Border Patrol agents deploy tear gas as they clash with residents in a residential neighborhood after a minor traffic accident, January 12, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
(MINNEAPOLIS) — President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in federal troops as protests unfold in Minneapolis against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
Democratic officials in Minnesota have decried ICE’s presence after two shootings involving federal law enforcement in the span of a week. Gov. Tim Walz called the ICE operations a “campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government” and encouraged residents to “protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.”
Trump previously threatened to invoke the 1807 law, which hasn’t been used in over 30 years, last June amid protests in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration crackdown and deployment of the National Guard and again in October for Chicago.
What to know about the Insurrection Act Generally, the use of federal troops on U.S. soil is mostly prohibited. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement unless Congress approves it or under circumstances “expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
One exception is the Insurrection Act, a law signed by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807.
The Insurrection Act states, in part: “Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”
Another provision states it can be used “whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Some legal experts have warned the law is overly broad and vague, and there have been various calls for it to be reformed to provide greater checks on presidential power.
The Insurrection Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises over its history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, including by presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
Most of its uses involved federal troops being deployed, though a few situations were resolved after troops were ordered to respond but before they arrived on the scene, the Brennan Center noted.
When it was last used in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to send the National Guard to Los Angeles, it was at the request of then-GOP Gov. Pete Wilson as riots exploded in the city after the acquittal of white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King.
Invoking the act without coordination with state officials is something that hasn’t been done since President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s to deal with civil unrest.
Motor Tanker Veronica is seized in the Caribbean by U.S. Coast Guard tactical team, Jan. 15, 2026. U.S. Southern Command
(WASHINGTON) — The United States seized another tanker in the Caribbean Thursday morning, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced — saying in a social media post that the vessel was “operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the seizure in an X post along with video of the operation, which she said happened without incident.
“Early this morning, a Coast Guard tactical team conducted a pre-dawn boarding and seizure of Motor Tanker Veronica in the Caribbean,” she said.
“As another sanctioned ghost fleet tanker, Motor Tanker Veronica had previously passed through Venezuelan waters, and was operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean,” she added.
The U.S. Southern Command said the Marines and sailors from Joint Task Force Southern Spear launched from USS Gerald R. Ford and “apprehended Motor/Tanker Veronica without incident.”
This is the sixth tanker linked to Venezuela boarded by U.S. troops in the last several weeks, following growing escalations between the U.S. and Venezuela.
The tanker’s seizure comes less than two weeks after U.S. military forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are facing federal charges including narcoterrorism conspiracy and conspiracy to import cocaine. Both Maduro and his wife have entered not guilty pleas.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with oil and gas executives in the East Room of the White House on January 9, 2026 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images
(MINNEAPOLIS) — President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in the U.S. military as tensions intensify in Minneapolis following a second shooting in a week involving a federal officer amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the city.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
On Wednesday night, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, needed to be stopped from “terrorism.”
“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting,” Blanche posted on X. “Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”
ABC News has reached out to Walz and Frey’s offices for comment on Blanche’s statement.
The deputy attorney general’s blunt post came after Walz earlier on Wednesday evening had issued a sharp rebuke of the federal government’s law enforcement presence after a federal officer shot a person who they said had fled a traffic stop and then, along with two other people, began attacking the officer.
The shooting came one week after Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, was fatally shot by an ICE agent. The Department of Homeland Security has said that Good was allegedly attempting to run over law enforcement officers, a claim disputed by local officials.
“It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government,” Walz said in an address on Wednesday. He urged residents to “protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.”
Frey, who has called on ICE to “get the f— out” of Minneapolis, said on Wednesday “the situation we are seeing in our city is not sustainable.”
Trump previously threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act last summer when protests were unfolding in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration crackdown and deployment of the National Guard.
The law, which authorizes the use of the military on U.S. soil for certain purposes, hasn’t been enacted for decades. It was last implemented was in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles riots following the murder of Rodney King at the request of the governor. It hasn’t been used without coordination with a governor since the 1960s.
