Why Wait for Congress to Release the Epstein Files? Why Not Just Do It Now?

In one of the most chaotic press moments of the year, a reporter posed a question that has been echoing through political circles for months: Why wait for Congress to release the Epstein files? Why not just release them now? What followed was a tense, unusually personal rebuke from Donald Trump, who bristled at the tone of the question, calling the journalist “a terrible reporter” and accusing her of disrespect. It was a snapshot of a broader national moment—one shaped by long-simmering tension, political maneuvering, and the explosive weight of the Epstein case.

Hours later, Capitol Hill erupted with a development many believed would never come. After years of delays, congressional stalling, and political finger-pointing, both the House and the Senate unexpectedly moved the Epstein bill forward, clearing one of the final obstacles to making the files public. The House passed the measure with overwhelming bipartisan support, a staggering 427–1 vote. The lone “no” vote, Representative Clay Higgins, defended his position as a matter of “principle,” stirring immediate backlash.

Then came the true shocker: the Senate passed the entire bill by unanimous consent. No objections. No speeches to block it. No procedural sabotage. In a chamber known for gridlock, this was unheard of. Even longtime observers looked stunned as Senator Chuck Schumer read the bill aloud and, hearing no objections, declared it passed.

But despite the overwhelming momentum, the process is not finished. Before anything reaches the President’s desk, the House Speaker must formally transmit the bill to the Senate. That task falls to Speaker Mike Johnson—dubbed “MAGA Mike” by critics—who has spent weeks signaling discomfort with the bill, publicly raising concerns and quietly floating the idea of amendments that could have stalled or reshaped it. Whether he will follow procedure without delay remains one of the biggest unanswered questions.

The political backdrop surrounding the bill has been white-hot. Commentators across the spectrum have warned that the Epstein files—containing names, testimony, and sealed records—could implicate powerful figures from multiple administrations, industries, and political parties. That speculation has fueled everything from conspiracy theories to demands for transparency. For many Americans, bipartisan support for releasing the files reflects a rare moment of alignment: if there is wrongdoing, the public deserves to know.

Yet fears persist that loopholes could allow selective releases, heavy redaction, or continued secrecy under the banner of “national security.” Even some lawmakers who support the bill warn that the Department of Justice could still restrict certain materials, citing ongoing investigations or privacy protections. In other words, even with near-unanimous legislative approval, full transparency is not guaranteed.

Adding to the political firestorm is the long-running feud between Donald Trump and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. The resurfaced reports of Trump allegedly pressuring network executives to rein in Kimmel’s humor have intensified online debates about presidential power, media freedom, and thin-skinned leadership. Critics argue that Trump’s hostility toward journalists and comedians reflects a broader pattern—an instinct to control narratives rather than confront them. His reaction at the press conference did little to quiet that argument.

Meanwhile, Kimmel’s commentary continues to fuel the cultural conversation. Whether playful or biting, his monologues tap into public frustration, amplifying the sense that powerful individuals—across the political spectrum—have long escaped accountability. In that context, the Epstein files represent something larger: a test of institutional integrity.

So where does the process stand now? With both chambers having approved the bill, the next move belongs to Speaker Johnson. Once he sends it back to the Senate, the bill is automatically deemed approved under the unanimous consent procedure and will land on the President’s desk. Trump has publicly signaled he will sign it—but as critics quickly point out, his positions can change abruptly.

For now, the country waits. Supporters of transparency are pushing for immediate release. Lawmakers warn of procedural fine print. And the public, exhausted by years of speculation and secrecy, wants answers.

One thing is clear: the Epstein files have become more than documents—they’re a test of whether the government is willing to confront the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.