Were there notable defections from party lines in the Epstein measure vote and who were they?

1. One defection — Clay Higgins stood alone

Every major outlet in the available reporting identifies Louisiana Republican Rep. Clay Higgins as the single member who voted against the measure; Higgins said he feared the bill would expose identifying details of witnesses, potential suspects and others involved in the investigations ^{[4] [1]}. Across the House’s 427 affirmative votes, Higgins’s no vote was repeatedly singled out as the only formal defection from the overwhelming bipartisan majority ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Near-unanimity masks political friction beforehand

Although the final tally was lopsided, the vote capped months of intra-GOP conflict: Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republican leaders had resisted or delayed the measure and President Donald Trump had publicly opposed it for months before abruptly backing away, creating public feuds within the party ^{[3] [2]}. Reporting notes this was not a straight march to consensus; it followed discharge-petition tactics and internal pressure that forced leadership’s hand ^{[4] [3]}.

3. High-profile Republicans who flipped or voted with Democrats

Several Republicans who had previously opposed or been aligned with the president’s stance joined Democrats to pass the bill. The reporting specifically highlights Speaker Mike Johnson voting for the measure, after having sought to delay it, and figures such as Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene playing visible roles in the push — Massie in particular led a sustained effort that overcame leadership resistance ^{[7] [3] [8]}. These votes are framed in coverage as party members breaking with earlier GOP leadership strategy rather than narrow ideological rebellions.

4. What the lone no vote claimed and how outlets framed it

Coverage quotes Higgins’s rationale: concern that the release could make public identifying details of victims, witnesses or others connected to the probe ^[4]. Outlets reported his position without uniformly endorsing it; they treated his vote as a principled data-protection objection set against broad bipartisan calls for transparency ^{[1] [6]}.

5. Absences and the broader tally — five not voting

Reports note five members did not cast votes in the final tally ^[1]. Coverage does not attribute abstentions to any coordinated strategy or name those members in the snippets supplied; available sources do not mention who the five no-shows were or why they were absent ^[1].

6. Context: why near-unanimity matters politically

The overwhelming bipartisan margin undercut earlier Republican efforts to shelve the bill and neutralized the political leverage of those — including the president initially — who opposed public release of files; once leadership and the White House publicly shifted, many GOP members voted with Democrats to finalize passage ^{[2] [3]}. Reporting portrays the vote as a capitulation by previously obstructive forces after political pressure, including public advocacy by survivors and the use of procedural tactics like discharge petitions ^{[4] [3]}.

7. Limitations and what the reporting does not say

The supplied sources consistently identify Higgins as the only “no” and list the vote count and five non-voters, but they do not provide a full roll call breakdown in these snippets or detailed quotes from every member who switched positions; the New York Times interactive promises a vote list but the excerpts here do not enumerate every name ^[8]. Available sources do not mention the identities or reasons behind the five absent votes beyond the tally ^[1]. If you want a complete roll-call list or statements from other individual Republicans explaining their decisions, consult the full NYT roll-call piece or the House clerk’s official record ^[8].

8. Competing narratives and hidden agendas

Reporting shows two competing frames: proponents framed the vote as overdue transparency and justice for survivors, while opponents (as typified by Higgins) framed it as a privacy and safety concern for witnesses; party leaders’ late support is presented as politically calculated to defuse intra-party conflict and public pressure ^{[3] [4]}. Some outlets emphasize that the move resolved a GOP internal feud and allowed Republicans to “turn the page” politically, suggesting an implicit agenda of party damage control ^{[3] [2]}.

If you’d like, I can extract the full House roll call (names and party affiliations) from The New York Times interactive or the official House record and annotate which members were previously aligned with the president’s opposition. The current reporting in these excerpts, however, consistently identifies Clay Higgins as the lone dissenting vote ^{[4] [5]}.