Who Voted Against Releasing the Epstein Files is a question that centers on two important congressional votes in 2025. On November 18, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by a vote of 427–1, with Republican Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana casting the only “No” vote. The Senate subsequently advanced the legislation unanimously, and President Donald Trump signed it into law on November 19, 2025.
However, an earlier Senate vote on September 10, 2025, produced a different result. In that vote, 51 senators supported a procedural motion to table an amendment intended to make Epstein-related records public. The distinction between these votes explains why reports sometimes mention dozens of lawmakers while other coverage identifies only one person.
The issue remains significant because the legislation established requirements for releasing government records related to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in federal custody in 2019. Understanding the official vote counts, the lawmakers involved, and the reasons behind the opposition provides a clearer picture of what happened in Congress.
Who Voted Against Releasing the Epstein Files in the House?
Representative Clay Higgins, a Republican from Louisiana, was the only member of the House to vote against the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 18, 2025.
The House considered H.R. 4405, a bill requiring the Justice Department to release qualifying government records related to Epstein and the investigation into his activities. The measure received overwhelming bipartisan support.
The final House vote was:
- Votes in favor: 427
- Votes against: 1
- Members who did not vote: 5
Of the 427 representatives who supported the bill, 216 were Republicans and 211 were Democrats. No Democrat voted against final passage.
The result demonstrated that lawmakers from both major parties supported the legislation despite earlier disagreements over whether and how Congress should force the release of the records.
The five members who did not vote were Representatives Don Beyer of Virginia, Greg Casar of Texas, Michael Rulli of Ohio, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, and Steve Womack of Arkansas.
Their absence should not be interpreted as opposition. Not voting is different from casting a recorded “No” vote, and some absent representatives indicated that they would have supported the measure.
Who Is Clay Higgins?
Clay Higgins represents Louisiana’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. A Republican, he became the central figure in the final House vote because he was the only member to oppose the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Higgins publicly explained that he objected to the bill because of concerns about the potential consequences of releasing sensitive investigative records.
He argued that criminal investigation files could contain the names and personal information of innocent people, including witnesses, family members, and individuals who provided alibis. He warned that releasing such information without adequate safeguards could damage reputations and expose people who had not committed crimes.
His position focused on privacy, due process, and the potential for sensitive information to be taken out of context.
These concerns did not change the outcome. The House approved the bill by an overwhelming margin, and the legislation proceeded through the Senate before becoming law.
Higgins’s vote also did not represent the position of every Republican in Congress. Hundreds of Republicans supported the final measure, including 216 House Republicans.
Why Did Clay Higgins Vote Against the Bill?
Higgins’s stated objection centered on the breadth of the proposed disclosure and its potential effect on innocent individuals.
Investigative records can contain information gathered from interviews, witness statements, contact lists, and other materials. A person’s name appearing in such a document does not establish that the person participated in criminal conduct or knew about a crime.
Higgins argued that a broad release could expose people whose involvement was incidental or whose statements appeared in investigative files for reasons unrelated to wrongdoing.
His concerns also involved how the media and the public might interpret information once it became available. Documents released without sufficient context could lead to speculation, reputational damage, or mistaken conclusions about individuals mentioned in them.
The legislation, however, included provisions addressing certain categories of sensitive information. These protections covered victims’ personally identifiable information and other material that could legally be withheld or redacted under specified circumstances.
The law also established that embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity alone would not justify withholding otherwise qualifying records.
The disagreement therefore involved competing priorities: public access to information about a major criminal investigation and protection for people whose personal information might appear in government files.
The Earlier Senate Vote on September 10, 2025
The question of who voted against releasing the Epstein files also refers to an earlier Senate action that took place on September 10, 2025.
On that date, the Senate voted 51–49 to table an amendment introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The amendment sought to direct the attorney general to make documents related to Jeffrey Epstein publicly available.
A motion to table is a procedural measure used to set aside a proposal. In this case, the motion succeeded, preventing the amendment from advancing at that point.
The vote breakdown was:
- 51 senators: Voted to table the amendment.
- 49 senators: Voted against tabling the amendment.
All 47 Democrats and two independents who caucused with them voted against the motion to table. Two Republicans, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against it.
The other 51 senators supported tabling the amendment.
This vote is important because it explains why some reports identify a large group of Republican senators when discussing opposition to releasing Epstein-related records.
However, the September vote was not a final vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It concerned a separate amendment and a procedural motion. It should not be confused with the House’s November vote on the transparency legislation.
Which Senators Supported the September Motion to Table?
