Congress

Congress races to deliver Epstein results as bipartisan pressure mounts

Published

7 months ago

February 26, 2026

House members are eyeing a new phase in their monthslong investigation into the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: a race to produce results that match the stunning Epstein fallout across the globe and satisfy an electorate clamoring for accountability.

This week’s interviews of Bill and Hillary Clinton — who are scheduled to testify to lawmakers under subpoena and behind closed doors about their relationships with Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell — could be a pivotal moment in this effort.

Bill Clinton has maintained that he was an acquaintance of Epstein’s but stopped communicating with him at least a decade before his arrest in 2019, and he has not been accused of wrongdoing.

His spokesperson Angel Ureña posted on social media in 2019 that the former president traveled on Epstein’s plane four times internationally in 2002 and 2003, but that Secret Service details were present “on every leg of the trip.” Hillary Clinton has said she has no memory of meeting Epstein at all.

But the Clintons’ depositions before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee come as the recent arrests in Britain of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, and ex-ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson, have only intensified the pressure on Congress to produce similarly dramatic impacts closer to home.

That means both Clintons will be put under a microscope for any potential transgression, whether it relates to the late financier’s sex trafficking conviction or not.

“Obviously, the committee wants to see some people be held accountable,” said Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) in an interview in advance of the high-profile depositions. The former president will testify Friday, and the former secretary of state Thursday, both in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Roughly 19 members are expected to be on hand for the depositions, and Comer said he suspected questions to focus on what interactions the couple had with Epstein — in the White House or elsewhere.

“I think what you’re seeing in Britain is, the charges against Prince Andrew and the former ambassador weren’t sex-related crimes. They were more with respect to treason and selling secrets and things like that,” he explained. “We were just fascinated how Epstein was able to surround himself with so many high-profile government figures, not just in the United States, but in other countries, so I think there will be a lot of questions.”

Linking Bill or Hillary Clinton to any type of criminal charge would be a win for Republicans, who are facing growing pressure to take down any powerful person with ties to Epstein — even as President Donald Trump’s own connections to the late financier present persistent questions and ongoing political liability. That’s especially true as the Justice Department faces criticism for its haphazard release of the Epstein files, including allegations from Democrats that the administration is covering up for the commander-in-chief.

“The DOJ hasn’t released all the files … terabytes of data, millions of files,” said GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a member of the Oversight panel. “We need to bring in witnesses, people that will actually give us information and tell us the truth. Because so far, you know, people aren’t being honest.”

Countless public figures and elected officials have communicated with Epstein over the years, and many of those communications are not criminal in nature — even if there has been a reckoning for some of those individuals. Larry Summers, for instance,announced Wednesday he would resign from Harvard University, an institution he once led, as a result of his association with Epstein highlighted in the files.

That means that delivering accountability is not so simple, and lawmakers are fighting an uphill battle to put anyone behind bars in connection with Epstein. Obstacles include a key witness who won’t cooperate — Epstein’s imprisoned co-conspirator Maxwell, who has invoked the Fifth Amendment — and the fact that records might show investigative targets mingling with Epstein but not engaging in specific illegal acts.

“Most of our big investigations have ended with criminal referrals,” Comer said. “This is a complicated investigation. A lot of the major players have died.”

Meanwhile, even Democrats, who have cast themselves as the champions of transparency in the Epstein saga, now appear willing to go hard in their questioning of Bill Clinton after the caucus was initially divided over whether the former first couple should be held in contempt for failing to appear for previously-scheduled depositions.

“Our job is to, regardless of how powerful the person with knowledge of this abuse and trafficking ring is, to find out what they know, who else is implicated, what they’ve seen, what they participated in,” said Rep. Emily Randall (D-Wash.), a member of the Oversight Committee. “We definitely are there to ask questions that will help us uncover more information. Not to throw softballs.”

At the same time, Democrats are cognizant that the GOP sees an easy target in Bill Clinton, who is featured in multiple images released by the DOJ. None of those photos indicate illicit or illegal activities, but Republicans and the White House have used them anyway to elevate the former president as an alternative bogeyman to Trump, who remains Democrats’ main target.

Trump has also not been charged with any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has maintained his innocence.

“I don’t think anybody should be spared,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, in an interview earlier this week. “But [Republicans are] going to have a hard time just pinning it on Bill Clinton, I think, because there’s just too many others. … The minute they go to Bill Clinton, they gotta go to Trump as well, because there’s really significant stuff about Trump in there.”

