In a historic move on November 18, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by an overwhelming margin — 427 to 1, compelling the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release virtually all unclassified records tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s investigation. But just one lawmaker stood in opposition: Representative Clay Higgins (R‑LA).
Who Is Clay Higgins — The Lone “No” Vote
Clay Higgins is a Republican from Louisiana’s 3rd Congressional District. He has built his political brand around law enforcement and strong‑talking conservatism. When the House voted on the Epstein transparency bill, he was the only member who rejected it — a stark contrast to nearly unanimous bipartisan support.
Why Higgins Voted “No”: Concerns About Privacy and Harm
Higgins defended his decision publicly, citing what he described as a potential threat to innocent people’s privacy:
He argued that broad public release of investigative files could “reveal and injure thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.”
He also claimed the bill “abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure” in America.
“If enacted in its current form … released to a rabid media, [it] will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” Higgins said.
That said, he left the door open: he would support the bill if the Senate amended it to provide stronger protections for those named but not criminally implicated.
How the Rest of Congress Voted
-
The bill passed 427–1 in the House.
-
Five members did not vote.
-
After the House approved it, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, clearing the way for it to go to the President’s desk.
The Broader Context: Why This Vote Mattered
The Epstein Files Transparency Act was championed by a bipartisan pair of Congress members, who pressed for full public access to Epstein-related documents. Their effort came amid longstanding public suspicion and concerns about whether powerful individuals were protected from scrutiny.
For many Americans, the push was fundamentally about accountability: victims, advocates, and lawmakers argued that transparency was essential to understanding Epstein’s network and how the system may have failed. Higgins’s vote, by contrast, spotlighted a different tension: privacy versus public exposure. His fear was that naming individuals in raw investigative files could be deeply harmful, especially for people not implicated in wrongdoing.
Power Dynamics at Play
Higgins’s solitary vote reveals a nuanced moment in U.S. politics:
-
Overwhelming Bipartisan Consensus: The fact that his “no” was the only dissenting vote underscores how broadly supported the transparency move was across party lines.
-
GOP Risk: Despite being a Republican — and traditionally aligned with strong law-and-order messaging — Higgins broke with his party. That shows this issue transcended normal partisan divides.
-
Privacy vs. Justice: Higgins framed his opposition not as support for Epstein or his network, but as a principled concern for due process and safeguarding innocent names.
Why It Resonates With a U.S. Audience
For an American audience, especially those concerned with government accountability, victim justice, and transparency, this vote feels deeply symbolic. It wasn’t just about Epstein — it was a rare moment when Congress nodded to public demand for openness.
Yet, Higgins’s lone “no” is also a reminder: transparency has trade-offs. Releasing investigative files isn't just about exposing wrongdoing; it's also about protecting people. And not all lawmakers believe the balance has been struck correctly.
Whether you're a transparency advocate or someone who worries about privacy rights, this vote matters. It clarifies: when push came to shove, only one member of the House believed the bill went too far — and he was willing to stand alone.