The U.S. House of Representatives is preparing for a crucial vote on the Epstein Archives Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), a bill that would oblige the full public disclosure of government documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. If passed, this legislation specifically requires the Attorney General to disclose all unclassified files from the Department of Justice’s investigation.
The vote, scheduled for next week, represents a significant political development, creating an unusual alliance between progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans who joined forces to bypass their own leadership. This cross-party effort reflects an overwhelming public demand for transparency, with recent polls showing that 77% of Americans support the release of the complete Epstein files with the victims’ names redacted.
The main Republican supporters of the initiative are Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and Nancy Mace (R-SC). They joined all House Democrats in signing the discharge petition for H.R. 4405 that forced the upcoming House vote. But beyond the initial support, ABC News claims in a recent report that about 100 Republicans in the House could vote in favor of declassifying all “records.”
“Hurricane Epstein” a political and media cyclone, threatens to once and for all lay bare the true essence of Donald Trump. This scandal, fueled by decades of secrets and shady connections, arrives at the worst possible time for the US president. Just as he was trying to resume government funding after the longest shutdown in its history and was preparing to celebrate his supposed triumph, the ghost of his “friend” reappears.
The core of this storm consists of tangible evidence of the relationship between Trump and the now-deceased magnate. A 2003 Epstein birthday guestbook has emerged as a central piece of evidence. In it, an alleged note from Trump contains an imaginary dialogue between the two, riddled with insinuations and double meanings, framed within the outline of a naked female torso.
Trump’s initial strategy was to categorically deny the note’s existence, to the point of filing a defamation lawsuit. However, once it was published, it was no longer possible to maintain the denial. His spokespeople were forced to recalibrate the defense, stating that “the president did not write this letter nor did he sign it.” Thus, in a book full of messages for Epstein, Trump stands out as the only one denying the authenticity of his own contribution.
But the Jeffrey Epstein scandal is neither new nor simple, and, for a change, its origins are linked to a relevant political figure from Florida’s Cuban-American right: Alexander Acosta. As a federal prosecutor in Florida in 2008, Acosta—who later became the first Hispanic nominated to Trump’s first cabinet as Secretary of Labor—was the architect of the controversial plea deal with Epstein.
Alexander Acosta allowed Jeffrey Epstein to avoid serious federal charges for child sex trafficking by negotiating a deal for minor state offenses. Epstein served only 13 months in a work-release program, and the agreement granted immunity to his potential accomplices. The process was criticized for its opacity. Acosta met privately with one of Epstein’s lawyers during the negotiations, and the deal was handled in secret, without notifying the victims, violating their rights.
His political support network was solid, with key ties in Florida’s Cuban-American community. Senator Marco Rubio, with whom he shared a Republican power structure, fervently supported his nomination to Trump’s cabinet, calling it a “phenomenal selection.” Acosta ultimately resigned in July 2019, shortly after Epstein was indicted on new charges, forever linking the Trump administration to the initial cover-up of the case.
Trump cannot argue that he did not know Epstein. The photographs, the parties at Mar-a-Lago, and the mutual praise over more than fifteen years constitute an indelible public record. His strategy has been one of “distancing over a theft of employees,” a narrative that seems conveniently opportune.
In the court of public opinion, the persistent question is: did Trump break with Epstein over morality or because his friend’s behavior had become a risk to his image and ambitions? Epstein himself, in interviews with journalist Michael Wolff, went so far as to suggest that Trump had cooperated with the federal investigation against him, a claim that even House Speaker, Republican Mike Johnson, briefly repeated before retracting it. This lingering doubt makes the terrain of “MAGALand” very vulnerable to accusations.
The Trump administration has faced constant pressure for some time, especially from its own base, to release all government documents related to Epstein. In a dramatic turn, Attorney General Pam Bondi, who for months had promised major revelations, had to admit via a Department of Justice memorandum that the much-mentioned Epstein “client list” did not exist.
The memorandum not only denied the existence of such a list but also claimed to have found no “credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals” and found no basis for an investigation into unindicted third parties. This announcement, intended to close the case, further enraged Trump’s followers, who felt they had been sold a promise of transparency that was never fulfilled.
Another little-discussed topic could make headlines again. The circumstances surrounding the death of the convicted financier and sex offender in August 2019 are widely considered deeply suspicious, transforming his death from a prison suicide into a permanent global conspiracy theory and a symbol of institutional failure.
As a man who possessed incriminating information about a network of powerful and wealthy associates, his death in federal custody ensured that many of his secrets—and potentially those of others—would never be revealed in a courtroom. This act of definitive silence, occurring under the watch of the United States government, has led many to conclude that his death was too convenient to be a mere coincidence, fueling intense public speculation and persistent doubts about the official narrative.
Suspicion stems from a cascade of extraordinary failures and coincidences at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) the night of his death. Epstein was supposed to be under heightened watch, having previously been placed on suicide watch after an incident, but was inexplicably removed from that strict monitoring. The two guards assigned to check on him every 30 minutes allegedly did not do so for hours, and later admitted they fell asleep and falsified the logs. To top it off, his cellmate had been transferred without being replaced, and the surveillance cameras in the hallway outside his cell failed, leaving no definitive record. Furthermore, a contradictory autopsy report from a renowned pathologist hired by Epstein’s family indicated injuries more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging, directly challenging the official medical examiner’s ruling.
The Department of Justice investigation attributed the death to “flagrant” negligence and a “perfect storm” of security failures, but this conclusion has done little to quell public skepticism. For many, the idea that every security measure failed simultaneously on the very night a man capable of implicating powerful elites in heinous crimes died stretches the bounds of credibility.
All of this makes it clear that the Epstein Hurricane is different. It is not a scandal that can be easily discredited by painting it as a partisan “witch hunt.” The high-profile case involves real victims, heinous crimes, and a power network that transcends political affiliations. For “MAGALand,” a community built on unwavering loyalty and cultural war, this hurricane represents an existential threat: that its leader be associated not with a political rival, but with depravity itself.
The question is not whether the hurricane will make landfall—it already is. The question is whether “MAGALand,” built in part on the idea of a “strongman” and unblemished, adhering to the most conservative concepts of the American family, has the moral foundations to withstand the onslaught. History suggests that when the storm is of this magnitude, not even the highest walls can contain the force of the truth.
(Guillermo Suárez Borges, Researcher at the International Center for International Policy -CIPI-)
