Congress

‘This is just the beginning’: 1 year in, there’s no end in sight for Congress’ Epstein probe

Published

3 months ago

July 9, 2026

The House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation will hit the one-year mark later this month, and the saga isn’t ending anytime soon.

No matter which party ends up in control in the next Congress, the Oversight panel will remain under pressure to continue to investigate the late convicted sex offender and the web of power players who may have been complicit in his crimes.

Democrats are making clear that they view the committee’s work under Republican leadership as incomplete and that the Epstein case will be central to their oversight of President Donald Trump’s administration if they win the majority in the midterms.

“This is just the beginning,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, an Oversight Democrat, said in an interview. “I believe this is the administration’s Watergate. I think that it’s clear that they are complicit in covering crimes and shielding the president from accountability and evading the law, and so I’d like to see all of them in front of the committee under oath.”

Republicans, meanwhile, say that the public’s appetite for answers in the Epstein case won’t be satiated no matter what new details the panel unearths.

“People are never satisfied with the congressional investigation throughout history,” said Oversight Chair James Comer of Kentucky, who, due to GOP term limits, will no longer be the panel’s top Republican in the next Congress.

While he had hoped to wrap up interviews by the August recess, Comer added, “It’s probably going to be hard because it seems like … after every deposition we get another name or two that we need to talk to.”

That means the congressional Epstein probe could continue for the foreseeable future, not only out of hopes of finding a smoking gun but also because the political incentives to keep investigating — for Democrats as well as Republicans — are impossible to resist.

The panel has interviewed more than a dozen people, and none so far have shared any new information culminating in criminal charges. But the panel has made history by making a host of powerful people answer for their willful association with a convicted sex offender — among them Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the billionaire investor Leon Black and tech mogul and philanthropist Bill Gates. Black and Gates both admitted to knowing about Epstein’s criminal history, at least in part, while continuing to associate with him.

There have been some other revelations, too. Sarah Kellen, a former Epstein assistant, gave lawmakers the names of two men potentially implicated in Epstein’s misdeeds: Hair stylist Frédéric Fekkai and former Miami Beach mayor Philip Levine, who both have denied wrongdoing.

Black, in the middle of his transcribed interview, was slapped with subpoenas that will force him to reappear and hand over nondisclosure agreements that could be tied to Epstein.

And ousted former Attorney General Pam Bondi underscored the extent to which her then-deputy, Todd Blanche, led the Justice Department’s haphazard release of the Epstein files after Congress forced the department’s hand last fall. Blanche — now the acting attorney general vying to lead the DOJ permanently — is expected to be heavily questioned about the matter at his Senate confirmation hearing next week, and House Oversight could separately call him in to speak with the panel in the coming weeks.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, who is poised to become Oversight chair next year if Democrats sweep the fall elections, noted the ongoing investigation has also set a new precedent: The panel’s decision earlier this year to compel the sworn testimony of former President Bill Clinton, he said, could pave the way for subpoenaing other commanders-in-chief.

That includes Trump, who has drawn scrutiny for his own relationship with Epstein. Democrats have argued the administration has concealed the extent of that relationship, but Trump has maintained that he and Epstein had a falling-out long before Epstein’s death by suicide behind bars in 2019. The president has not been charged with wrongdoing.

There are, however, clear limits to what Congress can do to bring people to account. Already, committee Republicans have recommended that the Justice Department investigate allegations against Fekkai and Levine.

In a statement, a DOJ official confirmed the department had received the recommendation from the committee, and the FBI was looking into it.

“The allegations Kellen made in her interview to Oversight included names of purported perpetrators that she apparently did not raise in her FBI interviews during the course of the investigations into Epstein and Maxwell,” the official said. “The FBI is in the process of confirming that. If, during the course of their review, FBI encounters of evidence of a federal crime, they will investigate that matter.”

Comer hinted that the House Oversight Committee would pursue criminal referrals to the DOJ, too: “We believe there are people that deserve to be prosecuted, and we’re going to do everything in our ability to see that happen. I promised the survivors that.”

Garcia said some witnesses who came to testify voluntarily and were not sworn in under oath would, in a Democratic majority, be called back again to give formal depositions, such as Bondi. Committee Democrats have also expressed an interest in subpoenaing testimony from FBI Director Kash Patel as they explore not just Epstein’s network of associates but the federal government’s uneven handling of the matter.

The Epstein probe will not be over, Garcia pledged, “until they release all the files and until … ideally, criminal convictions out of the DOJ.”

But any referrals would be merely advisory — only the Trump administration can decide who to target with federal charges. It’s also highly unlikely that a sitting president could be compelled to participate in the committee’s Epstein probe through a subpoena.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) suggested that the House effort was only serving to provide cover for the Justice Department to avoid accountability.

“Frankly, bringing all these people in is still part of the charade and the diversion from what should happen, which is, the DOJ should bring charges against people for whom there’s credible evidence,” Massie, who lost his reelection primary to a Trump-backed challenger, said in an interview. “Everything that happens in Oversight is just a part of trying to shellac over the whole thing.”

Massie teamed up last year with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to force a vote on legislation requiring the Justice Department to make public all the Epstein materials in its possession. The Trump White House sought to block the measure, and with Republicans not wanting to disobey their president or alienate their base clamoring for transparency, Speaker Mike Johnson sent the House home rather than keep members in town to writhe amid the uproar.