Overall, the Insurrection Act has been used in response to 30 crises over its history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, including by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
The Insurrection Act states, in part: “Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, said on Wednesday that she is under federal investigation for a video that she and other Democratic lawmakers posted on social media last year that told military service members that they could refuse illegal orders.
“Last week, U.S. Attorney from the District of Columbia, former Fox host Jeannine Pirro, reached out asking to interview me because of a 90-second video that I filmed in November,” Slotkin said in a video posted to X this morning. “This is on top of an FBI inquiry that came in from the counter terrorism division late last year.”
Slotkin, a former CIA officer, first learned that she was being investigated when she was contacted by federal prosecutors — a detail first reported by The New York Times, and confirmed to ABC News by her office.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office says they neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation. It’s not clear what the basis of the investigation may be.
In the November video under investigation, Slotkin appeared alongside other Democrats who previously served in the military or in the intelligence community telling U.S. service members that they have a right to refuse unlawful orders.
In November, a CIA spokeswoman attacked Slotkin for her participation in the video, saying in a social media post that the senator joins “the ranks of disgraced former intelligence officers” who have abused their “credentials to advance a malicious and disingenuous political agenda.”
The video has been a subject of focus because of separate actions taken by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who was also featured in the original post on social media. Hegseth last week moved to censure Kelly, which led Kelly to file a lawsuit against Hegseth arguing the censure violated his constitutional rights.
The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days.
Democrats involved in the video have defended their message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.
Much like Kelly, Slotkin vowed that she won’t be silenced by the investigation.
“This president does not represent the views of the majority of Americans. Even if you voted for him, I do not believe that his vision of America is shared by a majority of Americans because this country is worth fighting for,” Slotkin said in her post on Wednesday. “Our freedom of speech is worth fighting for. Our values, our core values are worth fighting for and right now speaking out against the abuse of power is the most patriotic thing we can do.”
President Donald Trump has criticized the Democrats featured in the video, saying in social media posts in November that they are “traitors” whose actions are “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Asked in November if Trump wants to execute members of Congress, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president did not — adding that the Democrats in the video are “encouraging [service members] to defy the president’s lawful orders.”
Hegseth said in his censure letter that the video “Undermines the Chain of Command; Creates Confusion About Duty; Brings Discredit Upon the Armed Forces; and Is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”
In her video on Wednesday, Slotkin said that following Trump’s posts, threats against her and her family have gone “through the roof.”
“I went on 24/7 security from Capitol Police, I had a bomb threat at my house. My parents were swatted in the middle of the night and my siblings had cop cars placed in their driveways,” Slotkin said.
She said this investigatory move comes from “the president’s playbook.”
“Truth doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy, and he then weaponizes the federal government against them. It is legal intimidation and physical intimidation meant to get you to shut up.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly expanded the ability of candidates for political office to challenge rules governing an election, rolling back lower court decisions that had said a candidate needed to show concrete harm in order to bring a suit.
The 7-2 decision handed a victory to Republicans in Illinois who are contesting a state policy of counting timely cast but late-arriving mail ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.
It also promises to increase litigation nationwide ahead of the midterm election.
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s opinion.
Roberts concluded that candidates — by virtue of running for office alone — should have the ability to bring legal challenges over rules governing how campaigns are conducted and votes are cast and counted.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan concurred with the court’s judgment in the case but on different grounds, saying candidates should need to show a “pocketbook injury” or other “actual or imminent injury” before being allowed to sue.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority of breaking from settled law and “unnecessarily thrusting the judiciary into the political arena.”
“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs — granting them standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes, simply and solely because they are candidates for office — the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral process,” Jackson wrote.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) seal on the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) building in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Jan. 2, 2026. Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The FBI conducted a search of a Washington Post reporter’s home Wednesday morning in search of alleged classified information, according to the newspaper.
The reporter, Hannah Natanson, was at her home in Virginia when FBI agents knocked on her door to execute the search warrant, the newspaper reported.
