Talk:Epstein Files Transparency Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Epstein Files Transparency Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Bill is signed into law by the Director of the FBI?

I'm sorry, but since when could the FBI's director sign Congress' bills into law, and I don't see the Senate passing the bill with unanimous approval anywhere, so the infobox needs some edits CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the Senate unanimously passes the Epstein Files Transparency Act sources online have 0 views on YouTube CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After further looking, half say the House passed the bill to the Senate, while the other half say it passed the Senate to the President's desk. No source says the bill has been signed into law, whether by the President or the FBI Director, so the infobox still needs to be updated. CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to refresh the page. That was IP vandalism that was reverted after 4 minutes. --mfb (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb Knew it, I removed it regardless. CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an empty parameter that should become useful later. --mfb (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb Parameter, what even is that? I'll add it back when the time is right CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is created by Template:Infobox U.S. legislation. Templates use parameters. As an example, "passedvote2 = Unanimous consent" means the parameter named "passedvote2" has the value "Unanimous consent". Your edit removed the parameter "enacted by", which had no value, so your change didn't change the appearance of the article in any way. It means people will have to look up how to use that parameter later, once the act has been signed into law (assuming that happens). Your change did nothing but adding work for someone in the future. If parameters are expected to be filled in the future, it's generally a good idea to keep them in the article (empty, if there isn't anything to display yet). I could see the argument that removing this parameter makes IP vandalism a bit harder because the IPs might not be familiar with templates. --mfb (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb Should I add it back ( I can if needed ), also thanks for explaining parameters. CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't yet passed the Senate. Even if it is clear it will. We need to wait until tomorrow. Sources are weird about it but it hasn't happened yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esolo5002 Yes exactly, the Senate unanimously agreed to pass the bill, they did not unanimously pass the bill to the president's desk. CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page should be extended protected, to prevent IP (IP names, non-accounts) vandalism like earlier. CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the website Senate.gov and I don´t find on the website that the Senate voted unanimously on anything. The United States Senate has list on their website for all recent vote and this is clearly not on that list. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjornkarateboy That's what I'm saying, we can't be confusing people with the infobox CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent vote in Senate was yesterday but they were voting on different issue and it was passed with 65 votes. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They voted today. The Senate website is not great [1] Esolo5002 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also lets be clear, The President of the United States has sole power to sign legislation into laws. The president also has sole power to veto legislation but if he does so then both chambers of Congress can override the Veto with two-thirds majority. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjornkarateboy I agree with you, for the FBI did not exist in 1787, so the FBI director most definitely does not have the power to sign or veto Congressional legislation. CharlesNelson1805 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senate.gov

I just checked Senate.gov one more time and I still don't find a single vote on this issue on that website. On the other hand the website mention more recent votes on different issues. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Elon Musk be mentioned here?

I remember he was an important part of the entire event.--Liedward390 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files won't be released

Apparently they aren't releasing all the files today per law. Taking "longer than expected" to remove the victims names. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/19/epstein-documents-release-friday-deadline-00699935 Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Cronkite Epstein.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of redaction

This page should have a picture of some of the redactions. Muaza Husni (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question over Michael Jackson authenticity

It should be noted various people are noticing that the picture of Michael Jackson & Diana Ross are with DR’s own children in NYC after his Apollo Theater performance for a DNC fundraiser alongside President Clinton. From 2002.

The photo has been available since 2002 and has nothing to do with the Epstein files.

~2025-42006-91 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sloppily redacted information be added

Since a lot of the "redacted" information could easily be recovered due to it being done incorectly, should people include that information here, or should it be left out? Not a kitsune (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

But is this still the case in reality? I'm just asking because editors routinely now remove the birth first names of people who have transitioned to a different gender from their Wikipedia articles (the reasoning provided generally being that it would hurt those people's feelings).

~2025-32865-45 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of "I give you permission to kill him" email author

The current version of this article contains this sentence:

An unknown individual, who texted Epstein in June 2014, writing: "I give you permission to kill him. He is apparently with Olga. He lied to you and he lied to me."

However, the name of the individual who sent the email is visible at the top of the June 30, 2014 email (because the redaction does not cover the bottom of the name): it says Susan Hamblin.

~2025-32865-45 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a high quality source can be found with this information, please feel free to share. As of the current moment, I have only seen this claim spread across reddit and X. Ageofultron (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reports suggesting that the Clintons agreed to testify at the last minute are a yellow journalism lie

It is just more typical "-gate" sensationalism nonsense. The Clintons have in fact offered to testify before, only to be rejected by House Oversight Committee chair James Comer.[2]MyGosh789 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]