Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which GOP members voted against the Epstein measure and why did they oppose it?
Executive summary
The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act 427–1 on Nov. 18, 2025; Rep. Clay Higgins (R‑La.) was the lone “no” vote, arguing the bill would “reveal and injure thousands of innocent people” and “abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure” [1] [2]. Most reporting says his stated reason was concern about harms to witnesses, privacy and ongoing investigations; available sources do not mention other GOP members voting against the bill because all but Higgins voted yes and five members did not vote [3] [4].
1. The near‑unanimous result and the lone holdout
The House approved the measure by 427 to 1, with every other present member — Democrats and almost all Republicans — voting to force the Justice Department to release unclassified Epstein‑related records [4] [1]. Multiple outlets identify Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins as the single “no” vote and report that a handful of representatives were absent and thus recorded as not voting [3] [5].
2. Higgins’ public rationale: protecting innocent people and procedure
Higgins publicly defended his vote as an objection to the bill’s design; he posted that it “abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure” and warned it would harm “witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.” [1] [2]. CNN and NPR quote his social‑media statements and coverage highlights his Oversight Committee role in earlier probes as context for his claim that the bill, as written, risked exposing private information [2] [1].
3. How other Republicans framed their prior opposition and ultimate support
Several House Republicans had spent months resisting the bill or criticizing its scope; Speaker Mike Johnson repeatedly said the measure had “serious deficiencies” and called it a “political exercise,” even while ultimately voting for it [6] [7]. Reporting documents a shift after pressure inside the GOP and President Trump’s reversal: Trump dropped earlier opposition and that change “opened the door” for many Republicans to back the bill [4] [7].
4. Competing GOP motives — transparency vs. privacy and politics
Supporters framed release as accountability and vindication for survivors after years of secrecy; proponents included Republicans like Thomas Massie who partnered with Democrats to force the vote [7] [4]. Opponents — as represented by Higgins and echoed by leadership privately — said the bill risked collateral damage to uninvolved people and could worsen investigations, framing their resistance in terms of privacy, prosecutorial integrity and legal procedure [2] [6].
5. The infighting and White House role in the lead‑up
Reporting documents months of GOP internal fights: some Republicans and survivors pushed for disclosure while leadership and the White House at times tried to quash the effort, including direct calls to members; that dynamic shifted when Trump signaled he would allow Republicans to back disclosure [7] [4]. Several outlets describe a brief period when the White House actively pressured or discouraged certain supporters, a sign that political calculation inside the party was a major factor [7] [8].
6. What Higgins said about Oversight work and possible conditions for support
Higgins has pointed to the Oversight Committee’s “thorough” probe and suggested he might accept a version of the bill amended in the Senate; CNN reported he would only support the House‑passed bill if it came back with changes from the Senate [2]. Newsweek earlier noted Higgins’ past votes opposing overly broad subpoenas, arguing such steps could compromise ongoing or future investigations [9].
7. What the coverage does not say or disputes among outlets
None of the provided sources identify additional Republicans who voted “no” — the consistent record is Higgins alone — and they do not provide documentary evidence that Higgins’ objections were factually definitive about the bill’s impacts; they quote his concerns but do not independently verify harm [3] [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any other specific legislative or legal analysis proving the bill would injure the categories Higgins named [2].
8. Takeaway and implications going forward
The vote illustrates a rare intra‑party reversal and a near‑unified congressional push for transparency; Higgins’ solitary dissent puts a spotlight on privacy and prosecutorial‑procedure arguments that some GOP leaders privately shared even as they voted yes [7] [6]. Whether the Senate or presidential action changes the bill’s scope — and whether Higgins’ procedural concerns lead to amendments — depends on follow‑on floor and editorial work reported as likely but not yet resolved in these sources [4] [8].