Agents seized a phone, two laptop computers – one of which was issued to her by the Washington Post – and a Garmin watch, according to the paper.
Investigators told Natanson that the warrant was part of an ongoing investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, according to the newspaper. Perez-Lugones, whom an FBI affidavit describes as a government contractor, was charged in federal court in Maryland last week for alleged unlawful retention of national defense information, according to the affidavit.
Natanson was informed by investigators that she is not the focus of the probe, the newspaper said, adding that she “covers the federal workforce.”
The FBI did not respond to an ABC News request for information about the search. However, FBI Director Kash Patel said in a social media post Wednesday that the FBI “executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor – endangering our warfighters and compromising America’s national security. The alleged leaker was arrested this week and is in custody.”
“[A]t the request of the Department of War, the Department of Justice and FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post journalist who was obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor. The leaker is currently behind bars,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X Wednesday morning.
“I am proud to work alongside Secretary Hegseth on this effort. The Trump Administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country,” Bondi’s statement continued.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) speaks to reporters after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 14, 2026 in Washington, DC. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said on Wednesday the panel plans to move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she defied a subpoena for a deposition as part of the panel’s probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
It comes a day after Comer, a Republican, said the committee plans to hold former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress as well after he refused to appear for a scheduled deposition. Comer said the committee will vote next Wednesday on holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress.
“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined her husband in defying a bipartisan, lawful congressional subpoena to show up today,” Comer said, later adding, “We’re going to hold both Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress.”
Comer, asked if he’d be willing to have the Clintons appear for a public hearing, said “that’s something we can talk about.”
On Tuesday, the Clintons sent the committee a scathing four-page letter that potentially signaled a protracted fight with Congress over a move they blasted as “partisan politics.”
“Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences,” the Clintons wrote in the letter. “For us, now is that time.”
The Clintons blasted Comer, saying in the letter that, “There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics.”
“We are confident that any reasonable person in or out of Congress will see, based on everything we release, that what you are doing is trying to punish those who you see as your enemies and to protect those you think are your friends. Continue to mislead Americans about what is truly at stake, and you will learn that Americans are better at finding the truth than you are at burying it,” they wrote.
For months, Republicans on the committee have demanded that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October.
David Kendall, a lawyer for the Clintons, has argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Instead, Kendall said, they should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
Hillary Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.
A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.
In this Nov. 17, 2025, file photo, President Donald Trump, is shown with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, at a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/Getty Images, FILE
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis in March, effectively forcing as many as 2,400 people out of the U.S., despite the president’s remarks last month that Somalia was “barely a country.”
Somali migrants with TPS will be required to leave the country by March 17, Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced Tuesday. That is, unless a court pauses the TPS revocation.
“Temporary means temporary,” Noem wrote in a statement to ABC News. “Country conditions in Somalia have improved to the point that it no longer meets the law’s requirement for Temporary Protected Status. Further, allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests. We are putting Americans first.”
The move comes after President Donald Trump has recently criticized Somali immigrants, describing them as “garbage” and saying he doesn’t want them in the United States during a Cabinet meeting last month.
“We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships,” Trump said as he addressed supporters in Pennsylvania last month.
DHS made a reference to Tuesday’s announcement in an X post that had a black and white photo of Trump in the Oval Office that referenced the 2013 movie “Captain Phillips,” which dramatized the 2009 merchant boat hostage situation by Somali pirates.
“I am the captain now,” DHS wrote in the post.
TPS is given to nationals of select countries who are unable to return home safely due to conditions such as famine, war and environmental disasters. Immigrants who have TPS designation can not be removed by DHS and are given an Eligible for an Employment Authorization Document that allows them to legally work in the U.S.
Somalia has been under a TPS designation since 1991, when civil war broke out and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians. It has been renewed several times over the last 34 years as the conflict has grown.
The State Department currently has a travel advisory — in effect since May of last year — warning people not to travel to Somalia due to “crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health, kidnapping, piracy” and other issues.
Noem did not go into further detail about her description of improved conditions in Somalia, which appear to contradict the State Department’s advisory.
