Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) became the only House member to vote against the near-unanimous legislation aimed at releasing the Justice Department’s files on the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. His opposition centered on privacy concerns, with Higgins arguing that the bill abandons 250 years of American criminal justice procedure by exposing sensitive information to the media.
“This bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” Higgins stated in a post on X. He further criticized the legislation as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, claiming it could harm individuals who were not criminally implicated but were still named in the files.
The bill passed with overwhelming support, as 427 House lawmakers, including 216 Republicans, voted in favor. This decision followed President Donald Trump’s public urging of his party to support the bill on Truth Social. However, the White House had spent months lobbying against the effort. Despite being a staunch supporter of the president, Higgins cast the lone ‘no’ vote. He emphasized that his opposition was not a final stance, stating he would reconsider if the Senate proposed amendments to properly address privacy protections for victims and non-criminally implicated individuals.
“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,” Higgins added. The Senate could potentially clear the bill by unanimous consent as soon as later Tuesday, with Majority Leader John Thune indicating the possibility. The legislation, if passed, would mark a significant step in the long-standing debate over transparency versus privacy in criminal investigations, with Higgins’ concerns highlighting the tension between accountability and individual rights.