Congress

Bondi punts blame for the Epstein files to Todd Blanche

Published

3 months ago

June 4, 2026

Current acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was, as deputy attorney general, responsible for the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, former Attorney General Pam Bondi repeatedly told members of Congress and staff in a closed-door interview last month.

The revelations come the day after President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate Blanche to replace Bondi, who he fired in April, as the head of DOJ — and as Blanche contends bipartisan blowback over now-abandoned plans to launch a $1.8 billion fund awarding payouts to victims of “lawfare.”

It also comes as Bondi has continued to face scrutiny of her own for how she facilitated the release of the Epstein files, which came only after prolonged delays and botched or incomplete redactions.

According to a transcript released Thursday of Bondi’s hourslong interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of its Epstein investigation, Bondi frequently said Blanche was in charge of the task and noted that “Blanche supervised [the] entire process” to fulfill requirements of the the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law passed by Congress in November that mandated the DOJ release materials in the case.

If there was any training for those completing the redactions, it would have been overseen by Blanche, Bondi told lawmakers. She also said it was Blanche’s responsibility to determine whether a document was privileged, Bondi told lawmakers.

“He was leading the Epstein matter and the release of everything from the beginning,” Bondi said, according to the transcript.

Bondi’s repeated invocation of her likely successor casts a new, potentially unflattering spotlight on Blanche as his fate in the top post at DOJ is uncertain, with early indications from key GOP senators that his path to confirmation could be tumultuous.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bondi was subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee in March to answer for the administration’s handling of the Epstein files, after five House Republicans voted with Democrats to force her testimony. Bondi was later ousted by Trump, and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) downgraded her appearance to a transcribed interview, meaning it would not be videotaped nor conducted under oath.

Oversight Democrats quickly argued that, given Bondi’s remarks, the committee needed to hear from Blanche and suggested they could soon force a committee vote to subpoena his testimony as well. Blanche’s expected nomination to lead the Justice Department, coupled with the release of Bondi’s interview transcript, could amplify calls for Blanche to testify.

Despite Bondi’s departure from the administration, DOJ staff joined her for the interview last week, at times interjecting on her behalf. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, maintained that she was there “to represent the interests of the DOJ and its interest in effectuating the Transparency Act.” DOJ has said it was not there to represent Bondi in a personal capacity.

But during the interview, Dhillon reminded Bondi she could not discuss “protected communications” and asserted that inquiries were beyond the agreed upon scope of the conversation. She also noted that Bondi’s appearance on Capitol Hill was a voluntary interview — not a deposition — so Bondi did not need to assert a privilege in declining to answer a question.

Other than Bondi’s multiple references to Blanche, her transcribed interview appeared to offer little in the way of new, bombshell information about the administration’s handling of the Epstein case.

Bondi could not recall who managed the process that led to a July 2025 memo on Epstein that sparked immediate outrage in the case. That unsigned memo from the DOJ and FBI stated that authorities did not have a so-called client list, nor did they plan to release further information about the Epstein case. Many accused the administration at that time of reneging on its promise of transparency, laying the groundwork for eventual passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Bondi also declined to give a status update on the case out of the Southern District of New York, where she had directed the U.S. attorney’s office to continue to investigate the Epstein matter — instead referring questions on the matter to Blanche or U.S. attorney Jay Clayton.

When asked about a conversation she had with Trump, in which she reportedly told him he was mentioned in the Epstein files, Bondi refused to speak about any potential conversation with the president. At one point, Bondi invoked “privilege” over her conversations with Trump; when pressed about the nature of that privilege, Dhillon said those kinds of questions were non-starters.

“We’re not going to get into any conversations that the former Attorney General had with other senior members of the — executive members of the White House and the immediate staff of the President,” Dhillon said to the Oversight Committee, according to the transcript.

Bondi did, however, provide details on the White House Situation Room meeting between top administration officials and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who was one of few House Republicans who signed onto the discharge petition that forced a floor vote on the Epstein files transparency bill.

The former attorney general quibbled, however, with the characterization that the topic of the meeting was to lobby Boebert against the bill, saying she “recall[ed] the discussion with her was the concern about passing the bill would jeopardize the identity of victims. Which is exactly what ended up happening after the bill was passed; victims’ names were inadvertently released. I recall the topic being protecting victims.”

Congress

Chuck Edwards defends himself ahead of censure vote: ‘Context matters’

Published

1 hour ago

August 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Chuck Edwards, who dropped his plans for reelection following a scathing House Ethics report earlier this month, lobbied his colleagues this week to oppose an expected censure resolution that would condemn him over claims of inappropriate conduct towards two female staffers.

