Epstein Files: Voting Against Transparency, Then Claiming to Support It

Government Transparency Source: Press Statement CONTRADICTION

Why This Matters for NY-23

When representatives claim to support transparency while blocking binding measures and then voting for symbolic ones, constituents can’t tell who actually fought for accountability versus who wanted the appearance of it. The sequence here — vote NO on binding amendment, then vote YES on resolution that “forces the release of NOTHING” (Rep. Massie’s words) — is a pattern voters should understand.

Statement

Source: Press Statement, July 18, 2025 Reported by: WRFA-LP Jamestown, Quiver/Nasdaq Congressional Press

“I stand with my Republican colleagues in demanding the full release of all credible Epstein documents—while ensuring the privacy and dignity of the victims are protected. Every individual who committed crimes—especially against minors—must face the full weight of the law.”

Rep. Langworthy praised the House Rules Committee’s advancement of H.Res. 589 (a GOP-backed resolution urging release of Epstein-related documents) as “a bold and necessary move to deliver long-overdue justice to the victims,” while accusing Democrats of “obstruction and silence” on the issue.

Congressional Record

July 17, 2025 - House Rules Committee Vote on Epstein Files Amendment

  • Langworthy vote: NO
  • Action: Democrats offered an amendment to force the Department of Justice to release Epstein’s files during consideration of cryptocurrency legislation
  • Result: Langworthy was one of only six Republicans on the House Rules Committee who voted against attaching this amendment, helping to block the immediate release of the files
  • Source: WRFA-LP Jamestown, NBC News

July 18, 2025 - H.Res. 589 (Non-binding Resolution)

  • Langworthy vote: YES
  • Action: After blocking the binding amendment, Republicans drafted their own non-binding resolution requesting Epstein file release
  • Result: Resolution passed but “forces the release of NOTHING” according to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who called it a “stunt”
  • Source: Congressional Record, WRFA-LP

Context

The sequence of events:

  1. July 17: Democrats propose binding amendment to force DOJ to release Epstein files → Langworthy votes NO
  2. Files remain unreleased due to failed amendment
  3. July 18: Republicans introduce symbolic resolution with no enforcement power → Langworthy votes YES and issues press statement claiming to “demand full release”

Local media noted the contradiction: “After voting no earlier this week on an amendment to have DOJ release the Epstein files, Congressman Nick Langworthy has voted yes on moving a Republican resolution forward….”

Sources

  • WRFA-LP Jamestown: “Langworthy Votes Yes After Voting No On Resolution To Request Release Of Jeffrey Epstein Files” (July 18, 2025)
  • Quiver/Nasdaq Congressional Press Summary (July 18, 2025)
  • NBC News reporting on House Rules Committee votes
  • Congressional Record - House Rules Committee proceedings (July 2025)

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official congressional records and news reports. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

In Plain Language

The sequence:

  1. July 17: Democrats propose a binding amendment to force DOJ to release Epstein files → Langworthy votes NO
  2. Files remain unreleased
  3. July 18: Republicans introduce a symbolic resolution with no enforcement power → Langworthy votes YES and issues press release “demanding full release”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who voted for actual release, called the Republican resolution a “stunt” that “forces the release of NOTHING.”

Local media noticed: “After voting no earlier this week on an amendment to have DOJ release the Epstein files, Congressman Nick Langworthy has voted yes on moving a Republican resolution forward….”

Last updated: December 21, 2025