The Lone Voice of Caution: One Congressman Stands Against Releasing Epstein Files
In a near-unanimous decision, the House of Representatives recently voted to make public the long-awaited documents related to Jeffrey Epstein—but one Republican refused to join the chorus. His solitary dissent has raised eyebrows and questions: What compelled him to stand apart? And what could be so concerning that it outweighs the overwhelming push for transparency?
On November 18, the House approved the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), legislation designed to release unclassified records connected to Epstein’s criminal activity. The bill covers a wide range of material, from flight logs and travel records to communications involving Epstein’s convicted associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in recruiting minors for abuse.
The vote was decisive: 427 in favor, just one against. The bill’s momentum gained additional support when former President Donald Trump reversed his previous opposition, signaling to Republicans that it was safe to back the measure. Yet one lawmaker refused to follow the crowd.
That lone “no” came from Republican Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana. On social media, Higgins explained his reasoning:
“What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America…
As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people—witnesses, alibi providers, family members. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad release to a rabid media will absolutely lead to innocent people being hurt.”
Higgins added that he might support the bill if amended by the Senate, though he acknowledged that such revisions are improbable.
The Senate has since approved the legislation, leaving only the President’s signature to finalize the release. Attorney General Pam Bondi is legally required to publish the files within 30 days of enactment. While Trump could have unilaterally ordered their release, congressional approval adds a stronger legal mandate.
Higgins’ decision draws attention to a rarely highlighted consequence of publicizing sensitive documents: the potential impact on individuals who are indirectly tied to criminal investigations. Witnesses, family members, and even peripheral parties could face unintended harm when materials are released without sufficient safeguards.
The episode underscores the tension between transparency and the protection of the innocent. While most lawmakers and the public are eager to uncover every detail, Higgins’ stance serves as a reminder that, sometimes, ethical prudence requires standing alone. In the realm of justice, following the majority is not always the same as doing what is right.