But before lawmakers departed, Democrats forced a surprise bipartisan vote during an Oversight subcommittee hearing compelling the Justice Department to turn over the Epstein files to Congress. That vote launched the Epstein probe at a time when the DOJ was still refusing to cooperate fully on its own — a shift that took place in November, when Trump finally relented and allowed Congress to pass Massie and Khanna’s Epstein Files Transparency Act with near-unanimous support.

Since that time, the rollout of the files has been full of mistakes, including botched disclosures of victim information and excessive redactions. Lawmakers of both parties argue the DOJ has not fully complied with the law.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), another Oversight Committee member, said he didn’t know how the Epstein investigation would end but wasn’t optimistic there would be a satisfying conclusion.

“This town moves — I mean, glaciers run past us,” Burchett said. “We’ve been studying the Kennedy assassination, and we’re still getting information on it. … I don’t have a lot of faith in the system. I don’t care who’s in charge. I think that the sewer is too deep.”

Congress

Sanders, Casar introduce ‘superintelligence’ ban

Published

39 minutes ago

September 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Two top congressional progressives unveiled their bill Wednesday to ban artificial “superintelligence” and establish a Cabinet-level agency to regulate AI, fleshing out their plans for a crackdown on the industry.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have advocated for heavy regulation of the rapidly evolving technology, particularly following a string of high-profile cyberattacks and doomsday warnings from industry insiders. Sanders and Casar teased the proposal earlier this month but only officially rolled out their “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act” on Wednesday.

Casar said the bill would ban “recursive self-improvement,” meaning AI’s ability to build improved and more capable versions of itself. The bill also bars AI models from designing nuclear or biological weapons and would ban models that try to “escape human oversight or deceive humans,” Casar told reporters.

Sanders and Casar had previously outlined their plans to draft legislation banning “superintelligence” and to pause advanced AI development until a “Department of Artificial Intelligence” with a Senate-confirmed secretary is capable of monitoring model capabilities and identifying risks.

The legislation would set penalties for any entity that attempts to circumvent federal oversight, including the “corporate death penalty” for companies and up to 20 years in prison for individuals — on par with the punishment for illegally developing nuclear weapons.

The duo is bullish about both chambers swiftly taking up their legislation, even as Democratic leaders entertain much smaller-bore regulatory actions and some Republican leaders reject the need to advance AI safety legislation entirely. Casar said he believed the bill “will be considered the commonsense proposal in the coming weeks” as public pressure on Congress to enact AI guardrails mounts.

“In my view, we cannot simply sit by idly and wait for advanced AI to cause the next 9/11 or Chernobyl or a global pandemic or a financial crisis before we take action to protect the American people and, of course, the people of the world,” Sanders told reporters.

Congress

Troy Carter launches bid to run Congressional Black Caucus

Published

1 hour ago

September 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) launched a run to head the Congressional Black Caucus, making official his long-anticipated and heavily favored bid to take over the powerful group.

Carter announced his plans in a letter to colleagues sent Tuesday and obtained by Blue Light News, saying, “I will listen carefully. I will work hard. I will act when action is needed.”

Carter has support from much of the CBC and has positioned himself as a fierce ally of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Next term, the CBC is anticipating an influx of prospective ultraprogressive members. In his letter, Carter signaled he welcomes ideological diversity in the caucus.

“As Chair, I will respect the tremendous diversity of talent, experience, geography, ideology, and perspective within our Caucus,” Carter said in the letter. “Every Member should know that their voice matters, that they have a seat at the table, and that when they need their Caucus, their Caucus will be there.”

In a July interview with POLITICO, Carter previewed how he would lead the caucus, whose membership has been threatened by Republican-led redistricting in the South in the wake of an April Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais that limited the Voting Rights Act .

“If those who are out there banking on us being quieted, going away, not fighting for the rights of individuals, and providing resources to those that have been historically left behind, they are sadly mistaken,” he said at the time.

On other matters that the CBC will have to consider next term, he said he’s not keen on carving up majority-minority districts in blue states to create new Democratic seats, but he struck a softer note on seniority rights for committee assignments, saying: “I have never believed that a person that comes in with superior expertise in a subject matter should be told to wait.”

Congress

Senate Republican seeks to fast-track AI whistleblower bill

Published

2 hours ago

September 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley is trying to pass a bill before the midterms that would protect whistleblowers who disclose information about the risks involved in artificial intelligence development, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose nonpublic information.

The Iowa Republican is seeking to move it through unanimous consent — a way to expedite passage on the Senate floor that hinges on an agreement from all 100 senators to let the measure through.

Only one senator has to object in order to doom the effort. Grassley is in the process of privately checking with colleagues to see if someone will register opposition, according to the two people with knowledge of his efforts. He likely has until the end of this week to seal the deal, as senators are eager to begin their lengthy recess to campaign ahead of the November elections.

Even if someone indicates privately they oppose the bill, Grassley may go to the Senate floor and try to pass the bill anyways, one of the people said — a way to force a colleague to go on the record publicly blocking the measure and defend their position.

A longtime champion of whistleblower protections, Grassley introduced this specific legislation in May 2025. Original cosponsors included Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Democratic Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, as well as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), have more recently signed onto the bill.

The push for passage now comes as a flurry of current and former employees of leading AI labs have emerged to share alarm over the rapid pace of AI advancements and its potential for catastrophic consequences if left unchecked.

And while it wouldn’t come close to the kind of AI regulatory framework some lawmakers are clamoring for Congress to enact, it would represent a step toward bringing some accountability to AI development practices that some critics worry lacks necessary transparency.