The North Carolina Republican argued in a six-page letter obtained by POLITICO that his conduct did not amount to sexual harassment, arguing that the Ethics Committee selected specific pieces of evidence to fit a narrative. He also told fellow House members that while he did not expect them to approve of every action detailed in the report, “context matters” when it comes to the consequences.

“I am asking you to distinguish between the conduct that someone, examining isolated excerpts after the fact, might consider unconventional and conduct that actually establishes sexual harassment,” Edwards wrote. “That distinction is critical because of what the Committee did not find.”

The House Ethics Committee report released Aug. 3 recommended censuring Edwards for engaging in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers.” Edwards dropped his reelection bid two days later amid pressure from House Republican leaders.

Edwards’ letter, to which he appended a fact sheet and a 14-page response memo provided to the committee by his lawyers, is being circulated ahead of the censure vote, which could happen as soon as next week. NOTUS first reported on Edwards’ letter.

A spokesperson for Edwards did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Edwards said in the letter that his interactions with the two female employees were similar to how he treated the rest of his staff, outlining examples of similar gifts he’d given and trips he’d taken with other staffers.

The Ethics Committee’s determination that his actions “could be interpreted as romantic,” he argued, did not mean he made unwanted sexual advances.

“An affectionate friendship is not a sexual proposition. A gift is not sexual misconduct. A compliment is not sexual misconduct. Poetry is not sexual misconduct. Socializing with a colleague is not sexual misconduct. Caring deeply about someone with whom you have worked and come to know for years is not sexual misconduct,” Edwards wrote.

Edwards also said investigators failed to take into account preexisting relationships with some of the staffers from before he was in Congress.

“That history matters. Gift-giving, travel, time together outside the office, and familiarity with my home did not suddenly emerge after I became a Member of Congress,” Edwards said. “They were established features of longstanding relationships. Yet despite knowing this history, the Committee completely omitted it from its report while assigning a different meaning to similar conduct in Washington.”

Edwards’ claims seek to undermine the committee’s investigative report, which found that the two women “were uncomfortable with his behavior (which they attempted to communicate) but were put in an untenable position by virtue of his status as their boss and a Member of Congress.”

At one point, a senior staffer confronted Edwards over his dealings with the young women — which included frequent public comments about their dress and appearance as well as a series of lavish gifts.

That staffer testified that “Edwards ‘got very angry’ and said she ‘didn’t understand the unique relationship’ he had with them,” according to the report.

The panel said its findings were based on a “thorough” record that “includes not only significant testimony from multiple witnesses, but also contemporaneous text messages.”

Edwards claimed in his letter that investigators cast those messages and testimonials in a false light, writing that “conduct does not become sexual harassment merely because someone looking backward through thousands of pages can construct a theory under which it ‘could be interpreted as romantic.’”

Congress

The Social Security benefit cliff is here. Washington is struggling to wake up.

Published

9 hours ago

August 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A sudden cut to Social Security checks — long seen as a far-off doomsday — is now an imminent problem for the next president and whomever voters send to Congress in the coming years.

The trust fund that bankrolls monthly checks to retirees is set to be drained of reserves in late 2032. That means tens of millions of Americans age 62 and older, as well as children and widowed spouses who get survivor benefits following the death of a family member, would see their monthly payments shrink by more than 20 percent — or an average of about $500 a month — unless Congress and the president act.

Capitol Hill saw a noticeable surge this summer in the sense of urgency to enact a fix, and alliances have started forming between prominent Republicans and Democrats rallying for a solution. But President Donald Trump and congressional leaders have yet to join the calls to action or back any of the numerous bipartisan bills aimed at preventing benefit cuts.

“This train wreck is going to happen,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said in an interview. “So as early as six years from now, we’re going to have to have a plan. And of course, I’m a big believer that we need to deal with it now, or we need to start the process of dealing with it now.”

Trump has yet to signal interest in a specific fix for the federal government’s single largest safety-net program, sticking instead to broad promises to safeguard benefits.

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) recalled discussing the issue with Trump during his first term as president.

“He said, ‘Tom, I’ll be for this the first day of my second term,’” Cole told reporters this summer about trying to get Trump to push for a fix. “Well, we’re here.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement that Trump “will always protect and strengthen Social Security” and noted that the Republican megabill enacted last summer created a temporary tax deduction for people 65 and older that can be used to reduce taxes owed on Social Security benefits.

“Under his leadership, there will be zero reductions to Social Security payments,” she said, without specifying how Trump proposes to address the 2032 cliff.

