Today's guest is Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.). He joins Zach Weissmueller to discuss why he coauthored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, what motivated him to put his political career at risk, and why he believes the Justice Department (DOJ) has engaged in a long-running cover-up to protect powerful figures connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

Massie walks through what he saw while reviewing the unredacted files at the DOJ, including disputed redactions, internal FBI documents, and evidence suggesting that senior officials misrepresented whether Epstein had coconspirators. Massie also makes the case for why Attorney General Pam Bondi may be guilty of criminal negligence in her handling of this investigation. The interview explores internal Republican divisions over the case, why Massie has called for the resignation of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and how the Epstein case has reshaped his understanding of power in Washington, D.C. Massie argues that this scandal is larger than Watergate, spans four administrations, and raises a defining moral test for politicians, media figures, and voters alike.

The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, and politicians who are defining the 21st century in terms of individual freedom and autonomy.

0:00—Why Massie is risking his political career over Epstein files

3:53—Discoveries from the unredacted files

8:22—Are DOJ redactions in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act?

12:32—Examining the evidence of an Epstein client list

15:13—Why Howard Lutnick should resign

17:57—The risk in releasing names and guilt by association

21:49—Why the Epstein conspiracy is bigger than Watergate

23:30—The future of the Republican Party

Transcript

This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Zach Weissmueller: Congressman Thomas Massie, thank you for coming on The Reason Interview.

Thomas Massie: Well, great to be on. Thanks for having me.

Let's start by talking about the Epstein files. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you put your political career on the line to get these out with the Epstein Files Transparency Act you co-authored with Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.). You've been under relentless attack from President Donald Trump ever since, and you're facing a serious primary challenge with a lot of financial backing because of it.

Did you expect this might happen? And if so, why did you decide this issue was important enough that it would be worth the cost?

Well, I'm glad you set it up that way because I always find it laughable when people say I'm just doing this for the politics. Look, I am getting the crap beat out of me politically for doing this. But, you know, the most popular politician in my state, who is President Trump—obviously it'd be a whole lot easier politically to get re-elected if I just did what he wanted and ignored the Epstein files and called them a hoax—but I'm not willing to do that.

I've met with the survivors. This is personal to me now. And so it's true that my political career is on the line—my political life—but my own health and well-being could very well be too. I've upset a lot of billionaires who obviously aren't of high moral character and have done some really shady stuff.

What first pulled you into this and made you decide, "This is something I do need to stake my career on"?

I saw Pam Bondi hand out the binders to the influencers, and we found out that was a nothingburger. And then I actually got to meet Pam Bondi in person at the Department of Justice. We went over and had dinner—the Judiciary Committee that I'm on—and my girlfriend at the time, who's now my wife, said I should ask her when Phase Two would come out.

I asked Pam Bondi that, in person, very politely. She basically said, there's nothing but child porn left—nothing, it's disgusting—and nobody would want to see it. And at that point, I realized that the Trump administration had undertaken a cover-up and that they had no intention of releasing these files. Frankly, that's what got my interest up about this.

Later, this summer, Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment in the Rules Committee. Because it's so hard to get a bill to the floor, he tried it as an amendment to an existing bill, and he brought it to the Rules Committee for their permission. And an interesting thing happened: every Democrat voted for the Democrat amendment, but one Republican did as well.

And I thought, wow, if I could get every Democrat on the floor of the House and a smattering of Republicans, I might be able to succeed with the discharge petition—which is one of the hardest ways to pass a bill. You're basically going over the Speaker's head, and you have to convince a majority of Congress that you know better than the Speaker on that given topic.

Three other colleagues on the Republican side—interestingly, all women: Rep. Nancy Mace, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Rep. Lauren Boebert—they are heroes as well. They've all paid a big price for undertaking this. And in some ways, Marjorie's political career ended because of this. But it's more of a symptom than it was the cause, I think.

It's a symptom that MAGA is splitting because Republican members of Congress are continuously being forced to choose between the president's promises and what the president is doing right now in real time. And they're diverging.

Obviously, a lot more material has come out since those binders were trotted out. So that just seems to vindicate the purpose of the bill, and it's also becoming more apparent why people didn't want that material to come out.

You and a handful of other Congress members visited the DOJ building to view the unredacted Epstein files on Monday, and you emerged calling for the unredaction of the names of six men, and those names have since become public.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche tweeted that one of the documents that you were looking at had numerous victim names, and they unredacted Les Wexner's name from the document. This is, of course, the former owner of Victoria's Secret—a well-known funder of Epstein, a client of Epstein, possibly his biggest client.

And Blanche says his name already appears in the file thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing.

What is your response to that? Because he's pointing out that Wexner was long known to be Epstein's biggest client and appears in documents thousands of times. But why was the redaction of his name in that particular instance troubling to you?

Well, you know, that tweet that he did is self-conflicting. I mean, he's admitting that they did cover up Les Wexner's name, and he's uncovering it at the same time. His defense is that "Oh, well, Les Wexner's name appears a thousand times in these documents." Well, guess what? My name appears in them at least a dozen times.

Just because your name appears in the documents doesn't mean that you're a co-conspirator. But the interesting thing about this redaction is it's an actual FBI document that lists the co-conspirators and lists Wexner as a co-conspirator to child sex trafficking. We're not talking about prostitution or just sex trafficking—child sex trafficking.

We all know Wexner had money, and maybe you might say, well, this might have been tax evasion, and they were conspiring to do some business deal in the Virgin Islands or something like that. No, he's a co-conspirator in this document, according to the FBI. So this is significant. It's the most significant appearance of Wexner's name.

And this gets to the point. People say, "Well, Massie, why didn't you run to the floor, why didn't you run and say his name? You had it in your head." Look, this is a game of chess; it's not a game of checkers. Please quit chewing on the checkers.

The goal here is to get that document released that shows that the FBI considered him a co-conspirator. Because this is in direct conflict with Kash Patel's testimony to me personally in the Judiciary Committee and to Sen. Kennedy in the Senate, where he said that Epstein trafficked to no one and that they had no evidence of any co-conspirators.

Well, this is the FBI's own document. So the question is: What evidence did you have that led you to believe he was a co-conspirator? Why was that not in this document, Tom? And what was the decision like when you decided not to pursue Wexner?

Because the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the DOJ to publish publicly all internal memos, emails, notes—everything about decisions to prosecute or not prosecute.

OK, so that's what you're hoping to get now—what was the decision-making process that led to him being listed as a co-conspirator in a child sex trafficking case? Because, you know, you could make the argument that he was never actually charged as a coconspirator. So is there some reason to disbelieve that the ...