Within the first 20 words: Who voted nay on Epstein files has become one of the biggest questions surrounding Congress’s decision to release Jeffrey Epstein’s federal case records.
A Rare Moment of Unity in Washington
In 2024, lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle came together to support the Jeffrey Epstein Public Files Transparency Act, a bill designed to make Epstein’s federal records public.
The measure ordered the Department of Justice to release all government documents connected to Epstein’s criminal activities, associates, and legal proceedings. It was meant to bring long-awaited transparency after years of secrecy surrounding one of the most controversial cases in modern American history.
When the final vote came to the House floor, it passed with overwhelming support — 420 members voted yes, 0 abstained, and just 6 voted no.
The names of those who voted against the bill quickly became the focus of public attention.
Why the Vote Mattered
For many Americans, the bill represented a chance to finally see how Epstein’s cases were handled and who may have been involved or protected. The billionaire financier’s 2008 plea deal in Florida, followed by his 2019 arrest and death in custody, left deep mistrust toward the justice system.
Lawmakers from both parties said the public deserved clarity about what went wrong — and about the powerful figures who may have benefited from secrecy.
The overwhelming bipartisan support reflected that sentiment. Yet, the handful of “no” votes stood out and sparked immediate questions about motives, privacy, and accountability.
Who Voted Against the Bill
The official record shows six Republican representatives voted against the legislation. While all expressed support for transparency in principle, they raised concerns about privacy, redaction standards, and potential harm to victims.
| 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 explanations varied, but each cited procedural or ethical concerns over the release process.
Why They Said No
While most of Congress saw the bill as a step toward justice, the six lawmakers who voted against it offered their reasoning publicly.
- Thomas Massie (KY) expressed worry that full declassification could accidentally expose the identities of victims or unrelated individuals. He supported transparency but wanted a slower review process.
- Mike Garcia (CA) raised questions about how redactions would be handled, saying the bill’s wording gave too much discretion to federal agencies.
- Tom McClintock (CA) argued that the cost of preparing and reviewing thousands of pages of documents would place a strain on government resources.
- Andy Ogles (TN) and Diana Harshbarger (TN) emphasized the importance of protecting victims’ privacy and preventing re-traumatization.
- Matt Rosendale (MT) described the bill as “political theater,” saying it wouldn’t lead to real reform within law enforcement.
Despite their explanations, many Americans saw the opposition as unusual — especially since the bill passed with near-total bipartisan unity.
Bipartisan Support and Public Demand
The rest of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, overwhelmingly backed the legislation.
High-profile lawmakers like Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) supported the bill publicly, calling it a “win for transparency and justice.”
The vote was one of the few recent examples of genuine bipartisan cooperation. It united libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and moderates around a shared goal: to reveal the truth about how a man with Epstein’s history avoided accountability for so long.
Even typically divided committees praised the effort as a “historic moment for openness in government.”
What the Records Include
Since the law passed, the Department of Justice has been gradually releasing Epstein-related documents in phases. As of November 2025, roughly 60% of the records have been declassified and made public.
The files include:
- Federal investigation notes from the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Florida and New York.
- Communications among prosecutors handling Epstein’s plea deal in 2008.
- Financial reports linked to Epstein’s offshore accounts and business partners.
- Visitor logs and flight manifests from Epstein’s private jet and properties.
- Court transcripts and sealed evidence exhibits.
The documents released so far have revealed new insights into how Epstein maintained influence across legal and political systems. Still, many files remain redacted, and advocates are calling for full, unedited disclosure.
Public Reaction to the “No” Votes
The names of the six lawmakers who voted against the bill quickly spread online after the vote. Social media users demanded explanations and speculated about motives, with many questioning why any elected official would oppose public access to such records.
Some argued that the dissenters were simply taking a principled stand on privacy, while others accused them of resisting transparency.
The discussion reflected a deep divide in public opinion — not necessarily about the Epstein case itself, but about how much the government should reveal in sensitive investigations.
Despite the criticism, none of the six lawmakers reversed their positions or issued retractions. Each maintained that their vote reflected caution, not secrecy.
Why Transparency Still Matters
The Epstein case remains one of the most notorious examples of systemic failure within law enforcement and the legal system. His ability to avoid serious punishment for years raised questions about money, power, and influence at the highest levels.
Supporters of the transparency act argue that releasing all related files is essential to rebuilding trust. Many believe the documents could help expose patterns of corruption or negligence in how Epstein’s crimes were handled.
Transparency advocates say that without full public disclosure, conspiracy theories will continue to fill the information gap. They see the release as a way to finally separate fact from fiction.
Privacy and Legal Concerns
Opponents of unredacted release, however, maintain that transparency must be balanced with care. Victims’ identities and unrelated individuals mentioned in the files must remain confidential.
Legal experts also note that declassification is complex. Every document must be reviewed to ensure it doesn’t compromise ongoing investigations or reveal information protected by law.
The Department of Justice has said it is committed to transparency but will continue to apply redactions where necessary to protect victims and due process.
What’s Next in the Release Process
The next major batch of Epstein-related documents is expected to be released in March 2026, with another planned for September 2026.
These upcoming batches are expected to include:
- Additional court transcripts and sealed filings.
- Internal FBI memos from 2006 to 2019.
- New details from civil cases connected to Epstein’s estate.
An independent congressional oversight committee has been formed to monitor the release process and ensure the Justice Department meets its deadlines.
Advocacy groups representing Epstein’s victims have supported the act but continue to urge caution to avoid publicizing private trauma.
The Larger Meaning of the Vote
The question of who voted nay has become symbolic of a broader divide in American politics — one between absolute transparency and cautious disclosure.
For most Americans, the desire to know what the government knew about Epstein’s operations reflects a larger demand for accountability. After decades of secrecy, even a partial release of information feels like progress.
The six dissenting votes remind citizens that even in moments of consensus, some lawmakers will err on the side of caution or privacy. Whether that choice was right or wrong continues to be debated.
A Turning Point for Public Trust
The release of the Epstein files marks one of the most significant transparency efforts in recent memory. It shows that the public’s demand for openness can move Congress to act — even across party lines.
The continuing release of documents in 2026 will likely spark new headlines, raise new questions, and keep public interest alive. As more information surfaces, the country will learn not only about Epstein’s crimes but also about how institutions failed to stop him.
For now, the conversation about who stood for or against disclosure remains a defining part of the story.
The Epstein files have opened a national conversation about secrecy, justice, and accountability. Do you believe all records should be released in full? Share your thoughts below!