As President Trump battles intensifying scrutiny over his alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein, Senate Democrats are turning to a little-known legal tool in a bid to force transparency—and potentially expose explosive new details.
According to The New York Times, seven Democratic members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have invoked an obscure provision known as the “rule of five,” demanding that the Department of Justice turn over all records related to Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking investigation. The request includes documents, audio and video recordings, and other sensitive materials held by the DOJ and FBI.
The statute behind the move dates back nearly a century. Passed in 1928 in the wake of the Teapot Dome corruption scandal, the law mandates that if five members of a congressional oversight committee request information within its jurisdiction, federal agencies must comply. Though rarely used, the provision was explicitly designed to give minority members of Congress access to critical information—an urgent need now, as Republican leadership in both chambers shields the president from scrutiny.
House Republicans recently blocked a vote that would have compelled the release of Epstein-related materials. While some GOP lawmakers have shown tepid interest in greater transparency, few expect any serious internal pushback—especially if President Trump orders them to fall in line.
The Democrats’ move marks an escalation in their effort to pierce that wall of obstruction. If the DOJ refuses to hand over the requested documents, legal experts say Democrats could sue.
“The Justice Department has to comply,” said Norman Ornstein, a longtime congressional scholar. “If they don’t, Senate Democrats should sue the attorney general and DOJ for violating the law.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer appeared to signal that such a lawsuit is on the table, saying Wednesday: “This is the law. It can and will be challenged in court if necessary.”
The courts have previously entertained this legal approach. In 2017, House Democrats used the same law in an effort to obtain documents related to the Trump International Hotel in Washington. A federal appeals court ruled they had legal standing to sue, and the Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case—though the litigation was dropped after the Trump administration eventually released the records.
Legal scholars say that precedent could benefit Democrats now. Georgetown professor David Vladeck, who was involved in the previous lawsuit, believes courts are likely to rule in Democrats’ favor again. “The ground has already been tilled,” Vladeck said. “This case—or one like it—will likely end up at the Supreme Court.”
That outcome remains far from certain. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has so far been reluctant to intervene in Trump-related transparency cases. But Democrats believe even a prolonged legal battle serves their purpose by keeping public attention focused on what the White House—and the courts—are choosing not to reveal.
“The courts can play games here,” said Ornstein, “but if they do, they’re basically saying they don’t care about the law.”
The broader political stakes are enormous. Despite campaigning on a promise of transparency, President Trump—backed by Republican majorities in Congress—continues to resist efforts to disclose the full extent of Epstein’s connections to powerful figures. Among the unanswered questions: What, if any, role Trump himself may have played in the alleged criminal network Epstein ran for decades.
As legal scholar Sarah Binder points out, the key question is whether a group of senators (as opposed to the full chamber) has standing to sue under the 1928 law. But if courts rule that they do, the Biden-era precedent could open the door to a new wave of congressional oversight—something Democrats argue is desperately needed amid what they call a growing culture of impunity.
“This isn’t just about the Epstein files,” said one senior Democratic aide. “It’s about whether we still have any mechanisms left to hold the executive branch accountable—especially when Congress won’t.”
