Massie Teases 2028 Presidential Run, Fixates on Epstein Files in NBC Interview
Massie … vowed to read out the redacted names in the Epstein files before he leaves office, and accused acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel of “effectively perjuring themselves.”
Still reeling from his bruising primary defeat last week, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) joined NBC News’ Kristen Welker for an interview on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” Despite losing his seat in Congress, Massie refused to rule out a 2028 bid for the White House, vowed to read out the redacted names in the Epstein files on the House floor before he leaves office, and accused acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel of “effectively perjuring themselves.”
Refusing to acknowledge that his opposition to President Donald Trump’s top agenda priorities had fueled the primary challenge against him, he claimed his “biggest crime” was bipartisanship.
Thomas Massie says his ‘biggest crime’ was bipartisanship after primary loss: Full interview https://t.co/bFFFR9R3ee pic.twitter.com/sQWwVBPPJ0
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) May 24, 2026
[Note: Click here to watch the full interview and here to read the full transcript.]
Noting that the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution protects members of Congress from prosecution for whatever they say on the House floor and that he has “named names in the Epstein files in the past,” Welker asked, “Can we expect you to name more names in the coming weeks and months?”
“Yes,” Massie replied, claiming that “Blanche is violating the law” and that there are “still millions of files they haven’t released.” [Emphasis added.]
We know from talking to the victims’ lawyers that their own 302 forms haven’t been released. We know the files have been over-redacted. I have released at least three names of billionaires who are implicated in this. I don’t think it’s possible to get to convictions with Todd Blanche at the top and with the FBI director Kash Patel at the top, because they’ve effectively both perjured themselves by saying that there’s nobody else in the files.
Even Melania doesn’t believe that. The first lady knows that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t act alone.
And here’s the great thing, Kristen. Whether I’m in Congress or not, the Epstein Files Transparency Act is a law, and it goes on for years. So if we can’t get this attorney general and this FBI director to do the right thing, the next ones who take those seats are obligated by law to release the files that these individuals are not releasing now.
Despite his bluster, you may recall that in February, after reviewing unredacted files at the Justice Department, Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) teamed up to expose the names of six “powerful and wealthy men” whose identities had been redacted in the files. They turned out to be innocent men who had merely appeared in an FBI photo lineup.
But, carry on, congressman.
Do people not remember what happened the last time this smug jerk teamed up with Dem Rep Ro Khanna to demand the DOJ stop 'covering up' the names of 4 'wealthy and powerful' men in the Epstein Files?
Massie knew all along that of the 4 men were innocent, but he was running a… https://t.co/S6eInOlHAu
— Brian Cates – Political Columnist & Pundit (@drawandstrike) May 24, 2026
One widely followed account on X called his bluff. The user emphasized that if Massie truly believes the identities of powerful men are being shielded, why hasn’t he revealed them yet? Why is he protecting them?
He concluded, “Either he’s lying and doesn’t have the names, or he’s lying about reading their names. Either way, he’s a liar.”
For almost a year now, Thomas Massie has claimed he’s going to read the names on the Epstein list on the House floor
That means, according to him, he has some secret names that haven’t been released yet.
Why is Thomas Massie protecting the pedos on the Epstein list and…
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 24, 2026
Welker pointed out that during his Tuesday night concession speech, supporters were chanting, “president, president.” She asked, “Are you considering a run for president in 2028?”
Massie replied:
I will not rule out anything, and right now I’m not going to rule in anything. Look, I’ve spent the last five days on my farm with my grandkids, and my cattle and my peach trees, and it’s a pretty nice life. I don’t know if I want to screw that up again. I’ve been in Congress 14 years, fighting. Every hour that passes, I get decompressed a little bit more. It’s like coming up from the bottom of the ocean. And I’ll take some time and decide what’s next. But I think I will stay engaged in some way or shape. Maybe it’s from the outside. I’ve been exposing what’s going on in Washington, D.C. for years and I’ll keep doing it.
In response, Welker said, “Congressman, I hear you not ruling a potential run for president out. Would you run as a Republican?”
And once again, he teased that he was not ruling out the possibility.
Lo and behold, on Monday morning, Massie announced on X that he had just filed with the Federal Election Commission for participation in the 2028 House race.
He wrote, “This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position as a current office holder and as a potential candidate for federal office.”
