The House of Representatives voted 427–1 on Tuesday to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bipartisan measure directing the Justice Department to release long-sealed investigative materials linked to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The sweeping vote reflected one of the broadest displays of unity Congress has seen this year.
But one lawmaker stood apart: Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), a staunch conservative known for his law-and-order persona and his loyalty to former President Donald Trump. Higgins argued that, in its current form, the bill risked violating privacy norms and centuries-old principles of criminal procedure.
“I have been a principled ‘NO’ on this bill from the beginning,” Higgins wrote on X soon after the vote. “As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members.”
More than two hundred House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill, doing so just days after Trump publicly urged GOP lawmakers to back it. The White House, which had quietly opposed the measure for months over privacy concerns, ultimately failed to sway lawmakers.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune signaled it could pass through unanimous consent as early as Tuesday night.
Who Is Clay Higgins?
Rep. Clay Higgins has long cast himself as a defender of civil liberties, federal oversight reform and constitutional due process — a profile that helps explain why he became the lone dissenting voice in an otherwise unified chamber.
A former sheriff’s captain from southern Louisiana, Higgins first gained national attention for his blunt, camera-ready “Crime Stoppers” segments nearly a decade ago. Those appearances helped launch him into Congress in 2016, where he quickly aligned with the most hard-line members of the Republican caucus and positioned himself as a watchdog over federal law enforcement.
Higgins now chairs the House Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement, a powerful perch that places him at the center of debates surrounding FBI authority, DOJ transparency and congressional oversight. His public commentary frequently stresses the need to protect bystanders, witnesses and law-abiding citizens from collateral harm in federal investigations.
His solitary “no” vote is therefore consistent with his long-held views: skepticism toward wide-ranging document releases, concern for individuals named in investigative files, and resistance to what he portrays as federal overreach.
Why Higgins Opposed the Epstein Files Bill
Higgins contends the bill — as written — would break with traditional safeguards that shield innocent parties from exposure during document dumps.
“It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America,” he wrote on X. He warned that the release of investigative files into what he called a “rabid media environment” could unleash reputational harm on uninvolved individuals.
Yet Higgins left the door open to supporting a revised version.
“If the Senate amends the bill to properly address privacy of victims and other Americans, who are named but not criminally implicated, then I will vote for that bill when it comes back to the House,” he said.
Political Context and Public Pressure
The push to release the Epstein files reached new momentum in 2025 as lawmakers from both parties argued that transparency was necessary to restore public trust. The case has fueled years of speculation about Epstein’s associates, financial networks and the failures that enabled his operations.
Public search interest in the “Epstein files,” congressional subpoenas and DOJ transparency records has surged, creating pressure on Congress to act swiftly. Tuesday’s nearly unanimous House vote reflects both bipartisan calculation and intense public scrutiny.
The measure requires the DOJ to publish investigative records with redactions for minors and verified victims. But the extent of redactions — and how far the release should go — has already become a central debate in the Senate.
👉🟡 Further Reading: Epstein Files Bill Explained — How Congress Can Force the DOJ to Release Federal Records 🟡👈
Transparency vs. Due Process
The Senate’s next steps hinge on one central legal question:
Can Congress force broad disclosure of criminal investigative materials without undermining due process or violating privacy protections?
Legal scholars say this bill tests the limits of transparency laws.
According to Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Loyola Law School, widely quoted on federal transparency issues:
“Opening investigative files helps restore public trust, but it must be done in a way that doesn’t expose victims or wrongly implicate people who were never accused of crimes.”
Law experts outline three areas of risk:
• Privacy for uncharged individuals
Epstein’s files include years of interviews, leads and references to individuals who were never suspects. Public release could misrepresent their role.
• Future witness cooperation
If witnesses believe their names could be disclosed years later, they may hesitate to assist federal agents in unrelated investigations.
• Overlap with victims’ rights statutes
Federal law guarantees anonymity and dignity for victims of sexual exploitation. Inadequate redactions could spark legal challenges.
For these reasons, the Senate is expected to debate redaction authority and judicial review before moving the bill forward.
What Happens Next
Sen. Thune indicated the chamber is prepared to move quickly, though the final language may include amendments addressing privacy safeguards. Any changes would require a second House vote.
Should the bill pass, the DOJ would be obligated to release the files in phases, with oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with federal privacy and victims’ protection laws.
For now, the lone dissent from Higgins stands as a reminder that even in a case as notorious as Epstein’s, Congress must navigate a narrow path between transparency and constitutional protections.
👉🟡 Further Reading: Trump Explodes at Female Reporter After Question on Epstein Files — Calls Her “Quiet, Piggy!” 🟡👈
One “No” Vote Doesn’t Stop the Bill — But It Does Expose the Hard Questions
Higgins’ solitary opposition will not derail the release of the Epstein files. The House has spoken — loudly — and the Senate is likely to follow. The American public wants to know what was hidden, who enabled Epstein’s network and how federal oversight failed so catastrophically.
But Higgins raises a point that cannot simply be waved away: transparency comes with consequences.
Releasing investigative files is not like unsealing a court docket. These documents contain dead leads, raw interviews, unverified statements and casual references to people who crossed paths with investigators for ordinary reasons. Even a redacted file can cause the internet to draw conclusions that the Justice Department never intended.
The fundamental dilemma is this:
How do you show the truth without unfairly harming people who were never part of the crime?
Congress must thread this needle carefully. The public deserves answers. Victims deserve closure. But innocent names deserve protection, too.
Higgins’ “no” vote may frustrate some Americans — but it forces lawmakers to confront the hard edge of transparency: justice must be open, but it must also be fair.
