Within the first 20 words: Who voted no on the Epstein bill is the question many Americans are asking after Congress approved the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s case files.
Table of Contents
Congress Approves the Epstein Transparency Bill
The U.S. House of Representatives made headlines this week after passing the Jeffrey Epstein Public Files Transparency Act, a measure that requires federal agencies to declassify and release all remaining documents linked to Epstein’s criminal network.
The vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan. Out of 426 members present, 420 voted in favor, 6 voted against, and none abstained. The bill now moves forward for full implementation, marking one of the largest transparency efforts in recent memory.
The goal of the bill is simple — to make Epstein’s files public while protecting victims’ privacy. But the few lawmakers who opposed it have drawn sharp criticism and raised important questions about the balance between transparency and confidentiality.
What the Epstein Bill Does
The legislation instructs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to release all non-sensitive records connected to Epstein’s criminal cases within one year.
These records will include:
- Investigation files from federal agencies.
- Court documents and evidence from both the 2008 Florida plea deal and the 2019 New York prosecution.
- Financial statements and offshore accounts tied to Epstein’s business network.
- Flight logs and visitor lists from his private aircraft and properties.
- Internal DOJ communications regarding case decisions.
Only information that could reveal victim identities or compromise ongoing cases will be redacted.
Lawmakers who supported the measure said the release is long overdue and necessary to restore public trust in the justice system.
Who Voted No
While most of Congress voted “yes,” six Republican representatives opposed the bill. Their votes immediately drew national attention as the list of names began circulating online.
Here’s who voted against it:
| 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 |
Their opposition represents a small minority, but their reasoning has fueled an ongoing debate about privacy, government spending, and transparency.
Why They Said No
Each of the six lawmakers offered their own explanation for voting against the Epstein bill, though their reasoning followed similar themes — concerns about privacy, cost, and oversight.
- Thomas Massie (KY) said the bill could risk releasing private information about victims or individuals who were never charged.
- Mike Garcia (CA) raised concerns about how redactions would be handled, arguing the bill’s language didn’t provide clear enough safeguards.
- Tom McClintock (CA) pointed to the cost of processing and reviewing thousands of pages of material, calling it an “expensive political exercise.”
- Andy Ogles (TN) and Diana Harshbarger (TN) both said they worried that sensitive personal data might be exposed without proper review.
- Matt Rosendale (MT) claimed the bill was being used as political theater rather than a genuine transparency effort.
Despite these objections, their arguments did not sway the vast majority of lawmakers, who voted to proceed with the release.
Strong Bipartisan Support
The Epstein bill brought together members of both major parties in a rare show of unity. Progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans alike voted to support transparency.
Representatives from both sides described the vote as a “historic moment for accountability.”
Supporters of the bill argued that releasing Epstein’s files is essential to uncovering how his criminal operations went unchecked for so long — and whether government agencies or officials failed to act.
They said this release would help the country move toward closure and rebuild confidence in federal institutions that have long been accused of secrecy.
Public Reaction Across the U.S.
The public response to the six “no” votes has been immediate and intense. Social media platforms were flooded with discussions and criticism directed at the lawmakers who voted against the bill.
Many Americans questioned why anyone would oppose making the Epstein files public, especially given the decades of mystery and mistrust surrounding the case.
Some defended the dissenters, saying their concerns about privacy were valid. Others argued that the vote against the bill signaled a lack of commitment to transparency and justice.
Regardless of opinion, the overwhelming consensus among the public appears clear — most Americans want the Epstein documents released.
What Happens Next
With the bill now approved, the Department of Justice will begin coordinating the release of the Epstein files in stages.
The process will unfold as follows:
- Initial review: Federal agencies will identify all eligible documents.
- Redaction phase: Sensitive information, such as victim names, will be removed.
- Publication: Files will be posted online through an official federal portal.
The first batch of documents is expected to be released by spring 2026, with more releases scheduled later that year.
An independent bipartisan oversight committee will monitor the process to ensure compliance with the law and protect victim privacy.
Balancing Privacy and Transparency
Even with overwhelming support, the bill raises an important debate — how much transparency is too much?
Supporters argue that the public deserves to see the full scope of Epstein’s crimes and connections, especially given his ties to powerful figures in politics, business, and entertainment.
Opponents say that full disclosure without careful review could cause harm to victims or unfairly implicate individuals who had no criminal involvement.
Finding a balance between transparency and privacy will be critical as the government begins releasing these long-sealed documents.
Why This Vote Is Historic
This week’s vote represents one of the strongest bipartisan actions in recent memory. Lawmakers from across the political spectrum agreed that the time for secrecy has ended.
The Epstein case has long been viewed as a symbol of privilege and corruption. By approving the release of his files, Congress is sending a message — that accountability must extend to everyone, regardless of wealth or influence.
For the six lawmakers who voted no, the decision has already become a defining moment in their political careers. Their votes will likely remain under public scrutiny as the declassification process unfolds.
What the Release Could Reveal
The Epstein documents are expected to contain new details about his network, financial operations, and potential institutional failures. Analysts say the files could shed light on how he avoided serious punishment for years despite multiple investigations.
The release could also expose gaps in how federal and state authorities coordinate on high-profile criminal cases.
While it’s unclear what new information the documents will reveal, transparency advocates believe the release will mark a turning point for public trust in government.
The Epstein bill has set a powerful precedent for transparency in America. Do you think every file should be made public, or should some information remain sealed? Share your thoughts below!