Congress

‘Nobody will ever believe it’: James Comer airs doubts about his own Epstein investigation

Published

7 months ago

November 26, 2025

Without James Comer’s House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the world might never have seen the “birthday book” full of lewd materials or the trove of more than 20,000 documents elucidating the late convicted sex offender’s dealings with global power players — including President Donald Trump.

It would have been a career-defining triumph for any House Oversight Committee chair. But not for Comer, who expressed deep ambivalence about the ongoing probe in a recent interview.

That reflects the complicated and unpredictable fallout from the Epstein saga, which has helped derail the Republican congressional agenda and the opening year of Trump’s second term. It could also have implications for Comer’s own political ambitions — given his own belief that Americans’ minds might well be impervious to his panel’s conclusions.

“I fear the report will be like the Warren Report,” he said. “Nobody will ever believe it.”

Comer’s reference to the 1964 report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy led by Chief Justice Earl Warren underscores how the Epstein case has enthralled legions of skeptics who say the federal government is intent on protecting powerful men involved in the exploitation of young women and girls.

That was one big reason, Comer said, that he “wasn’t excited about doing the investigation.” Even now, he has not fully committed to releasing a final report, saying it would happen “eventually, I would assume.”

“There’s so many conspiracy theories,” he said, leaving unspoken that his reputation and legacy are now entwined with the case.

That’s a shift from where Comer had staked his political brand a year ago, as the top GOP investigator of Joe Biden. But his two-year effort to undermine the sitting president produced uneven results, with his impeachment probe focusing on Biden family business dealings never coming to a vote and his investigation into the former president’s alleged mental decline failing to deliver any bombshells.

So as he eyes a 2027 run for Kentucky governor, with his relationship with Trump likely to be central to his prospects, it’s the Epstein investigation that could determine Comer’s future in politics.

For months, House GOP leadership touted the Oversight probe as proof that Republicans were taking the Epstein case seriously — even as they fought efforts from within their own ranks to advance legislation that would force a complete release of the DOJ investigative files. In a twist last week, Trump gave up fighting the bill’s inevitable passage, signing the measure into law shortly after Congress approved it with just one dissenter.

The administration now has fewer than 30 days to make materials available to the public, with redactions to protect victims’ names and respect ongoing criminal investigations. Comer, meanwhile, must find a way to shepherd his committee’s investigation to some conclusion.

Asked what the logical end point of his probe would be, Comer was not quite sure.

He said he remains hopeful the bank records he has subpoenaed will turn up something notable. The chair recently demanded Epstein-related records from JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank and asked the attorney general for the U.S. Virgin Islands, whose jurisdiction includes the two private islands that Epstein owned, for additional materials.

Comer warned of various obstacles. Many of the crimes occurred decades ago, and evidence will be difficult to find. The key witness — Epstein — killed himself behind bars in 2019, while Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime co-conspirator now serving a 20-year sentence for her part in the sex trafficking crimes, has said she will not cooperate with the Oversight Committee’s questioning.

In an effort to try to satisfy calls on both sides of the aisle for some kind of “list,” Comer said he has tasked Democratic and Republican women on the Oversight Committee to meet privately with victims to try to learn the identities of people complicit in Epstein’s criminal activities.

“If there is no Epstein list, and the American people expect us to compose an Epstein list, if we don’t get any names from the victims, it’s going to be hard to do,” he said.

Jennifer Freeman, an attorney representing some of Epstein’s accusers, warned that Comer’s strategy could put the women at risk.

“Why are we putting the burden on them?” she said in an interview.

But the most significant challenge Comer faces is managing the political fallout for Trump and the GOP writ large.

Comer’s targeting of the Epstein estate uncovered materials that connect the president to the late financier. But Comer has continued to downplay the significance of the revelations and insist they show no signs of wrongdoing.

Democrats publicized widely the revelations inthe birthday book, with a racy drawing and message allegedly penned by Trump. They also blasted out a set of emails mentioning Trump, including one in which Epstein said that Trump “knew about the girls.”

Comer rejects the narrative that his investigation has been damaging for Trump and blamed his panel’s minority for disregarding committee norms in selectively releasing certain information the panel had received.

Speaking with reporters last week, Comer called the Oversight Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, “dishonest” and “awful,” among other personal attacks.

