In a recent interview, a prominent critic of President Donald Trump in the House admitted he once offered his votes in exchange for recognition from GOP leaders regarding his efforts to reveal federal documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. This revelation has faced criticism not just from some Republican colleagues but also from various conservative figures.
Representative Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) expressed strong disapproval, suggesting that those who exploit Epstein’s victims for political gain might want to rethink their roles. In an interview with Politico, Thomas Massie mentioned that he proposed this deal when House Speaker Mike Johnson sought support for an important vote.
Massie recalled, “I said I would vote in favor if it were announced that I was thanked for my work on the Epstein File Transparency Act.” He seemed frustrated when he noted that instead of making a public acknowledgment, Johnson may have chosen a different route to get the bill passed.
He characterized this incident as a test of Johnson’s willingness to take responsibility for his opposition to bringing the matter to a vote, which Johnson has denied. Massie lamented the lack of acknowledgment regarding the successful push for transparency, especially with new discoveries about powerful individuals’ misconduct.
The situation has sparked a rift within the Republican Party. Some have publicly criticized Massie, branding his requests as self-serving. For example, right-wing influencer Ryan Saavedra took to social media to mockingly state, “Election ads coming soon. Thomas Massie demands public praise to secure votes in Congress.” Sean Davis from The Federalist echoed this sentiment, expressing disappointment over the apparent ego behind Massie’s actions.
However, there were voices that defended Massie, suggesting that wanting recognition for promoting transparency is not entirely unjustified.
Last year, Massie had successfully compelled some Republicans to join Democrats in considering the Epstein Files Transparency Act, despite pushback from House leaders and Trump himself, who claimed the bill didn’t adequately protect the identities of Epstein’s victims. Although the goal of the bill is to pressure the Department of Justice to release significant information about Epstein’s case, both Johnson and Trump firmly opposed it, despite claiming to support government transparency.
Interestingly, all House members, apart from Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ultimately supported the legislation. Political science professor Matthew Green noted how dependent Johnson is on Trump’s backing, especially now, given the Republican majority is razor-thin due to recent resignations and deaths in the party.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) suggested that Massie might have aimed to illustrate the necessity of Trump’s support for party unity. She expressed a belief that admitting support for the bill would create tension with Trump, who previously advised against releasing the Epstein files.
Ahead of the vote on the transparency act, Trump publicly criticized the initiative and urged Massie to abandon it, dubbing it a “Democrat Epstein hoax.” Greene speculated that Massie likely knew his demands wouldn’t be met, stating, “He knew the answer was no.” Despite the improbability, she found it noteworthy that Massie was willing to negotiate in this manner.
Massie’s office didn’t comment on Van Orden’s rebuke of the vote offer.
