In a dramatic and rare moment of bipartisanship, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R‑GA) stood alongside survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse on Capitol Hill and pledged to unmask alleged abusers by reading their names on the House floor—if given a list by survivors. With pressure mounting on federal agencies to release Epstein‑related documents, Greene’s vow marked a controversial escalation in the fight for transparency and justice.

Capitol Pressure: Survivors Call for Transparency

On September 3, 2025, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse held a press conference at the U.S. Capitol, urging lawmakers to force the release of all federal files related to Epstein’s sex trafficking operations. The event was organized by a bipartisan coalition led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D‑CA) and Thomas Massie (R‑KY) to push for the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which aims to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies to disclose the full scope of their files, including client names, agreements, and other documents.

During the news conference, survivors—including Lisa Phillips—confirmed they were compiling their own confidential list of individuals they believe were involved in Epstein’s abuse network. They warned that if the government fails to act, they will expose these names themselves

Greene’s Bold Pledge: “I’ll Say Every Damn Name”

Against this backdrop, Rep. Greene made her most striking declaration yet: “If they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor, and I’ll say every damn name that abused these women,” she stated, expressing readiness to break the silence on behalf of survivors.

Greene emphasized that naming names is terrifying for survivors, who risk retaliation, lawsuits, or ruin when speaking out—especially given the immense power wielded by some alleged abusers: “These are some of the richest, most powerful people in the world that could sue these women into poverty and homelessness.”

Her promise to act on survivors’ behalf underscores her framing of this as a moral and bipartisan issue—not a partisan game

Legal Immunity: The Speech or Debate Clause

Greene’s willingness to speak names from the House floor is not without legal protection. The Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants legislators immunity from criminal and civil liability for statements made in the course of their legislative duties, including speeches. Legal analysts note that Greens could use that protection to deliver the list without fear of defamation lawsuits.

Political and Institutional Backlash

The move places Greene at odds with both the White House and her own party’s leadership. President Trump, who has previously dismissed the push for Epstein document disclosure as a “Democrat hoax,” continues to downplay the issue.

Meanwhile, the White House has signaled resistance to the Transparency Act. Congressional Republicans—led by Speaker Mike Johnson—have resisted efforts to allow a floor vote on the petition, attempting instead to rein in the process through the House Oversight Committee

Currently, only four House Republicans—Greene, Massie, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace—support the discharge petition necessary to force a vote. The petition needs 218 votes to succeed, and all Democrats are expected to back it, meaning two more Republicans are required to move forward.

Survivors’ Perspectives and the Moral Argument

Survivor voices added emotional weight to the moment. Lisa Phillips, who is leading the formation of a survivor‑compiled list, expressed deep frustration at the government’s lackluster response, saying, “We know the names… we are currently reaching out to survivors too scared to come forward.”

Another survivor warned that naming names is not a hoax—it’s about truth and accountability

In response, Rep. Ro Khanna praised Greene’s courage and framed the push for transparency as unifier rather than divider: “She has shown so much courage on this issue… This country is divided. This is one thing that we can come together on.”

Historical Context: The “Client List” Debate

The debate over an alleged Epstein “client list” has simmered since Epstein’s 2019 death, gaining renewed attention in mid‑2025. A DOJ memo released in July stated there is no credible evidence of a client list or that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals.

Greene and others, however, have rejected that conclusion, citing sealed documents—including Ghislaine Maxwell’s so‑called “little black book,” which purportedly lists nearly 2,000 contacts—that they believe hold the missing names

Epstein’s 2024 unsealed court documents revealed about 170 associates—names that are already public and not necessarily implicated in wrongdoing. This small release did little to satisfy those demanding deeper transparency.

Implications: Politics, Justice, and Precedent

Legal ImplicationsGreene’s use of the Speech or Debate Clause could pave the way for unprecedented naming of alleged perpetrators, challenging legal norms around defamation and legislative privilege.

Political DynamicsHer stance defies party lines. While she is aligned with Trump on many issues, on this matter she is breaking away—aligning with Democrats and survivors in a rare bipartisan push.

Justice for Survivors
For victims, her promise may offer both symbolic and tangible validation. But naming names in Congress could deter survivors from speaking out publicly, even as Greene argues it will amplify their voices.

Historical Precedent
If carried out, this act could become a landmark in congressional history—a bold instance of a lawmaker using floor speech to challenge secrecy around powerful abusers.

Conclusion: A Tense Crossroads

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s announcement to publicly read the names of alleged Epstein accomplices—should survivors supply such a list—marks a volatile crossroads of law, politics, and morality. It shines a harsh spotlight on the tension between secrecy and accountability, institutional protection and survivors’ voices, partisanship and principled action.

Whether Greene ultimately acts on her promise—or whether the Epstein Files Transparency Act gains enough traction to force fuller disclosure—the episode will likely reverberate in American politics and jurisprudence for years to come. One thing remains clear: for survivors, and for any who seek justice, the question of who will be named—and how—is far from settled.