Congress

Democrats say Bondi won’t commit to testifying in House Epstein investigation

Published

6 months ago

March 19, 2026

House Democrats say Attorney General Pam Bondi is attempting to evade a congressional subpoena to testify about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffery Epstein case.

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday evening walked out of a closed door briefing with Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, saying the nation’s lead prosecutor declined to commit to cooperating with a subpoena issued by the panel’s Republican chair earlier this week.

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, told reporters his members had only been informed about the planned Oversight briefing with Bondi and Blanche the day before. He accused the Trump administration officials of trying to stage “some kind of fake hearing” to avoid Bondi testifying under oath.

“This has been completely set up in a way that’s been irresponsible. And quite frankly, we believe a way for the Attorney General to get out of her answering questions under oath and to the public,” Garcia said.

It marks the latest escalation in the House Oversight’s partisan splintering around its Epstein investigation. Though five Republicans joined Democrats on the House Oversight Committee earlier this year to subpoena Bondi, the two parties continue to differ in their approaches to the probe and their treatment of prospective witnesses.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Bondi said she “will follow the law” when asked if she would commit to cooperating with the subpoena. She also extolled the work done under the Trump administration to promote transparency in the Epstein case.

“We were there to answer questions,” she said. “It’s the evening. We came at their convenience. We gave them as really, as much time as they wanted.”

A House Oversight GOP spokesperson said this week the Justice Department requested the opportunity to speak to lawmakers while details of Bondi’s deposition are sorted out, which could take time. Wednesday’s closed-door briefing with Bondi was far less formal than a deposition, with neither Bondi nor Blanche speaking under oath or having their comments recorded to be made public down the road.

But in the event Bondi does not comply, it’s not clear how Republicans on the committee would respond. Earlier this year, the panel approved measures to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for failing to appear for their scheduled subpoenas, which eventually forced the former first couple to testify.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-Penn.) said she asked House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) during the Wednesday briefing whether he would compel Bondi to appear for her deposition through pursuit of contempt proceedings as he had for the Clintons.

“Instead of answering as an adult, he said that I was ‘bitching’ — which is, again, something that would not be allowed if we were operating under the rules of this committee, because engaging in personalities is actually something that we are not able to do,” Lee said of Comer. “If C-SPAN and the public were there, I’d imagine that he would not act that way.”

Comer later confirmed that Lee’s account of the exchange was accurate. He said he did not personally see a purpose for Bondi’s sworn deposition and that the saga was a plot by Democrats intended to embarrass her.

“This was clearly the Democrats’ plan all along: to walk out of the briefing the DOJ offered to provide,” said the GOP spokesperson for the Oversight panel in a statement. “Both Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche were answering substantive questions, and Attorney General Bondi stated she would follow the law regarding her subpoena. It’s clear Democrats don’t want answers or justice for survivors; they just want theatrics for their latest partisan stunt.”

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

Lawmakers of both parties have been highly critical of Bondi and her department’s handling of the release of materials in the Epstein case, arguing that it had bungled the redactions in what files were made public and slow-walked their release. Democrats have gone so far as to accuse the administration of a cover-up in the case.

Bondi and the Justice Department have brushed aside lawmakers’ concerns around their handling of the Epstein matter, arguing that DOJ has complied with the law Congress passed last year compelling the full release of the files related to the late convicted sex offender.

“I wish we’d had a briefing sooner,” Comer told reporters Wednesday. “I think a breakdown of communication’s been a part of the problem too.”

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

46 minutes ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats aren’t letting rogue members off the hook for bucking their party. They hope Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won’t either.

“Obviously, there’s got to be” punishment for the two Democrats who twice this month bucked their party to advance a slate of Republican priorities, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in an interview.

“Otherwise, then,” he said, “it’s open season.”

Democrats are watching closely how — and if — Jeffries doles out consequences for Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington who have twice provided the decisive votes for GOP procedural measures this month. Jeffries and his leadership team condemned the two members when they first defected two weeks ago, slamming a “breach of trust” warranting a “serious response” but have yet to inflict any public consequences.

On Tuesday, they defied leadership a second time, infuriating House Democrats and resurrecting questions about how leadership plans to keep its caucus in line — especially if they have a slim majority next term.

“We have to all be united, and I think it’s pretty simple,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If there’s not [a punishment], I find it hard to see a path forward in the majority, which we’re all pushing for.”

Asked if leadership should punish the two aisle-crossers, Rep. Troy Carter pointed to his time as minority leader of the Louisiana state Senate: “When I had members that did not work within the confines of the philosophical views of our party, I took them off our caucus.”

“I don’t want to second-guess anybody’s timing, but I will tell you that these things cannot allow to fester,” he added. “We have to have a strict message: Either you’re with the team on those fundamental issues of governance or you aren’t.”

Multiple members, including Carter, said that removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the Appropriations Committee should be considered. (While members are just as angry at Golden, they acknowledge he’s beyond punishment given he is retiring at the end of this term.)

“I suspect that there are a number of appropriate consequences that [leaders] could implement,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “And, ultimately, it’s their decision. I certainly don’t want that to be a caucus decision. That should be a leadership decision.”

One leader, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, suggested she is open to removing Gluesenkamp Perez from Appropriations, telling reporters Wednesday morning that “team players get to sit on exclusive committees.”

After the first instance where the two Democrats defected on Sept. 1, Jeffries kicked the matter to a caucus rules panel, saying afterward he wanted to pursue action against the two members “sooner rather than later.” The panel continues to deliberate on what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures.

Jeffries said that week that he’d had a “productive” and “forward-looking” conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez, but he has said much less after Tuesday’s floor drama.

“I’ll have more to say about the issue when I have more to say about the issue,” he told Blue Light News shortly after the vote.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

3 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.