As of Tuesday, there are 2,471 Somali nationals currently in the U.S. under TPS, with 1,383 in the country with pending TPS applications, a source with knowledge of the data told ABC News.
As of 2024 there are nearly 260,000 Americans of Somali descent living in the U.S, according to the census. Of that population, more than 115,000 are foreign-born and more than 93,000 — or more than 80% — of the foreign-born population are naturalized U.S. citizens, according to the census data.
Trump has repeatedly bashed the American Somali community, particularly the ones living in Minnesota, which has the largest share of Somali nationals in the country, according to the census.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has slammed Trump for his comments targeting Somalis.
“We’ve got little children going to school today, who their president called them ‘garbage,'” Walz said at an event last month.
Trump has repeated his criticisms against the Somali community following reports of fraud in the state, allegedly perpetrated by Somali immigrants against Minnesota’s social services system.
The allegations are being investigated; Minnesota officials have disputed the allegations.
The Trump administration has revoked and refused to renew TPS protections for several countries since he took office last year — including for Venezuelan nationals.
However, those decisions have been fought in court cases that have argued that DHS has made its moves in part by racial animus, citing the president and Noem’s rhetoric.
ABC News’ Armando Garcia contributed to this report.
(DETROIT) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday is turning his focus to the economy amid his administration’s intense foreign policy push with a speech at the Detroit Economic Club.
Trump’s remarks come as many Americans remain concerned about high prices.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 64% of registered voters said the cost of living is a “very serious problem” in the United States. On the economy overall, nearly half of voters said they think it’s getting worse, and 57% of voters said they disapproved of Trump’s handling of the issue.
As Trump left the White House on Tuesday, he touted new inflation data and continued his pressure campaign on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to lower interest rates.
“We have very low inflation. So, that would give ‘too-late Powell’ the chance to give us a nice, beautiful, big rate cut, which would be great for the country,” Trump told reporters. “But rates are falling also, and growth is going up. We have tremendous growth numbers. So, growth is going up. So, I’ll be talking about that today in Detroit, the big speech, and I can only say that the country is doing well.”
Powell is now facing criminal investigation by the Justice Department over his testimony last year about the renovation of the central bank’s headquarters in Washington. Powell said he believes the probe is politically motivated.
When asked by ABC News on Tuesday if he approved of the investigation, Trump said, “He’s billions of dollars over budget. So either he’s incompetent or he’s crooked. I don’t know what he is. But certainly he doesn’t do a very good job.”
Inflation held steady at 2.7% in December, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed, its lowest level since July but still higher than the Fed’s target rate.
Tuesday’s trip to Michigan is the latest stop in the administration’s push to sell the president’s economic agenda to voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
November’s off-year elections in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia showed pocketbook issues were top of mind for voters. Democrats who focused on affordability won big in those races, according to exit polls. Trump has derided affordability as a “Democratic hoax.”
Trump’s faced criticism from some in his own party, including former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for not doing more to address the high cost of living and focusing too much on foreign affairs.
In recent days, Trump’s announced several economic proposals — including a ban on large institutional investors from “buying more single-family homes” and a 1-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates. Trump’s housing plan has been met with some skepticism from analysts, and banks have pushed back on his pitch to cap credit card interest rates.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, previewing Trump’s Detroit speech on Monday, told reporters he would discuss recent news on inflation and mortgage rates.
“These economic policies are really coming into fruition now that we’re in 2026 and we’ll be seeing more tax cuts into the pockets of the American people later this spring as well. So, it’s all good news on the economic front, and I know the president looks forward to talking about that tomorrow in Michigan,” Leavitt said.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) talks to reporters after former President Bill Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2026 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.
“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.
“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.
A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition.
In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.
“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.
The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.
“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”
For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October.
Kendall has continued to argue that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall has contended that the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.
Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.
Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.
What is contempt of Congress?
The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.
“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty.
What would the process look like?
To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.
A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.
History of contempt
Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.
The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.
The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.