Trump pushed for a tax deduction benefiting seniors who get Social Security checks. But he hasn't put forward a plan to keep the trust fund solvent.

Trump isn’t the only Washington power player uninterested in risking their political legacy by diving into a policy thicket where proposals include hiking payroll taxes, raising the age for benefit eligibility or letting some taxpayer cash ride the waves of the stock market.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson rarely discuss the approaching benefit cliff, nor have they called to advance any of the bills lawmakers have proposed to prevent it — prompting criticism this summer from top Democrats demanding the two GOP leaders “put forward their plan” to protect Social Security.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers have been telling voters the whole notion of a cliff is a hoax.

“Your Social Security is safe. You can write that down and take it home to mama,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said at an event this summer. “All we got to do is go take the money out of the general fund, which we always do.”

But backfilling a depleted trust fund with Treasury dollars, as Kennedy suggests, would not be automatic. Congress would need to pass a bill to do so, and winning support to siphon that cash could be difficult considering the U.S. public debt zoomed past $40 trillion this month after exceeding the nation’s annual economic output earlier this year.

“Those are the politics that are bringing us a debt crisis,” former Speaker Paul Ryan said in an interview, knocking the “populist” approach lawmakers like Kennedy are taking in assuring voters that Social Security benefits would be covered by growing the deficit.

During the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Ryan pushed controversial plans to invest some Social Security contributions into private savings accounts and make changes like raising the retirement age.

“Regrettably, if we had reformed it back when we were trying to in the Bush administration, we would not be at this place,” Ryan said. “But the politics got the better of us in those days.”

Ryan was a member of the bipartisan 2010 fiscal commission led by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson but ultimately voted against the group’s final proposal, which included plans to increase the age for receiving full Social Security payments, changing the formula for benefits and taxing more wages.

Obama backed away from a deal in 2011 with then-Speaker John Boehner to enact changes to Social Security as part of a broader fiscal “grand bargain.”

Today, not only is the Social Security cliff much closer, but the nation’s overall fiscal trajectory has worsened. In recent weeks, market watchers have blamed endless deficits for helping spike long-term Treasury bond yields — increasing borrowing costs and raising fears of a “debt spiral.”

Ryan's plans to reform entitlement programs turned into political lightning rods.

Fixing the Social Security benefit cliff is not the same as solving the country’s larger fiscal issues. But it could be a test case for Washington’s ability to make difficult tradeoffs that will be necessary to bring deficits under control.

“My sense is that there’s pretty wide recognition of the fiscal situation — that the fiscal trajectory is unsustainable,” Congressional Budget Office director Phillip Swagel said in an interview. “And the interest in Social Security seems like the first kind of translation … into sort of realistic policy alternatives.”

The last time Social Security was headed toward insolvency, in the early 1980s, Congress didn’t enact a solution until a few months before benefits were set to be cut. A commission appointed by then-President Ronald Reagan developed proposals for overhauling the safety-net program, and lawmakers then passed a 1983 overhaul that gradually increased the age for receiving full benefits to 67 and raised taxes on those benefits, among other tweaks.

In a nod to Reagan’s approach, Cole and Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) released a bill this summer to create a bipartisan commission that would recommend a plan for staving off benefit cuts and then fast-track that proposal through Congress on an up-or-down vote. Several Republicans and Democrats are signed on to a similar bill across the Capitol led by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), both of whom are leaving office at the end of the year.

“The senators elected this November will be here when we have to solve this. The next president who’s elected will be here when we have to solve this,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a sponsor of that Senate bill, said in an interview. “So rather than wait till 2032, let’s go ahead and get this started now.”

Those bipartisan plans have critics on Capitol Hill, however. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) publicly warned Democrats this month not to allow Republicans “to slash or privatize Social Security through an unelected commission.” And backlash has emerged to other proposals that have delved into controversial policy specifics.

For instance, anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist has slammed a bill from the odd-bedfellows duo of progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and MAGA Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) that would make the nation’s highest earners pay Social Security payroll taxes on 100 percent of their earnings.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), who has pushed a similar plan for years, said in an interview that because Trump “has absolutely no interest whatsoever in solving this problem,” the issue needs to be at the center of the presidential primary debates for Trump’s successor.

“Like it or not,” Boyle said, “this will be on the plate of the next president.”

Congress

House GOP leaders under pressure to act on data centers before the midterms

Published

18 hours ago

August 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Pressure is growing on House GOP leaders to allow a floor vote before the midterms on legislation designed to shield their constituents from the costs associated with data centers, with an increasing number of Republicans worried that mounting opposition to the energy-sucking facilities could hurt them at the polls.

