Rep. Marjorie Exposes Final Call With 'Extremely Angry' Trump After Signed Release of Epstein Files

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says Trump was 'extremely angry' with her after she pressed for public release of the Epstein files, and their falling-out has exposed deep fissures in the GOP as courts begin to unseal long-secret records.

In a preview of her 60 Minutes interview, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene told correspondent Lesley Stahl that Trump phoned her and was 'extremely angry' after she signed a discharge petition that helped force the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The law, signed by Trump, set a 30-day deadline for the Department of Justice to make public thousands of pages of investigative material relating to Jeffrey Epstein, and the move has since prompted judges to permit the unsealing of grand-jury transcripts.

Greene's Account of the Call and The White House Record

Greene told 60 Minutes that when she raised the release effort with Trump, he told her the measure 'was going to hurt people' and that he was 'furious' she had signed the discharge petition, even though he ultimately signed the bill into law.

Greene framed her position as solidarity with survivors, saying 'they deserve everything they're asking'. The interview preview is hosted by CBS and Paramount, with the full segment aired on Dec. 7, 2025.

The legislative record is unambiguous: H.R.4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, was introduced in July and, after a discharge petition forced floor action, passed the House 427–1 and was transmitted to the Senate, which cleared it by unanimous consent; the bill was enrolled and presented to the president and signed on Nov. 19, 2025.

Greene's public pivot: from a loyal MAGA stalwart to a key Republican signatory on the discharge petition, was politically costly. Mr. Trump's campaign account on Truth Social labelled her a 'traitor' after she refused to withdraw her name; the president subsequently announced he would no longer back her, a rupture that Ms. Greene says helped precipitate her decision to resign from Congress effective January 2026.

Judges Clear Way for Documents to Be Released

Within days of the president signing the bill, Justice Department lawyers moved in several federal courts to unseal grand-jury materials that have for decades been shielded by Rule 6(e) secrecy.

In Florida, US District Judge Rodney Smith granted the government's expedited motion, ruling that the new statute outweighs the general grand-jury secrecy rule and that the Department of Justice may proceed to release transcripts subject to redactions required to protect victims and legitimate ongoing probes. That order is the first concrete judicial authorisation under the new law; similar requests remain pending in New York courts.

The Justice Department's November filings, including an 'Expedited Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts and Modify Protective Order,' set out the government's position that Congress's clear mandate requires the unsealing of unclassified investigatory materials relating to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The filings are part of the public court record and were filed in November as the legislative clock began.

Legal observers warn the releases will be messy: redactions will be extensive, victims' privacy must be protected, and portions can still be withheld if they involve classified information or active foreign-policy concerns. Still, the rulings mark a major shift in public access to material that for years has been the subject of leaks, litigation, and intense political debate.

Survivors, Partisanship and Public Appetite

Greene and a small group of Republicans, notably Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, staged news conferences with survivors to press for disclosure. Video and transcripts of those Capitol Hill events show survivors and their lawyers framing the release as necessary for accountability and historical record; lawmakers repeatedly emphasised that names in logs, lists, or passenger manifests are not proof of criminal conduct but that transparency is required for public trust.

That element has complicated the political calculus. Conservatives who historically defended Trump point to the potential political damage of any implication of wrongdoing; advocates and many Democrats argue the public has a right to know what investigators found. The result has been a rare cross-partisan, if uneven, coalition for disclosure that has upended relationships inside the GOP. Greene's account of a heated call with Mr. Trump is a vivid illustration of those internal tensions.

The Justice Department has signalled it will proceed carefully, promising redactions for victim privacy while meeting the statutory deadline. But courts will continue to shape the contours of disclosure, and the first tranche of unsealed grand-jury transcripts from Florida is likely to be followed by rulings in New York that may be more contested.