The 51 senators who voted to table Schumer’s amendment were:
- Jim Banks of Indiana
- John Barrasso of Wyoming
- Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
- John Boozman of Arkansas
- Katie Britt of Alabama
- Ted Budd of North Carolina
- Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
- Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
- Susan Collins of Maine
- John Cornyn of Texas
- Tom Cotton of Arkansas
- Kevin Cramer of North Dakota
- Mike Crapo of Idaho
- Ted Cruz of Texas
- John Curtis of Utah
- Steve Daines of Montana
- Joni Ernst of Iowa
- Deb Fischer of Nebraska
- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
- Chuck Grassley of Iowa
- Bill Hagerty of Tennessee
- John Hoeven of North Dakota
- Jon Husted of Ohio
- Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi
- Ron Johnson of Wisconsin
- Jim Justice of West Virginia
- John Kennedy of Louisiana
- James Lankford of Oklahoma
- Mike Lee of Utah
- Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
- Roger Marshall of Kansas
- Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
- David McCormick of Pennsylvania
- Ashley Moody of Florida
- Jerry Moran of Kansas
- Bernie Moreno of Ohio
- Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma
- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
- Pete Ricketts of Nebraska
- Jim Risch of Idaho
- Mike Rounds of South Dakota
- Eric Schmitt of Missouri
- Rick Scott of Florida
- Tim Scott of South Carolina
- Tim Sheehy of Montana
- Dan Sullivan of Alaska
- John Thune of South Dakota
- Thom Tillis of North Carolina
- Tommy Tuberville of Alabama
- Roger Wicker of Mississippi
- Todd Young of Indiana
These senators voted in favor of the motion to table the amendment. Their votes should not automatically be described as votes against final passage of the later transparency law.
The procedural context matters because a lawmaker can vote against a particular amendment without necessarily opposing every possible legislative approach to disclosure. Likewise, the vote alone does not establish a senator’s personal motives.
Did the Senate Vote Against the Final Epstein Files Transparency Act?
No senator cast a recorded “No” vote on final passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
After the House approved the legislation on November 18, 2025, the Senate advanced it by unanimous consent. President Trump signed it into law on November 19, 2025.
Unanimous consent allows the Senate to take action without an objection to the agreed procedure. It differs from a recorded roll-call vote in which each senator’s position appears individually.
For that reason, it is accurate to say that the Senate advanced the final legislation unanimously. It would be misleading to claim that the 51 senators who supported the September procedural motion subsequently voted against final passage of the transparency act.
The two events involved different legislative actions, different dates, and different procedural questions.
What Does the Epstein Files Transparency Act Require?
The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the Justice Department to release qualifying unclassified records related to Epstein and associated federal investigations, subject to the law’s specific requirements and permitted protections.
The records covered by the legislation include relevant documents, communications, and investigative materials held by the department. The law also addresses records involving Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities.
The legislation aims to increase public access to information about the investigation and the government’s handling of the case.
At the same time, it recognizes that certain material requires protection. Victims’ identifying information, child sexual abuse material, and specified sensitive information are among the categories subject to legal restrictions or redaction requirements.
The law also limits the government’s ability to withhold records solely because their disclosure could embarrass public officials or cause political difficulties.
This distinction is central to the debate. Congress sought greater transparency while maintaining protections for victims and other information that cannot lawfully be disclosed.
What Happened After the Bill Became Law?
The passage of the law did not mean that every document became public immediately. The Justice Department needed to collect relevant records, review the material, apply required protections, and publish qualifying documents.
On January 30, 2026, the Justice Department announced that it had published more than three million additional pages responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The department said the additional release included more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.
Combined with earlier releases, the department reported that its total production under the act had reached nearly 3.5 million pages.
The release represented a major development in the implementation of the legislation. It also highlighted the difference between Congress passing a disclosure requirement and the government completing the work needed to produce responsive records.
The publication of investigative documents does not establish wrongdoing by everyone mentioned in them. Records can include allegations, witness accounts, contact information, and references to individuals who were never charged with a crime.
Any claim about a person’s conduct must therefore be assessed using reliable evidence and the appropriate context.
Why Are There Different Answers to Who Opposed Releasing the Files?
Different answers usually arise because people are referring to different congressional votes.
The November 18, 2025, House vote has a straightforward result: Clay Higgins was the only representative who voted against final passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The bill passed 427–1, with five members not voting.
The September 10, 2025, Senate vote has a different result. Fifty-one senators supported a motion to table an amendment intended to require the public release of Epstein-related records. Hawley and Paul were the two Republicans who voted against that procedural motion.
The Senate later advanced the final transparency legislation unanimously.
These distinctions prevent an important factual error. A vote to table an amendment is not the same as a vote against final passage of a later bill. Similarly, an absent lawmaker should not be described as having voted against a measure.
Anyone reviewing the congressional record should identify the date, the proposal under consideration, and the exact wording of the motion before drawing conclusions about an individual lawmaker’s position.
Final Takeaway
The clearest answer to Who Voted Against Releasing the Epstein Files is Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana, the sole House member to vote against the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 18, 2025. The bill passed 427–1, advanced unanimously through the Senate, and became law the following day.
The separate September Senate vote involved 51 senators supporting a procedural motion to table an earlier disclosure amendment. That vote explains why broader lists of lawmakers appear in discussions about the issue, but it should not be confused with the final vote on the transparency law.
What do you think about Congress’s decisions on releasing the Epstein files? Share your thoughts in the comments and stay tuned for verified updates.