“I’m done with Garcia, criticizing me. He played the gay card,” Comer said. “He just needs to do TikTok videos or something. … He’s not a serious investigator. He’s like a TikTok video kind of guy.”

Comer added that Garcia “had limited abilities to begin with, but he’s burned his bridges with this.”

A spokesperson for Comer said the “gay card” comment referred to a September incident where Garcia invoked his sexuality after Comer called him a “drama queen” to reporters.

Garcia, who is gay, said in an interview it was “clear that Chairman Comer … and the committee Republicans have been outworked and outmaneuvered, and he’s clearly upset and panicking that we have been fighting every single day to release these files. … They’ve tried to bend the knee to Trump and coverup and be part of the White House cover-up.”

If Trump is displeased with Comer’s handling of the Epstein investigation, he hasn’t said so publicly, and there aren’t apparent rumblings inside the administration about friction.

“The president likes James Comer a lot,” a senior White House official who was granted anonymity to share private conversations said. “In fact, I spoke with [Trump] recently about [Comer] and he said he’s always been good and with him all the way. There’s no problems there.”

For Comer, there is another reason to endear himself to the president with this investigation: He’s eying a bid to succeed Gov. Andy Beshear in a state where Trump’s endorsement could have significant influence.

Comer said in the interview people were encouraging him to run, and he has been traveling statewide ahead of the potential race. He suspects Epstein will not be a major issue in the campaign, but his frequent TV hits discussing his investigative work have given him the opportunity to speak to Kentucky voters, he noted.

He said he has not spoken to the White House about the Epstein probe, and when asked how he suspects Trump views the probe, Comer said, “I don’t want to know, probably.”

Diana Nerozzi contributed to this report.

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

4 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

7 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Trump officials face bipartisan questions in first all-member Iran briefings

Published

8 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers of both parties questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff Monday in the first broad congressional briefings on President Donald Trump’s Iran deal.

While Democrats asked some of the sharpest questions, participants in an afternoon conference call with House members said, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at one point pressed the administration officials on the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

According to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks, Witkoff and Rubio repeated assurances the administration has privately made to select lawmakers in prior briefings — that the goal is to negotiate a final deal that would prohibit Iran from keeping its highly enriched uranium.

The memorandum of understanding Trump signed earlier this month, they said, was meant to launch those negotiations. Witkoff, the people said, added that the technical team involved in that part of the talks was traveling from Switzerland to Qatar, where talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to happen Tuesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed the administration for more details on what financial benefits Iran could reap under the memorandum — including proceeds from previously sanctioned oil sales.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) went back and forth with Rubio and Witkoff over the lifting of the oil sanctions, two other people granted anonymity on the House call said. The officials eventually cut off the conversation and ended the call.

At another point, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) raised concerns about Witkoff’s business interests in the Middle East as he’s negotiating with Iran, prompting a sharp defense from Rubio, those people said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Rubio and Witkoff about the oil sanctions during a separate all-senators call Monday, saying in a statement afterward that they “confirmed to me that Iran will reap billions in oil revenue while retaining dangerous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.”

“If this is the administration’s defense behind closed doors, Secretary Rubio should make it under oath, in public, before the Foreign Relations Committee,” Schumer added, calling the briefing “delayed, deficient, and devoid of details.”

An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly countered on Schumer’s characterization, noting that he had previously gotten a briefing of the deal as part of a group of top leaders engaged on national security matters. Schumer, the official said, had the opportunity to ask multiple follow-up questions on the Senate call.

A separate group of White House officials briefed top congressional leaders and key committee chairs in a classified briefing in the Capitol later Monday.

The administration has faced bipartisan skepticism over multiple provisions of the memorandum of understanding — particularly the lifting of oil sanctions and a $300 billion reconstruction fund that many Senate Republicans fear will help fuel Iran’s military and regional proxies.

Rubio and Witkoff sought to ease concerns about the slow reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical trade route whose closure has sparked higher fuel and fertilizer costs. Both officials said more mine removal is required, and Witkoff indicated that Iran broke the terms of the Trump-signed deal by launching a drone attack on a passing ship over the weekend.

They also sought to assure lawmakers that Iran has received no money under the memorandum — especially not directly from American sources. Administration officials have previously pledged in smaller briefings that the reconstruction fund won’t include U.S. funds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) called the Senate briefing a “productive conversation” but said “much of what I heard today is similar to what I heard last week” during a dinner at Vice President JD Vance’s residence.