Congress

Trump does Epstein U-turn as House Republicans prepare to spurn him

Published

10 months ago

November 17, 2025

President Donald Trump is suddenly reversing his monthslong campaign to bottle up a bipartisan effort to disclose federal records dealing with Jeffrey Epstein — just as scores of House Republicans prepare to defy his demands concerning the late convicted sex offender.

“House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax,” he wrote Sunday night on Truth Social, adding, “I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT” discussing economic issues.

The U-turn came after months of drama inside the House GOP over a bill that would compel the Justice Department to release its entire Epstein file. An effort by Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson to prevent a floor vote on the measureimploded last week amid an intense White House push to try to keep Republicans in line. The vote is now expected Tuesday.

At the end of last week, Johnson and senior House leaders appeared powerless to stopperhaps as many as 100 Republicans from breaking ranks and voting with Democrats to release the files. The situation worsened over the weekend, as Trump lashed out in deeply personal terms at Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is leading the effort to force a House vote on Epstein, and publicly spurned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a one-time close ally who has recently broken with Trump on Epstein and other matters.

Even before that, some members closest to House GOP leadership were mulling whether to support Massie’s effort.

Those include lawmakers like Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who as Rules Committee chair is among the most trusted members of Johnson’s inner circle. She declined to say in an interview last week whether she would support Massie’s measure. But she suggested she favored it coming to a vote, which GOP leaders expect to happen Tuesday.

“I’m a big full disclosure person,” Foxx said. “I have nothing to hide, and I assume nobody else does, either.”

Rep. Blake Moore of Utah, the Republican conference vice chair, said in an interview last week he normally doesn’t discuss how he will vote. Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, the House GOP policy chair, acknowledged “a lot of consternation” inside the party about what to do.

Asked about his own vote, Hern said, “We’ll make that decision at game time.”

The internal GOP strife underscores how politically toxic Trump’s association with Epstein has become, especially after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released an email Wednesday in which Epstein suggested thatTrump “knew about the girls.”

Evidence has not linked Trump to wrongdoing in the Epstein case, and the president has maintained that he and the disgraced financier had a falling out years ago.

Trump appeared trained on keeping the defections to a minimum as recently as Friday, when he sent multiple Truth Social posts where he accused Democrats of pushing an “Epstein Hoax … in order to deflect from all of their bad policies and losses” and ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi toinvestigate Democrats’ connections to Epstein. The posts, according to three Republicans granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter, were part of an effort to limit mass GOP defections on this week’s vote.

“Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish,” he wrote, telling them, “don’t waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!”

Trump normally enjoys an iron grip over the House, where Republicans are rarely anything but subservient to the president. He’s seen hints of pushback recently onkey nominees and his demand toeliminate the Senate filibuster.

But he’s lost all control over the chamber when it comes to the Epstein matter, and Hill Republicans have grown increasingly wary of Trump’s fixation on the issue, according to five other people granted anonymity to describe internal GOP conversations.

One senior Republican marveled at Trump’s “erratic” and unsettling effort last week to kill the bipartisan end-around led by Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). That included pulling Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) into the White House Situation Room to try to remove her name from the discharge petition she had signed alongside GOP Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

The effort failed, and Trump administration officials privately warned that Mace’s defiance is likely to cost her an endorsement in the South Carolina governor’s race. One of her Republican opponents in that campaign, Rep. Ralph Norman, suggested he may not vote for the bill in an interview last week: “Oh, I don’t know. We’ll see.”

A major source of Trump’s obsession over the House vote is Massie, who has opposed a raft of major GOP legislation, including spending bills and the megabill that passed this summer. Trump is nowintent on ousting Massie in next year’s primary, but the Kentucky Republican has now managed to outmaneuver the president despite Trump and Johnson trying to hold him off for months.

Massie said in an interview that the Epstein vote will reflect how Republicans are starting to take stock of a post-Trump world.

“They need to look past 2028 and wonder if they want this on their record for the rest of their political career,” he said.

“Right now, it’s okay to cover up for pedophiles because the president will take up for you if you’re in the red districts — that’s the deal,” Massie later told reporters. “But that deal only works as long as he’s popular or president. … If they’re thinking about the right thing to do, that’s pretty obvious: You vote for it.”

That is reflected in the broad swath of House Republicans who said last week they were ready to back Massie, ranging from conservative hard-liners to moderate dealmakers to endangered swing-seat targets, including Rep. Tom Barrett of Michigan and Reps. Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania.

“If it’s on the floor, I’ll be voting for it,” Mackenzie said.

On the right flank, Reps. Eli Crane of Arizona, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Eric Burlison of Missouri and Tim Burchett of Tennessee said they planned to support the measure. (Burchett sought to pass it on a voice vote last week, but Democrats insisted on a recorded vote.)

More centrist-leaning Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Kevin Kiley of California and Don Bacon of Nebraska said they would vote for the bill. Bacon, who is retiring, suggested the last-minute pressure campaign from the White House was ill-advised.

“The train has already left the station, so we should move on,” he said.

Johnson, arguing Republicans have been “for maximum transparency of the Epstein files from the very beginning,” made clear last week he would not vote for the bill himself. He has argued thatthe bill would not do enough to protect Epstein’s victims, a claim Massie and Khanna reject.

He and Trump still had good reason to try and avoid a total GOP jailbreak: A big vote could increase pressure on the Senate to take up the bill and send it to the president’s desk, forcing an embarrassing veto that would prolong the controversy.

Senate GOP leaders have not committed to holding a vote, and Republicans widely expect the measure to die in the chamber. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who authored a Senate version of the bill, is coordinating with Massie, and Democrats have some options to force the issue, including seeking to force a vote by unanimous consent or to amend unrelated legislation.

Some key GOP blocs remained split on the matter, including the hard-line House Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study Committee, composed of 189 conservatives. But the legislation is likely to get universal Democratic support in addition to considerable GOP backing, Khanna said before Trump reversed course.

“While there might be pressure from the White House, there is even more pressure from the public,” he said. “People are sick of our system protecting the Epstein class.”

Nicholas Wu and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

5 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

11 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

11 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”