當地時間2025年11月18日，美國國會就愛潑斯坦案文件公開的法案引發高度關注，眾議院與參議院幾乎同步通過《愛潑斯坦檔案透明法案》。當天稍早，美國眾議院已表決通過要求司法部公開所有與愛潑斯坦相關案件檔的決議，而參議院則在一致同意程式下“秒過”眾議院版本，承諾一旦眾議院完成流程並將法案正式送交，將直接送交總統特朗普簽署。此前，特朗普已表態支援公開愛潑斯坦相關檔。

本月12日，美國眾議院復會以來，民主黨與共和黨輪番披露部分愛潑斯坦案件檔，並互相指責對方陣營的高層人物與愛潑斯坦有關聯，甚至涉及性犯罪，包括川普、民主黨前總統克林頓、前財政部長拉裡·薩默斯以及白宮前法律顧問凱瑟琳·魯姆勒等曾任民主黨政府官員的人員。這使得愛潑斯坦案再次成為國會內外焦點。

18日當天，“愛潑斯坦”在國會山的曝光形成罕見景象：眾議院以427票贊成、1票反對的壓倒性票數通過法案，而參議院則迅速跟進。如此高票與快速通過，並非因兩黨突然在“真相”與“正義”上取得共識，而是受制於巨大民意壓力、選舉週期以及黨內博弈，使議員在這一問題上找到一個幾乎無法投反對票的出口。此法案因此象徵意義重大，吸引遠超其文字篇幅的社會關注。

眾議院唯一的反對票來自議員希金斯，他在社交媒體上解釋稱，法案可能傷害“成千上萬無辜者”，包括證人、親屬以及提供不在場證明的人，擔心無差別公開檔案會在媒體放大下誤傷無辜。然而，實際上法案中已設置多項保護條款，例如保護受害人隱私、對正在偵辦的敏感資訊進行遮蔽，真正涉密內容不在公開範圍。輿論普遍認為，“保護受害者”並非反對公開檔案的合理理由，真正觸動的可能是那些害怕“尷尬曝光”的人。

對於大多數議員而言，尤其是需回到選區面對初選和大選的參選者，在如此情緒化且高度曝光的議題上投反對票，幾乎等同於將自己的名字釘在公眾恥辱柱上。因此，支持公開檔案幾乎成為一種政治本能，而非深思熟慮的政策選擇。整起事件展示美國政治中民意壓力、選舉因素與兩黨博弈如何影響國會決策，並再次將愛潑斯坦案及其涉及的權力網絡推向社會焦點。

On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Congress moved swiftly to pass legislation mandating the public release of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, drawing intense national attention. Earlier that day, the House of Representatives voted to require the Department of Justice to disclose all files connected to Epstein, and the Senate quickly followed, approving the House version through unanimous consent. Once the House completes the formal process and sends the bill to the president, it will be directly forwarded to President Donald Trump for his signature. Trump had previously expressed support for the public disclosure of Epstein-related documents.

Since the reconvening of the House on November 12, both Democrats and Republicans have alternately released portions of Epstein-related files, while accusing high-ranking figures from the opposing party of having connections to Epstein, and in some cases, involvement in sexual crimes. Names implicated in public discussion include Trump, former Democratic President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and former White House legal counsel Catherine Lummis, among others who served under Democratic administrations. The case has once again become a major focal point on Capitol Hill.

On November 18, the Epstein case dominated Congress in a rare display: the House passed the “Epstein Archives Transparency Act” with an overwhelming 427–1 vote, and the Senate promptly approved it. Such rapid and near-unanimous passage was not the result of a sudden bipartisan consensus on “truth” or “justice,” but rather the product of immense public pressure, the election cycle, and internal party dynamics. Lawmakers faced a situation in which voting against the bill would be politically almost impossible, making the legislation highly symbolic and attracting far more attention than its text alone might suggest.

The sole dissenting vote in the House came from Representative Higgins, who explained on social media that the bill could harm “thousands of innocent people,” including witnesses, relatives, and those providing alibis, fearing that indiscriminate disclosure could inadvertently affect innocents in the media spotlight. However, the law includes multiple protective measures, such as redacting victim identities and sensitive ongoing investigative information, ensuring that genuinely classified material is not released. Public opinion largely viewed “protecting victims” as an insufficient reason to oppose disclosure, suggesting that only those worried about reputational embarrassment were truly affected.

For most lawmakers, particularly those facing re-election campaigns, voting against the bill on such a highly charged and visible issue would have been politically perilous, effectively cementing support as a near-automatic political instinct rather than a carefully considered policy decision. The episode highlights how public opinion, electoral pressures, and partisan maneuvering can influence congressional action, while once again placing the Epstein case and its web of elite connections at the forefront of national discourse.