The House Oversight investigation dates back to July, when Democrats and a handful of Republicans in a subcommittee hearing voted to subpoena the Justice Department for all of the materials in its Epstein investigation.

That vote launched a formal probe that led to other subpoenas for individuals in Epstein’s orbit, along with the release of documents and images from the Epstein estate, including the now-infamous “birthday book” where Trump allegedly wrote Epstein a message accompanied by a lewd drawing.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) forced a House vote in November to compel DOJ to release its complete Epstein archive, and the department has since presided over a staggered document dump that has been criticized by members of both parties as misleading and incomplete.

But while several high-profile individuals have suffered reputational blows from their associations with Epstein laid bare in newly-public documents, no arrests have been made in the U.S. as a direct result.

Lawmakers remain eager to show that their work has still been effective, and that hunger has led to some missteps. For one, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) publicly accused EPA administrator Lee Zeldin of taking campaign money from a Jeffrey Epstein — but the former Republican congressman actually received the money from a physician with the same name.

And Khanna read aloud a number of names on the House floor that of men who were initially redacted from the DOJ files — some of which reportedly had no apparent connection to Epstein.

In an interview this week, Khanna said Congress’ work must culminate in prosecutions for those involved in Epstein’s scheme.

“We need to look at what Britain’s doing, what France is doing, what Norway is doing, and have those kind of prosecutions here,” he said.

“I just want to see prosecutions,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) also said in an interview.

After the Clintons are deposed Thursday and Friday, the committee has scheduled testimony from two co-executors of Epstein’s estate. Earlier this month, the panel heard from billionaire businessman Les Wexner, a onetime client of Epstein whose fortune helped fuel Epstein’s wealth. The former CEO of Victoria’s Secret insisted he severed ties with Epstein around the time that authorities were investigating sex crimes allegations against the late financier and accused Epstein of stealing from and lying to him.

While some members of the panel are clamoring to subpoena more witnesses, Comer suggested his committee’s strategy could now shift as the midterms approach and the 119th Congress comes to a close. The panel, he said, could soon turn to new questions — including some that have been the subject of conspiracy theories.

“Was Jeffrey Epstein a spy? Was he an agent?” Comer said. “Was he trading secrets with the U.S. government, the Israeli government — you know, the Middle Eastern government?”

“I’m trying to make sure the committee understands we’ve got to really focus on a timeline here,” Comer said. “It took six months to get the Clintons in.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: China fears drive AI divide

Published

1 hour ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans — and Congress — are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence.

And that fear of international competition is emerging as a key point of tension slowing down any path to AI safety legislation.

Even as almost two thirds of respondents in a new Blue Light News poll said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind other countries like China in an AI arms race.

A plurality, 43 percent, say it is okay for the U.S. to fall behind if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37 percent take the opposite view. Voters who backed Donald Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50 percent compared to just 34 percent of Kamala Harris voters.

Republican Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie argued the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance, and that AI legislation is too complex to rush — even if that means pushing off until next year consideration of a measure by his panel.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said Wednesday at Blue Light News’s Decoded Summit.

Meanwhile, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said competition isn’t a reason to avoid guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar said at the Decoded Summit.

Other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are trying to strike a balance. Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

Still, the emerging divisions spotlight a long road ahead for any consensus from Congress.

An attempt to quickly pass a bill requiring companies to build a “kill switch” into their AI models from Republican Sen. John Kennedy was blocked Wednesday by Sen. Rand Paul on the chamber’s floor.

And while Guthrie’s Senate counterpart, Commerce Chair Ted Cruz said Wednesday his hope was still to mark up this month a bipartisan AI safety bill from Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, lawmakers haven’t reached agreement to finalize the measure. Thune himself said Wednesday he was unsure it would happen before the midterms.

Cracks are also starting to show among the leading AI companies on what role they want Congress to play.

One example: Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck declined at Blue Light News’s summit to endorse a proposal for congressionally mandated independent AI monitoring — a day after competitor OpenAI endorsed it. The proposal is a key provision in Reps. Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan’s bipartisan AI safety measure.

The House’s early dismissal Wednesday only added to time pressure on lawmakers, who will return to a lame duck session with an already full calendar.

What else we’re watching:

— LEE BULLISH ON PERMITTING: Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee told fellow Republicans during a closed-door lunch Wednesday he is “guardedly optimistic” that negotiators will reach a long-sought deal on a bill to ease permitting approval for energy projects. “We were told today that the Democrats are going to agree to a permitting bill, and it’s going to be drafted and ready for us to vote on,” Kennedy said in an interview. Still, the top negotiators have yet to clinch an agreement, meaning the timeline could slip until after the midterms.