Remaining deliberately vague about his plans, he added, “I haven’t made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run.”
Because we’re all waiting with bated breath for his decision. Not.
I filed with FEC for the 2028 House race.
This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position as a current office holder and as a potential candidate for federal office.
I haven’t made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run. pic.twitter.com/heHxDnu31o
— Thomas Massie for Congress (@MassieforKY) May 25, 2026
Leave it to Massie to play the spoiler in the 2028 presidential race just as Ross Perot did in 1992. Running as an independent, Perot captured nearly 19% of the popular vote and is widely believed to have helped elect Bill Clinton.
However, if Massie does ultimately decide to jump into the race, he may not be the only disgruntled Republican to do so.
Rumors of a possible Tucker Carlson-Joe Kent ticket have also been circulating in Washington. Political analyst Rich Baris, who posts on X under the handle @Peoples_Pundit, weighed in on the speculation Sunday night, writing:
So, @Cernovich wasn’t entirely wrong on his assessment re: a @TuckerCarlson/@joekent16jan19 ticket.
Would it win?
No, but neither would the GOP. That’s the larger point. It would be set them back to the Ross Perot Era.
After ≈ 1500 LV interviews, it’s for real.
Stay tuned.
So, @Cernovich wasn't entirely wrong on his assessment re: a @TuckerCarlson/@joekent16jan19
ticket.Would it win?
No, but neither would the GOP. That's the larger point. It would be set them back to the Ross Perot Era.
After ≈ 1500 LV interviews, it's for real.
Stay tuned.
— Rich Baris THE PEOPLE'S PUNDIT (@Peoples_Pundit) May 25, 2026
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
He will probably do better working for DoorDash or Uber, given his strong personality and conversational skills.
Run, Massie, Run!
I love me a good Massie-ker.
Curious that his bedrock principles don’t preclude him from raising money for a campaign that will never happen.
Why should they? None of his potential donors are fixated on that race. None of them will be donating on the basis that he’ll be running in that race. Anyone who gives him money will be doing so to support his political activity no matter what form it ends up taking. The filing is merely a bureaucratic requirement to make the fundraising legal. So where’s the ethical problem?
I didn’t say it was an ethical problem. I suggested that raising money for a campaign that he cannot specify is not the action of a man who claims principled superiority over others.
I’m not following. If there is no ethical problem, then be a man’s principles ever so superior why would he cavil at it?
Principles and ethics are not synonymous, Ethics is a system of moral rules about right and wrong. Principles are foundational truths that guide behavior (whether moral or not).
Reasons Massie thinks he’s ready to run
1. Took off glasses
2. Got contact lenses
3. Grew a beard
4. Kissed up to Democrats
5. Smooth sailing now
THAT you call a beard?!?
It is facial hair. He’s got that much.
So does Rosie O’Donnell
But Massie has his OWN.
He is not releasing names because he either does not have them or because he found out they were innocent people like the first 6 he released.
I’m so tired of these bigoted, narcissistic, psychotic, Jew-hating, dhimmi, GOP fringe clowns. Massie, MTG, Qatarlson, Owens, et al.
These pukes are a cancer, wherever they roam. No wonder the Dhimmi-crats love them.
Massie is now the leader of the Liz Cheney wing of the Democrat Party.
Congratulations!!
He hasn’t figured out yet that the only grift he qualifies for now is the regular “republican” that attacks actual Republicans on CNN or MS-whatever it is now.
Massie is as popular as an STD!
Massie or Tucker wouldny]t pulls 19 percent of the vote. COMBINED they wouldn’t pulls 2% of the vote.
I think you underestimate the strength of the “none of the above” vote.
his ‘biggest crime’ was bipartisanship
Well, bipartisanship with someone who wants to destroy our free republic is not really what you were elected for. Some might even call it treason to your constituents.
He gets press because he’s useful, once. Like a condom.
He must be planning on running with the demoncrats of mental illness. He shot his wad with Republicans.
Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, chairman and ranking member of the House Special Subcommittee on Useless Distractions
And this is why we need to switch to preferential voting, so that can’t happen unless the majority of voters actually want it to.
We don’t actually know whether Perot’s candidacy elected Clinton. We don’t know how many of Perot’s voters would otherwise have voted for Clinton, because no one ever asked them. Preferential voting simply consists of asking people who vote for minor candidates how they would vote if their first choice were not available.
