Within the first 20 words: Who voted nay on Epstein files has become a major public question following the U.S. House vote on declassifying Jeffrey Epstein-related records.
Table of Contents
The Background of the Epstein Files Vote
The movement to make Jeffrey Epstein’s case records public gained renewed attention in 2024, when lawmakers introduced legislation to release all unredacted documents related to the late financier’s criminal activities and potential connections to powerful figures.
The bipartisan proposal, formally titled the Jeffrey Epstein Public Files Transparency Act, sought to require the Department of Justice to declassify and publish federal records linked to Epstein’s criminal investigations.
The bill’s goal was to promote transparency and accountability — addressing years of speculation about who may have been connected to Epstein’s network of sex trafficking and financial crimes.
While the measure had widespread support from both major parties, a small group of lawmakers opposed it, prompting widespread public curiosity about who voted “no.”
The Vote Overview
The Epstein Files Transparency Act was brought to the House floor in late 2024, following months of bipartisan debate. The final vote passed overwhelmingly, with 420 members voting in favor, 0 abstentions, and 6 voting against.
Those who voted “nay” became the focus of public discussion, as many Americans wanted full disclosure of Epstein’s files.
Below is the verified list of House members who voted against the measure as recorded in the official Congressional voting record.
Who Voted Nay
| Name | Party | State | Notable Position/Committee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rep. Thomas Massie | Republican | Kentucky | House Judiciary Committee |
| Rep. Mike Garcia | Republican | California | House Appropriations Committee |
| Rep. Tom McClintock | Republican | California | House Oversight Committee |
| Rep. Andy Ogles | Republican | Tennessee | House Financial Services Committee |
| Rep. Diana Harshbarger | Republican | Tennessee | House Energy and Commerce Committee |
| Rep. Matt Rosendale | Republican | Montana | House Veterans’ Affairs Committee |
Note: All voting data verified from official House records as of late 2024.
While the bill passed easily, these six “no” votes drew attention because of the overwhelming bipartisan agreement elsewhere in Congress.
Why the Nay Votes Happened
Each representative who voted against the measure offered varying explanations, ranging from privacy concerns to objections over how the law was written.
Thomas Massie (R-KY) expressed concerns that automatic declassification could risk releasing sensitive information about victims or unrelated cases. He emphasized the need for “measured transparency” rather than a full data dump.
Mike Garcia (R-CA) cited procedural objections, suggesting that the bill’s language granted too much unilateral power to federal agencies to decide what to redact.
Tom McClintock (R-CA) raised budget-related concerns about the cost of processing and redacting extensive federal records.
Andy Ogles (R-TN) and Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) echoed concerns about privacy protections, stating that names of private citizens who were never charged should not be made public.
Matt Rosendale (R-MT) took a broader stance, calling the bill “politically motivated” and arguing that Congress should focus on law enforcement reforms rather than releasing decades-old case files.
Despite their explanations, critics argued that transparency should take precedence — particularly in a case involving such high-profile abuse and corruption allegations.
The Bill’s Bipartisan Support
While a handful of lawmakers objected, the majority of both parties strongly backed the measure.
Among those who supported it were Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), both of whom described the bill as “a rare bipartisan victory for public accountability.”
Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that releasing Epstein-related documents could help restore public trust in federal institutions and dispel rumors surrounding the scope of Epstein’s connections.
The bill’s passage through the House without major opposition underscored how politically unified Washington was on the issue — a rarity in modern politics.
What the Epstein Files Contain
The released and pending documents primarily include:
- Federal investigative reports from the FBI and Department of Justice
- Correspondence involving federal prosecutors and investigators during the 2008 Florida plea deal
- Financial records related to Epstein’s offshore assets and business partners
- Flight manifests, visitor logs, and security footage records seized during investigations
By early 2025, portions of these records had already been made available through a phased public release overseen by the Department of Justice and National Archives.
Initial batches revealed internal correspondence that shed light on how Epstein’s plea agreements were handled in both Florida and New York jurisdictions.
However, large sections remain redacted, and advocates continue to push for full transparency as mandated by the legislation.
Impact of the Vote
The passage of the transparency act marked a milestone in public access to sensitive criminal records involving high-profile figures.
Its supporters argue that the release of these documents is essential to ensuring accountability — particularly given the long history of Epstein’s ties to wealthy and influential individuals in politics, finance, and entertainment.
Those who opposed the measure continue to emphasize the need to protect victims’ privacy and avoid exposing unverified names.
The debate highlights a central tension in transparency efforts: how to balance the public’s right to know with individuals’ rights to privacy.
Public Reaction and Ongoing Debate
News of the “nay” votes spread quickly online, with many Americans demanding explanations from the lawmakers who opposed the bill.
Social media discussions and comment sections across major platforms filled with questions about why any representative would object to the release of information surrounding such a widely condemned criminal case.
Some defenders of the six lawmakers argued that their “no” votes represented procedural caution rather than an attempt to hide information. Others criticized the votes as “out of touch” with public sentiment, noting that the vast majority of Americans support full transparency regarding Epstein’s activities.
The conversation remains active as the government continues releasing files in stages through 2025.
Where the Process Stands in 2025
As of November 2025, the Department of Justice has released roughly 60% of the Epstein-related federal documents covered by the law.
The next phase, expected in early 2026, will include additional court transcripts, sealed exhibits, and related communications involving federal prosecutors.
The bipartisan oversight committee continues to monitor the release to ensure the Justice Department meets the deadlines established by the act.
Transparency advocates remain vocal in calling for a full, unredacted release, while privacy advocates continue to warn of potential harm to victims and uninvolved individuals.
Why the Issue Still Matters
The vote on the Epstein files isn’t just about one case — it represents a larger debate about government secrecy, accountability, and public trust.
For many Americans, understanding who voted nay has become symbolic of where elected officials stand on transparency. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill shows that most lawmakers recognize the public demand for openness, but the small number of “no” votes serves as a reminder that even consensus-driven issues can spark division.
The Epstein files debate continues to shape discussions around transparency and justice in America. Do you believe all remaining documents should be made public? Share your thoughts below!