— SPY LAW TIMING UNCLEAR: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently warnedCongress that if it doesn’t vote on a controversial surveillance law by Nov. 20, the program could go dark, but it’s unclear congressional leadership can meet that deadline. Thune told reporters this week that there is an “interest” in trying to get Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorized, but didn’t commit to getting a vote before the midterms. With the House gone, reauthorization will wait until at least mid-November, regardless.

Riley Rogerson, Mia McCarthy, Anna Wiederkehr, Jordain Carney, John Sakellariadis and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Congress

Poll: China fears drive polarization on AI regulations

Published

4 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence. So is Congress.

A new POLITICO Poll finds that Americans broadly recognize serious risks from frontier AI models, but many — particularly President Donald Trump’s voters — also prioritize maintaining a lead over other countries, including China.

Even as 63% of the poll’s respondents said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind in order to mitigate that risk.

A plurality, 43%, say it is acceptable for the U.S. to fall behind other countries if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37% take the opposite view, saying the U.S. should not stand down, even if that requires taking risks. Voters who backed Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50% to 38%.

That split is already playing out on Capitol Hill as AI safety zooms to the center of congressional conversations. With legislation only slowly taking shape, fear of international competition stands to be a major point of tension during any bipartisan negotiations — with most lawmakers’ views divided closely along party lines.

Many Republican lawmakers said in interviews this week that pausing AI development could give China an opening to overtake U.S. capabilities. Democrats are also looking over their shoulders at Chinese advances, but they are cautioning that competition is not a reason for Congress to avoid instituting AI guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said during Wednesday’s Blue Light News Decoded Summit. “It’s an arms race that we need to end, and we need to protect the American people.”

Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in calling for a ban on “superintelligence” to stave off the existential threats to humanity — a concern that bubbled to the fore last week when a former Anthropic researcher warned AI could “kill us all.”

Senior Republicans are denigrating proposals like Casar’s, arguing that the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House committee overseeing the tech industry, said as much at the summit.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said. “And I think that’s what it would be if we stopped AI development.”

Guthrie further argued AI legislation is too complex to rush and that the Energy and Commerce Committee he leads might not take up AI legislation before next year. That sentiment is in line with Speaker Mike Johnson, who said this week that the U.S. must “maintain our edge over China.” Meanwhile, Trump has called the AI panic a “HOAX” and said that federal regulations would allow China to leapfrog the U.S.

Some Republicans have been almost flippant about the dilemma policymakers face in reconciling a potentially dangerous technology with their fear of Chinese competition.

“If there are going to be killer robots, I’d rather they be American killer robots,” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a recent POLITICO interview. Like Guthrie, Cruz chairs a committee overseeing tech matters.

Among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have locked arms in warning about the Chinese threat on other fronts, the familiar partisan divide is still emerging on AI regulation.

“We can lead in innovation and lead in safety,” said Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), who sits on the bipartisan Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “So if Trump or anyone else comes at it that we can only do one but not the other, he’s not looking at the history of the United States of America.”

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a moderate Republican China hawk, said he is “very reluctant to hinder AI” via regulation.

“They’re going to have to make the good case why we need it,” he said. “We don’t want to hinder our AI research. We can’t afford to fall behind China.”

Some, however, are being careful to strike a balanced tone as the AI safety conversation kicks into high gear.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House China panel, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

“There’s economic benefits to that,” he said. “There’s national security issues, but we want to have common sense and a deliberative process.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member and a co-chair of House Democrats’ AI commission, said China is “not waiting for anyone else.”

“So you can’t just leave the race, but you need to make sure you do it in the right way,” he added.

Opinions are sharper when it comes to Trump’s upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week and whether he should even broach some type of cooperation on AI safety.

“I don’t trust him,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said when asked if Trump should engage with Xi on AI. “I trust Trump.”

But many Democrats say it’s a mistake to engage in an AI arms race, with some explicitly reaching for analogies with the nuclear arms race that ended in Cold War treaties with a former global rival — the Soviet Union — limiting bomb tests and missile deployments.

Rep. Ted Lieu of California, another co-chair of the Democratic AI commission, said Trump could start small by asking Xi to “commit that they’re never going to let AI launch a nuclear weapon by itself.”

“There are things that we can do to get other countries to follow the lead the U.S. has taken in AI,” he said.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

12 hours 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.