Of course we don’t know about the Perot effect. But, I voted for Perot as did a number of people I knew. I can’t imagine any of them voting for Clinton. Bush lost to Perot and his own lackluster performance. Not to Clinton.
Your experience is not representative; you lived in a bubble. There can be no doubt that many people who voted for Perot did prefer Clinton over Bush. The only question is how many. And we can’t answer that accurately, because no one asked them. You and all of them should have been asked, and if it turned out that a majority preferred Bush to Clinton then he should have been elected.
Democrats will Democrat—
And this is why we need to switch to preferential voting,
disgusting.
“Every hour that passes, I get decompressed a little bit more. It’s like coming up from the bottom of the ocean.”
Would it be wrong to hope he gets the bends? Figuratively, of course.
God forbid those nozzles who have been voted out of office actually do their job and represent their constituents, I’m so tired of their BS!
This is what, the 20th time he’s threatened this?
It just blows my brain apart that people STILL believe this grifting con man.
And by the way, the exact same crew gushing over his possible 2028 run were the ones saying that Cheney or Pence were just PERFECT for 2024.
Perot got 19% of the vote in ’92 because the Republicans ran George H.W. Bush. He was excluded from debates which dropped his numbers in ’96. Clinton didn’t win because of Perot, he won because the Republicans ran two crappy candidates back to back that no one wanted to support. As long as Republicans run milquetoast candidates for President, they will lose.
George H.W. Bush was fine his first term. He was the embodiment of the post WWII era establishment GoP. By the election in ’92 the world was far different than when he took office in Jan of ’89 and some of the credit does accrue to his Presidency.
First continuation of more robust economic and diplomatic opposition to the Soviets/Warsaw Pact. Second the USA flexing in our Hemisphere to rein in Noriega. Then the Gulf War which was protected so successfully and overwhelmingly that it secured not just victory over Iraq but delivered the final dozen nails in the coffin of the Soviet Union.
With the end of the Cold War foreshadowed by fall of Berlin Wall in Nov ’89, by Dec ’91 the Soviet Union was ended. The world was drastically different than hit had been for the past 50 years. It required a different vision and a leadership class more responsive to the people than to outdated institutions. George H.W. Bush wasn’t that and couldn’t be that if wanted b/c he was a product of his WWII service and his political career/executive Branch experience/expertise was built for a prior era. We’re almost 35 years beyond that and the neocon, corporatist, establishment is still fighting tooth and nail against America First.
Yes he didn’t get enough of an ass kicking this last election primary. Live and learn
Another loser.
If he knows what’s good for him, he’ll lay off Israel next time. Know where your bread is buttered, boy.
Like the Obama birth certificate, everybody knows there is a very dirty story here, and both sides want nothing to do with it. The guy is just blustering. He knows he will be crushed. No way a fired algebra teacher at a girls school became an overnight billionaire and international pimp to the rich and famous without something very dirty behind it.
Let’s stop all this pedo talk. The men were often guilty of statutory rape, but they were not having pedo-age sex.
“Let’s stop all this pedo talk. The men were often guilty of statutory rape, but they were not having pedo-age sex.”
Thank you! This is another instance of the left (and some despicables on the right) redefining words.
Just when the Epstein files got put on the back burner, jackassery from Massie turns up the flame again. The Epstein File cult will donate a few bucks to him.. End of story.
Transparency isn’t a cult. The HoR voted nearly unanimously (minus one lone vote against by Clay Higgins) and zero no votes in the Senate then President Trump signed into law the statute requiring release of Epstein material.
In sum the entire Congress agreed to pass the statute requiring release. President Trump signed it into law, refusing to invoke his veto. Seems to me that’s broad support to release the files. I’d suggest that the Executive Branch comply and then there’s no legitimate reason to complain.
Bipartisanship is a coming together, a meeting of the minds, a blending of two opposing viewpoints into a solution that satisfies enough to work for both.
It is not whatever you’ve been doing on your knees in front of Ro Khanna.
Massie could actually run for Senate this year – but only as a write-in (he can’t run for the office for which he lost a primary, though). All this talk about 2028 shows his ego is really huge, and he wants to play his supporters for fools.