Nancy Mace is sharpening her attack on how the government has handled the Jeffrey Epstein records, arguing that the most explosive material is still hidden to shield powerful people around the world. After viewing portions of the files herself, she says the remaining secrecy protects global leaders and other elites rather than victims or national security.
Her public push has shifted from broad outrage to specific demands, including subpoenas, new document requests, and warnings about government monitoring of lawmakers who try to read the files. The fight has turned the sealed Epstein material into a test of how far Congress is willing to go when it believes the executive branch is guarding the reputations of the well connected.
Mace’s warning about “global leaders” and hidden files
Mace has framed the remaining sealed Epstein records as a shield for the most influential people tied to the case. After reviewing unredacted material, she has argued that the government is still holding back files that would expose “powerful global leaders” and other high profile figures, and that this protection is happening at the expense of survivors and ordinary Americans. On her own site, under the banner “Rep. Nancy Mace Stands With Epstein Survivors, Demands Full Release of Unredacted Files,” she describes standing with victims while accusing federal authorities of keeping the most sensitive names and details out of public view in order to protect the powerful, not the vulnerable, in the Epstein saga, a claim she links directly to the continuing secrecy around the remaining sealed records.
Her argument rests on a simple contrast: the government found a way to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein and secure plea deals, yet, she says, it has not fully exposed the network of people who enabled or benefited from him. In her account of reading the records, she describes seeing enough in the unredacted files to convince her that the public has not been told the full story of who was involved, and she presents the still sealed material as the place where the most politically sensitive information is likely to sit. That framing runs through her public statement on the files, where she calls for a “full release of unredacted files” and suggests that only complete disclosure can end what she portrays as a two tiered system that shields the global elite while survivors wait for full accountability.
This week we're reading the "unredacted" Epstein files.
— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) February 11, 2026
Except many documents are STILL redacted. Co-conspirators. Internal DOJ memos. Decades of information – hidden.
Not on my watch. pic.twitter.com/40beSDay3m
A “list of names” and a plan for subpoenas
After her first supervised visit with the files in Washington, Mace emerged saying she had a “list of names” she wants to call before Congress. She described reviewing material at a satellite office in Washington, D.C., where several lawmakers have been allowed to see parts of the records under close watch, and said that experience shaped her thinking about who should be questioned under oath. According to her account, the people on that list include both government officials and private figures whose roles in the Epstein story, in her view, have not been fully examined. By linking her subpoena plans to what she saw in the unredacted files, she is signaling that she believes the evidence already exists inside government archives, even if the public has not yet seen it.
She has also used that access to argue that survivors deserve to watch those names answer questions in a public setting. In her description of the files, she says the records contain details that point toward enablers and facilitators who have not been held to account, and she casts subpoenas as the next step after document review. Her statement that she has a “list of names” ready to subpoena, coming directly after her supervised viewing in Washington, is meant to show that her push is based on specific information rather than rumor. It also raises the stakes for the Justice Department, which controls access to the files she is now using as the basis for a potential witness list.
Inside the secure reading room and the tracking controversy
Mace has described the process for viewing the Epstein files as both restrictive and closely monitored. Lawmakers, she says, must travel to a satellite office in Washington, D.C., where they review the documents under strict supervision and are not allowed to remove copies. She has said that during these visits, the Justice Department keeps a detailed record of what each lawmaker searches for, opens, and reads. Based on how she confirmed this, she has claimed there are timestamps associated with this tracking, which would allow officials to reconstruct a member’s path through the database and see exactly which names or topics drew attention.
The tracking claim has triggered a wider clash between Congress and the Justice Department. Lawmakers across the political spectrum have raised alarms about separation of powers after learning that their research into the Epstein files might be logged in this way. Jayapal, for example, has called the practice “totally inappropriate and against the separations of powers for the [justice department] to surveil us,” arguing that such monitoring chills oversight and intrudes on the independence of the legislative branch. Mace has echoed that concern, saying that if the executive branch is watching which Epstein records members of Congress read, it raises questions about whether those in charge of the files are more focused on protecting themselves and their allies than on helping Americans understand the full scope of the case.
Pressure campaign on the Justice Department and intelligence agencies
After her initial review of the files, Mace has escalated her demands on the Justice Department. She has returned to press officials for more action, arguing that the department has not done enough to pursue leads in the unredacted material. In one appearance in CHARLESTON, S.C., she said the move to view the files was “one that every member of Congress should make,” and she accused federal authorities of perpetuating a system that treats powerful individuals differently from ordinary Americans. She has framed her pressure campaign as an effort to force the department to reopen or expand investigations where the files suggest there may be unpursued evidence, and she has tied that effort to her broader claim that the government is still protecting influential people connected to Epstein.
Mace has also signaled that her scrutiny will not stop with the Justice Department. In an interview, she said, “You’re going to see a letter from me to the CIA asking for Epstein documents. You’re going to see me request more information from” other parts of the federal government, making clear that she believes intelligence agencies may also hold key records. By promising to seek Epstein related documents from the CIA and to keep pressing the Justice Department for more action after viewing unredacted files, she is expanding the fight from a dispute over court records into a broader challenge to how multiple agencies handled Epstein and his network. That strategy is meant to show Americans that she is willing to confront not just prosecutors but the intelligence community if she believes they are withholding information that could reveal how far Epstein’s connections reached.
Framing the fight as justice for survivors and ordinary Americans
Mace has repeatedly cast her campaign around the Epstein files as a stand for survivors and for Americans who believe the justice system favors the wealthy. In her public statement titled “Rep. Nancy Mace Stands With Epstein Survivors, Demands Full Release of Unredacted Files,” she describes standing alongside victims and calling for every remaining record to be made public “in very short order.” She argues that Epstein’s survivors have waited long enough for a full accounting of who enabled his crimes, and she links that demand to a broader frustration among Americans who see one standard of justice for the well connected and another for everyone else. By tying her push for transparency to the experiences of survivors, she is trying to shift the focus from salacious details to accountability for those who suffered abuse.