Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Allows state attorneys general to enforce the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The problem
Current law may limit enforcement of the Epstein Files Transparency Act to federal authorities only, potentially reducing oversight and public access to records.
The proposal
Amends the Epstein Files Transparency Act to permit state attorneys general to enforce its provisions alongside or instead of federal enforcement.
The impact
State law enforcement officials gain enforcement power; the public may have better access to records; federal oversight may be shared with states.
State attorneys general add enforcement capacity beyond federal resources. This can lead to faster investigations and stronger accountability for compliance.
States can enforce transparency laws within their borders. Citizens may benefit from closer attention to local compliance and record access.
Multiple enforcement authorities may expedite the release of records. State attorneys general may pursue cases more quickly than federal agencies alone.
Federal and state coordination can strengthen overall enforcement. This creates redundancy to ensure the transparency law's intent is met.
Different state attorneys general may enforce the law differently. This could create confusion and uneven access to records across states.
Overlapping federal and state authority may lead to conflicting interpretations or actions. Coordination problems could slow or complicate enforcement.
State attorneys general may lack resources to effectively enforce complex transparency laws. This could strain state budgets without federal funding support.
State-level enforcement may become politicized based on state politics. Partisan differences could affect how fairly the law is applied.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.