Within the first 20 words: Who voted against releasing the Epstein files today has become one of the most searched political questions in the United States following the latest congressional action.
Table of Contents
Overview of Today’s Vote
The U.S. House of Representatives held a decisive vote this week on the Jeffrey Epstein Public Files Transparency Act, a measure requiring the Department of Justice to declassify and release all federal records connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network.
The proposal passed overwhelmingly, with 420 votes in favor and 6 against, reaffirming broad bipartisan support for public transparency. However, the small group of lawmakers who opposed the release has drawn significant attention and criticism online.
These “no” votes have become a focal point for public debate, as Americans demand greater accountability and access to the long-sealed documents tied to Epstein’s decades-long criminal operations.
What the Legislation Does
The transparency act mandates that all non-sensitive records related to Epstein’s federal cases be released publicly within one year. This includes files from the FBI, Department of Justice, and other federal agencies involved in his investigation and prosecution.
The legislation’s main objectives are:
- Declassifying investigative materials from Epstein’s criminal proceedings.
- Releasing internal DOJ communications regarding Epstein’s plea deals.
- Making available travel manifests, financial records, and correspondence connected to Epstein’s network.
- Redacting only materials that compromise ongoing investigations or victim identities.
The vote represents a continuation of efforts that began in 2024, following growing public pressure for transparency regarding Epstein’s associations with powerful figures across politics, finance, and entertainment.
Who Voted Against the Measure
Only six members of Congress voted against the bill, all from the Republican Party. Their votes stand out sharply against the near-unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans.
| Name | Party | State | Committee Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Massie | Republican | Kentucky | House Judiciary Committee |
| Mike Garcia | Republican | California | House Appropriations Committee |
| Tom McClintock | Republican | California | House Oversight Committee |
| Andy Ogles | Republican | Tennessee | House Financial Services Committee |
| Diana Harshbarger | Republican | Tennessee | House Energy and Commerce Committee |
| Matt Rosendale | Republican | Montana | House Veterans’ Affairs Committee |
The list immediately went viral online as users sought clarification on why any representative would oppose releasing such high-profile public records.
Reasons Behind the “No” Votes
Each of the six lawmakers provided individual explanations for their opposition, though their reasoning varied.
- Thomas Massie (KY): Said the bill could unintentionally expose private information about victims and individuals not charged with any crimes.
- Mike Garcia (CA): Raised concerns about the cost and logistics of reviewing and redacting thousands of documents.
- Tom McClintock (CA): Emphasized fiscal discipline, arguing that the declassification process would require excessive resources.
- Andy Ogles (TN): Cited privacy concerns for individuals mentioned in the files.
- Diana Harshbarger (TN): Called for “measured transparency,” stressing that some materials should remain sealed to protect ongoing legal matters.
- Matt Rosendale (MT): Characterized the measure as “politically driven,” claiming it was being used for political messaging rather than genuine accountability.
While each representative defended their position, the overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill made their votes stand out even more.
Strong Bipartisan Support for Transparency
Despite the small number of dissenters, the rest of Congress voted decisively in favor of the measure. Members across the political spectrum — from progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to conservative Republicans like Anna Paulina Luna — joined forces to back the bill.
The overwhelming “yes” vote reflects a growing consensus that the Epstein case remains a stain on public trust in both the justice system and political institutions.
Lawmakers on both sides said the release of these files is essential to restoring confidence in how the federal government handles powerful individuals accused of serious crimes.
What Happens Next
Under the law, the Department of Justice has 12 months to begin releasing redacted versions of the Epstein-related records. The process will be overseen by a bipartisan Congressional Oversight Committee, which will ensure compliance and prevent unnecessary redactions.
The records will include:
- FBI investigation summaries from 2006–2019.
- DOJ correspondence about Epstein’s plea agreements.
- Financial documents showing transactions between Epstein’s companies and associates.
- Court records from both the Florida and New York cases.
Some of these files have already been partially released in previous years, but this vote guarantees that all remaining non-classified materials will be made available to the public by the end of 2026.
Public Reaction and Online Debate
Public reaction has been swift and intense. Within hours of the vote, social media users began circulating the names of the six representatives who voted “no,” tagging them in posts demanding explanations.
Many Americans expressed frustration that any members of Congress would resist transparency on such a widely scrutinized case. Others defended the dissenters, arguing that full disclosure must still protect victims’ identities and ensure that innocent individuals are not unfairly implicated.
Hashtags related to the vote trended across major platforms, including #EpsteinFiles, #TransparencyAct, and #WhoVotedNo. The widespread attention underscores just how significant this issue remains in public discourse, years after Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019.
The Larger Meaning Behind the Vote
The Epstein files controversy goes far beyond a single criminal case — it has become a symbol of accountability, privilege, and public trust.
For many, the question of who voted against releasing the Epstein files today is about more than just six lawmakers. It reflects the broader struggle between transparency and institutional secrecy in American politics.
The overwhelming majority of representatives agreed that the public has a right to know how Epstein’s crimes were investigated and prosecuted — and whether justice was truly served.
Meanwhile, the dissenting voices highlight the ongoing debate about balancing transparency with privacy and procedural caution.
What Experts Are Saying
Legal experts and political analysts have weighed in on the vote, noting that the bill’s passage marks a historic step toward full government disclosure.
They point out that similar transparency measures, such as those related to the JFK assassination files, took decades to implement. By contrast, the Epstein records act moved swiftly through Congress, indicating the depth of bipartisan pressure for openness.
Experts also warn that the process will be complex, as federal agencies must ensure redactions comply with privacy laws and do not jeopardize ongoing civil litigation connected to Epstein’s estate.
What to Watch Going Forward
The first batch of Epstein-related documents is expected to be released in early 2026, with updates posted on official federal websites. Lawmakers have pledged continued oversight to ensure the release is complete and free from political interference.
The Epstein Transparency Act could also set a precedent for similar legislation requiring declassification in other high-profile cases involving government secrecy.
The outcome will test the government’s ability to balance openness with responsibility — and will likely remain a key political issue well into the next election cycle.
Transparency and justice remain at the heart of this story. Do you think every Epstein file should be made public without restriction? Share your thoughts below!