khanna say they have 218 commitments, while the formal petition remains short until the missing signatures are recorded.

House rules make 218 especially important because a discharge petition allows a majority of representatives to circumvent leadership and bring stalled legislation toward the House floor.

The procedure has particular significance here because Massie has openly accused Speaker Johnson and Republican leadership of attempting to delay another Epstein vote by shortening the House’s September schedule.

Johnson recessed the House earlier than originally planned this week, sending lawmakers home until after the November elections and delaying several unresolved measures.

Massie responded angrily, arguing that the shortened schedule prevented immediate action not only on Epstein-related legislation but also on his separate effort involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The speaker has rejected Massie’s broader accusations about his leadership while defending the Republican-controlled House’s legislative record during the current Congress.

The latest Epstein fight represents a sequel to an extraordinary confrontation that unfolded in 2025, when Massie and Khanna assembled another bipartisan coalition demanding additional disclosure.

Their first discharge petition formally reached 218 signatures on November 12, 2025, when Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva supplied the decisive signature, according to the official House Clerk record.

That petition ultimately succeeded in forcing the issue onto the House floor, where lawmakers overwhelmingly approved Epstein disclosure legislation by 427–1 on November 18.

The current dispute centers on what Massie and Khanna say happened afterward: they contend the Justice Department has still failed to release substantial amounts of material required under the original transparency law.

Massie has said he believes more than three million files remain withheld while other publicly released records contain redactions he considers excessive or inconsistent with congressional requirements.

The Justice Department has maintained that disclosure must account for legal restrictions and protections involving victims, sensitive investigative material and other records that cannot simply be published without review.

The proposed Transparency Act II seeks to expand mechanisms for challenging those decisions rather than merely repeating last year’s instruction to release records.

Among other provisions, Massie and Khanna want Epstein survivors to receive greater access to unredacted versions of records mentioning them, according to reporting on the proposed legislation.

The proposal would also give state attorneys general additional opportunities to pursue information relevant to possible investigations within their jurisdictions, an issue particularly important to supporters seeking state-level accountability.

Mace has pointed specifically to New Mexico, where Epstein owned a ranch and where survivors have alleged abuse occurred, while arguing state investigators should have access to relevant federal records.

Massie has meanwhile taken his transparency campaign directly onto the House floor, recently reading the names of 14 people he described as Epstein associates or potential co-conspirators requiring further investigation.

That action requires an important qualification: appearing in Epstein-related records does not establish criminal wrongdoing, and several people named in the broader document archive have never been charged with Epstein-related crimes.

The files contain many different types of records, meaning names can appear through social contacts, correspondence, testimony, investigative leads or other connections that do not independently demonstrate participation in Epstein’s crimes.

The current petition therefore concerns access to government information and potential investigations; it does not constitute a congressional finding that every individual appearing within the records committed an offense.

Massie and Khanna have characterized their campaign as bipartisan, arguing that accountability surrounding Epstein should apply regardless of whether individuals connected to the records are Republicans, Democrats, business executives or other prominent figures.

The latest Republican support is especially significant because Massie calculated that he needed several members of his own party if Democrats remained united behind the new petition.

Fitzpatrick’s commitment supplied the additional Republican support Massie needed, according to the lawmakers, allowing them to claim a future 218-member majority once the remaining Democrats formally sign.

Yet the timing means nothing will happen immediately. The House has left Washington and is not scheduled to resume regular legislative business until after voters cast ballots in November.

That means the anticipated final signatures, formal discharge process and any resulting floor action are expected during the lame-duck period rather than before the midterm elections.

Massie himself will be serving his final months in Congress after losing his Republican primary earlier this year to a Trump-backed challenger, adding another layer to his confrontation with party leadership.

For now, the headline requires one small but significant correction: Massie and Khanna have announced commitments sufficient for 218 signatures; the formal House petition has not yet recorded all 218.

If those promised signatures appear when lawmakers return, the pair will have recreated the bipartisan majority that allowed them to circumvent congressional leadership during the first Epstein disclosure fight.

What happens afterward will depend on the House’s parliamentary schedule, the precise legislation ultimately considered and whether the Senate and president act on anything approved by representatives.