Reeling from voter complaints over the five-week summer recess about rising power prices linked to the nationwide data center boom — necessary to power the growing artificial intelligence demand — some Republicans are now pressing for action around a bill called the Ratepayer Protection Act.

The bipartisan measure, which advanced unanimously out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July, would require states to consider adopting a federal standard that would ensure data centers cover the costs of the grid upgrades needed to serve them.

“I’m encouraged by the momentum behind the Ratepayer Protection Act, and I’m hopeful we’ll see it come to the floor when Congress returns in September,” Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), an original sponsor of the bill alongside Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), said in a statement Wednesday. “This legislation earned unanimous bipartisan support in committee, and we continue to see more members sign on every week.”

But GOP leaders are so far undecided on whether to bring the measure up before the November elections — driving anxiety among Republicans who fear they’re politically vulnerable on an increasingly polarizing issue.

“We’ve reached out to Majority Leader [Steve] Scalise to let him know that we’d like to see the Ratepayer Protection Act on the floor as soon as the House comes back from August recess,” said an aide for a Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, granted anonymity to describe internal party dynamics. “Our constituents are demanding substantive action on data centers.”

Another House GOP aide, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, was even more blunt about the political urgency at play: “There’s not really a point in passing this bill after the election.”

When members return to Washington Monday after the August recess, the House is only scheduled to be in session for 15 days before breaking again until after the November elections. A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson declined to comment on the floor agenda for the latter half of September.

A spokesperson for Scalise, meanwhile, said Wednesday night that “no decisions have been made as leadership has heard concerns from members about the bill.”

The spokesperson didn’t elaborate on those concerns, but Scalise, in earlier comments provided to Blue Light News, said the data center dilemma is ultimately “a local issue” — underscoring an aversion to strict federal regulations shared by many conservatives.

“If you want a data center in your community, it’s your choice,” he continued. “I’m from a state where we have several major data centers, and we are seeing tremendous benefits from them.”

In fact, Scalise said, increased tax revenue from Meta’s $50 billion data center has led to every teacher in Louisiana’s rural Richland Parish getting a $50,000 bonus. And in Loudoun County, Virginia, he noted that increased revenue from data centers has led to a 30 percent decrease in property taxes.

“There are tremendous benefits for communities who embrace data centers … They’re good customers, they’re good neighbors and studies prove that they don’t add to the cost of the grid,” Scalise said. “They’re paying their own way.”

Johnson, from Louisiana like Scalise, has similarly highlighted the economic potential of data centers while stressing the importance of maintaining local control. He told CBS Colorado in a recent interview that “my constituents are delighted to have [data centers]” and that they have “welcomed them with open arms.

In February, Amazon announced a $12 billion data center project in Shreveport, the most populous city in Johnson’s district. The company announced another $6 billion expansion there in August.

But there are signs some of Johnson’s constituents are more wary of data center projects: At a recent town hall dubbed “The Truth About Data Centers,” residents voiced concerns about the facilities and their potential impacts on their community.

The political winds across key swing states and districts also appear to be quickly shifting against data centers. Backlash has prompted Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers to announce last week that he would support a one-year data center moratorium in his state as he battles Democratic contender Abdul El-Sayed.

Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), who is in a competitive race against former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, has pledged he’ll work to make sure the Senate passes the version of the Ratepayer Protection Act he has sponsored in his chamber.

In the House, the Ratepayer Protection Act could end up being an easy way for Johnson and Scalise to demonstrate that Republicans are responding to voters’ calls to take the issue seriously.

The measure wouldn’t go so far as to impose a pause on data center construction but would still infuse a level of accountability on operators. It also would codify the principle behind the Trump administration’s voluntary agreement with data center developers that they should shoulder energy costs.

“Throughout August, members have heard directly from constituents that data center development and affordability are among their top concerns,” Evans said in his Wednesday statement. “This bill tackles both by ensuring hardworking families and small businesses aren’t forced to foot the bill for the massive energy demands of data centers.”

Regardless of whether the bill eventually becomes law, Francesca Hsie — deputy director for electricity at center-left think tank Third Way — said the Ratepayer Protection Act could have the effect of “signaling to states” the need to take up regulation.

Whether imagined or real, she said, public perception is that data center expansion is “inextricably linked” to rising energy costs, “and because of that, I think the public is really wanting politicians to show some sort of engagement or regulation of how buildout is happening.”

Owen Dahlkamp contributed to this report.