Who Voted No on the Epstein Bill: Full List and What Their Decision Means

Within the first 20 words: Who voted no on the Epstein bill has become one of the biggest questions in Washington following the House’s vote on the new transparency measure.

Congress Takes Historic Step Toward Transparency

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives took a major step toward transparency by approving the Jeffrey Epstein Public Files Transparency Act, a measure requiring federal agencies to release all remaining records tied to Epstein’s criminal network.

The bill passed overwhelmingly, with 420 lawmakers voting in favor and only six voting against. None abstained. The legislation directs the Department of Justice and the FBI to make public all Epstein-related documents within 12 months, with redactions only for privacy protection and ongoing investigations.

For millions of Americans following the case, the vote represented long-awaited movement toward answers — but it also raised eyebrows about the handful of representatives who refused to support it.

What the Bill Aims to Do

The new law mandates the declassification and release of all federal documents related to Epstein’s cases in Florida and New York.

Among the files expected to be included:

• FBI field reports and investigative summaries.
• Department of Justice communications involving plea deals and settlements.
• Financial documents showing Epstein’s assets, transactions, and offshore accounts.
• Flight and visitor logs tied to his private planes and residences.
• Court filings and sealed exhibits from both state and federal proceedings.

The purpose, lawmakers said, is to restore public trust in the justice system by ensuring that Epstein’s full network of influence — and any institutional failures surrounding it — are exposed.

The Six Lawmakers Who Opposed the Measure

While the vote passed with near-total support, six Republican representatives broke from the majority and voted against it. Their opposition has become a topic of intense public debate.

Here’s the full list of those who voted “no”:

Their votes, while a small minority, immediately drew national attention as the public demanded explanations for why anyone would oppose such a transparency measure.

Their Explanations for the “No” Votes

Each lawmaker released statements or comments following the vote. Though their reasoning varied slightly, most cited concerns about privacy, cost, or procedure.

• Thomas Massie (KY) argued that automatic declassification could risk releasing private details about victims or individuals who were never charged. He supported transparency “in principle” but said the bill lacked safeguards.
• Mike Garcia (CA) questioned the bill’s structure, claiming it gave too much discretion to agencies over what could remain redacted. He described it as “well-intentioned but poorly designed.”
• Tom McClintock (CA) raised fiscal concerns, warning that reviewing and processing thousands of pages of material could be a costly use of taxpayer money.
• Andy Ogles (TN) and Diana Harshbarger (TN) both emphasized the need to protect the privacy of those mentioned in the files, especially victims of Epstein’s crimes.
• Matt Rosendale (MT) dismissed the legislation as “political grandstanding,” saying it would not lead to real accountability but serve as a symbolic move.

Despite these defenses, their positions faced heavy backlash online, where critics questioned whether their opposition was justified.

Strong Bipartisan Support for the Bill

Outside of the six “no” votes, the rest of the House showed rare unity across party lines.

Democrats and Republicans alike argued that releasing the Epstein files is essential for restoring confidence in government institutions. Many said that only full disclosure could address the lingering doubts surrounding Epstein’s 2008 plea deal and his 2019 arrest before his death in custody.

Both progressives and conservatives framed the measure as a nonpartisan demand for truth. It’s one of the few instances in recent memory where the House reached almost complete agreement.

What Happens Next

With the bill now approved, the Department of Justice will begin reviewing Epstein-related documents for release. The process is expected to unfold in stages over the next year.

Federal agencies have been given a clear mandate:

• Identify all relevant records within their possession.
• Redact only what’s legally necessary, such as victim names and active investigations.
• Publish the remaining files on an official government portal accessible to the public.

The first batch of documents is expected to be released by spring 2026, with additional batches following every few months.

A bipartisan congressional oversight committee will monitor the release process to ensure compliance and prevent unnecessary delays.

Public Reaction and Political Fallout

The names of the six dissenting lawmakers spread quickly across social media after the vote. Many Americans expressed frustration, arguing that opposition to transparency — especially in a case as notorious as Epstein’s — undermines public trust.

Hashtags related to the vote trended nationwide, and online discussions filled with questions about whether privacy concerns outweighed the public’s right to know.

At the same time, some constituents defended the “no” voters, agreeing that victim protection should remain the top priority. However, the dominant tone among public comments reflected anger and disbelief that any representative would vote against revealing Epstein’s files.

For the six lawmakers, the backlash could have long-term political consequences as voters continue to associate their names with the opposition to the bill.

The Ongoing Debate: Transparency vs. Privacy

Even with the bill’s passage, one major debate continues — how much information should be released, and where should the line between public interest and personal privacy be drawn?

Supporters argue that transparency is the only path to accountability, particularly in cases involving systemic corruption or elite networks. They say that withholding information has allowed speculation and conspiracy theories to thrive for years.

Opponents, on the other hand, warn that a full public release without oversight could retraumatize victims or unfairly implicate individuals who had no involvement in Epstein’s crimes.

Striking the right balance between openness and privacy will likely define how the public perceives this bill in the coming year.

Why the Vote Is Historic

The passage of this bill marks one of the most significant transparency efforts in modern U.S. politics. Epstein’s case, involving allegations that span decades and reach into politics, finance, and entertainment, has long been shrouded in secrecy.

For lawmakers, supporting the measure became a symbolic act of accountability. By voting overwhelmingly in favor, Congress signaled that the American public deserves to see the full extent of what went wrong — and how the system failed.

For the six who voted “no,” the decision has placed them in the spotlight, with their names now tied to one of the most consequential transparency debates of the decade.

What the Files Might Reveal

The declassified documents are expected to shed light on how Epstein operated his network for so long and how federal and state agencies handled — or mishandled — his investigations.

Among the potential revelations:

• New insights into Epstein’s financial empire and his ties to influential figures.
• Communications between prosecutors and federal officials during plea negotiations.
• Detailed records from civil cases and sealed court proceedings.
• Patterns in law enforcement coordination that may explain gaps in accountability.

While it’s unclear how much new information will surface, the release could reshape the public’s understanding of the case and its broader implications for the justice system.

A Rare Moment of Unity in Congress

In a deeply divided political climate, this vote demonstrated that some issues can still unite lawmakers across party lines. The near-unanimous approval reflected shared frustration with government secrecy and a commitment to restoring public confidence.

For many Americans, this rare moment of unity offers hope that transparency and accountability can still transcend political boundaries.

Looking Ahead

As federal agencies prepare for the first round of releases, anticipation is building nationwide. Advocates for victims, journalists, and watchdog organizations are preparing to analyze every page as it becomes public.

Lawmakers have promised to hold regular briefings to update the public on the release schedule and ensure that no information is withheld without legitimate cause.

The coming year could bring long-awaited answers — and potentially, new questions about how deep Epstein’s network of influence truly ran.

The Epstein files will soon be open to the public, marking a historic moment for government transparency. Do you think every record should be released without restriction? Share your thoughts below!