Clay Higgins Explains Why He Was the Lone “No” Vote on the Epstein Files Bill

The House vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files passed with overwhelming support. Only one member said “no”: Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana.

Senate Minority Leader John Thune signaled that the Senate planned to advance the bill quickly, and Trump publicly said he would sign it. With party leaders moving in the same direction, Higgins’ opposition stood out in a way that few votes do. It stood out as one of the most significant instances of a Republican diverging from the party’s consensus in recent months.

What Drove Higgins to Break from the Pack

After casting the lone “no” vote, Higgins took to X to explain why he separated himself from a bill that had virtually unanimous backing. He said his concerns were not about Epstein, but about what the legislation would unleash.

Higgins argued that the bill ignored long-standing criminal justice procedures and could expose people who were never accused of wrongdoing. He warned that releasing every document tied to the investigation without stronger safeguards risked pulling private citizens into public scrutiny.

“It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America,” he wrote, adding that it would “reveal and injure thousands of innocent people, witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.”

A few Republicans had raised privacy concerns during early discussions. Still, Higgins was the only one to hold firm and refuse to support the final bill.

Higgins Points to Oversight Committee Work

Higgins has worked closely on the Epstein investigation through the House Oversight Committee and said the panel already handled sensitive records in a way that protected victims and individuals with no criminal link. He argued that the new legislation did not provide the same level of care.

He added that he would reconsider his vote only if the Senate included privacy provisions. “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.

Will the Senate Change the Bill

Speaker Mike Johnson said he spoke with Thune about adding privacy safeguards. Thune, however, indicated that the Senate is unlikely to change a bill that passed the House by such a wide margin.

Thune summarized the chamber’s position. “When a bill comes out of the House 427 to 1, and the president has said he is going to sign it, I am not sure that amending it is in the cards,” he said.

That suggests the Senate will advance the House version without changes.

Higgins Says His Concerns Are Not Political

In an interview with CNN’s Manu Raju, Higgins pushed back on the idea that his vote was influenced by Trump or by internal GOP pressure. He said Trump “did not have a good relationship” with Epstein and argued that the president was not trying to stop the bill.

Higgins described his position as a defense of long-standing legal standards. He said the Oversight Committee’s review followed established procedures while the bill responded more to public pressure for disclosure than to traditional investigative practices.

“It is not the White House and the president,” he said. “It is people who stand for long-standing criminal justice procedures that this bill does not observe.”

The Final Steps Before the Bill Becomes Law

With the Senate preparing to take up the measure, the bill is on track to reach the president for final approval. Higgins’ concerns remain part of the conversation, but they have not slowed the momentum behind the push for full disclosure. As the process moves ahead, he remains the lone voice in Congress arguing that the legislation needs stronger guardrails before the files are released.