U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi delivers remarks on an arrest connected to the 2012 U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi, at the Department of Justice on February 6, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to face a grilling Wednesday when she testifies before the House Judiciary Committee amid multiple controversies.
She will likely be questioned about her handling of the Epstein files, the Justice Department’s targeting of President Donald Trump’s political foes, and the FBI raid seizing 2020 ballots in Georgia amid the president’s baseless claims of election fraud.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been sharply critical of the Department’s incomplete release of the Epstein files and extensive DOJ redactions after some viewed unredacted files at the agency beginning Monday.
She could also be grilled about her efforts to revive cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Attorney General Tish James after indictments against them were tossed.
Bondi is also set to face questions about the raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — something administration officials have said was a law enforcement operation. Given that, questions have been raised about why the attorney general was not present to discuss the matter at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago news conference announcing the raid..
The attorney general has testified on Capitol Hill only a handful of times.
In her most recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she appeared to use prepared lines of attack against Democratic lawmakers who demanded she answer their tough questions.
A view of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts which was recently renamed The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the performing arts in Washington, DC on December 29, 2025. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s plan for a “Complete Rebuilding” of the Kennedy Center in Washington has sparked a legal debate over whether he — or Congress — has the power to control the high-profile cultural institution.
The battle began in December, when Trump’s name was added to the building’s facade — above the existing signage that reads “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” — following a unanimous vote by Trump’s hand-picked board of center trustees.
It escalated recently, when Trump announced it would close in July for two years — to make major renovations he said were necessary.
Some members of Congress are pushing back, including in court, alleging Trump’s actions are unlawful and should be reversed.
What does the law say? Here’s a closer look at what the law and history say on the question:
Since Congress created the cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death and then through its expansion in the 2010s, it has been operated by both the executive and legislative branches — contributing to the legal debate.
While the executive branch oversees the appointments of the center’s board of trustees, Congress has the ultimate say on what money gets appropriated and what projects get approved.
The House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies grants the center’s board the power to act on any proposed and approved changes.
According to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the panel has historically controlled all funding, project management and security, separate from the executive branch or what is voted on by the center’s trustees.
Congress has proposed and authorized expansive construction projects, such as the REACH expansion adjacent to the Kennedy Center, designed for artist collaboration, to smaller standard year-to-year maintenance costs.
When Trump’s signature legislation passed in July, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it circumvented the subcommittee, instead directly appropriating $256,657,000 for “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures of the building.”
In a statement, the Kennedy Center’s new president, Richard Grenell, a Trump appointee, said, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”
The Trump administration has suggested these already appropriated funds will cover any costs of his proposed major renovation.
“It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive,” Grenell said. “It also means we will be finished faster.”
Limits on the president’s power? Georgetown University law professor David Super told ABC News that even though the money for those changes is already appropriated by Congress, Trump and his administration do not have total freedom to make decisions.
“The Constitution says that no money shall be drawn for the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation passed by Congress,” Super said. “He can spend that money for any of the purposes Congress provided it for, and that includes deferred maintenance, repair, restoration, renovation. It does not allow him to rebuild it.”
While Trump has suggested major renovations, no plans have been officially released or shared with the congressional subcommittee overseeing the center. During an Oval Office photo, Trump said the steel would be “fully exposed” but not removed.
“I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel,” he said. “So, we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble and some of the marble comes down, but when it’s opened, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful. It’ll be at the highest level.”
Super said if those renovations align with the language of the law Congress has passed, it is within Trump’s legal right both as president — and chair of the Kennedy Center’s board — to go forward. If the renovations go beyond what the law spells out and allows, Super said, his moves would be unconstitutional.
“Some of his remarks about ‘maybe, they will use the marble, maybe they won’t’, imply that he’s planning something much more than renovation or repair,” Super said. “If so, then he would be violating the language of the appropriation, and therefore the Constitution.”
When asked whether the president would keep his plan within the constraints laid out by Congress, White House spokeswoman Liz Hudston told ABC News: “While the Democrats neglected the Trump-Kennedy Center for years, President Trump immediately stepped up to rescue and revitalize the institution.”
Hudston also included some intended uses of the funds for maintenance, including “repairing and, where necessary, replacing elements on the exterior of the building,” and “work to bring the Trump-Kennedy Center into compliance with current life safety codes and security standard.”
So far, there are no lawsuits alleging Trump’s proposed renovations to the center are illegal.
The renaming The center’s controversial renaming presents another legal question.
When the building was designated a living memorial in 1964, Congress wrote in explicit language on how the center should be named and operated.
U.S. Public Law 88-260 dictates the U.S. must “be held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“They really left very little to the imagination, and detailed what they wanted the Kennedy Center to be,” Super said, adding, “there are many things Congress creates that it doesn’t name, and that’s left to the president to name, but here is a law saying it shall be known as the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
Super said that regardless of what the board of trustees decides, the name will legally remain as written in the statute.
“And as a duly passed law of Congress, this binds you, it binds me, and it binds the president,” Super said. “The money that the president says he wants to spend on renovating the Kennedy Center is money that was appropriated for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, not for the Trump-Kennedy Center. So, if he in fact uses that money, he is acknowledging that its name did not change.”
A former Kennedy Center trustee, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, has filed a lawsuit to stop Trump and the board of trustees from changing the Kennedy Center’s name and wants Trump’s name removed.
U.S. Code § 76j states that “the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” Beatty’s lawsuit said. “But on December 18 and 19, 2025 — in scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic — the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”
Pingree said her subcommittee has been told little about Trump’s plans and that she had instead learned about his proposed changes through social media.
“What’s going to happen now?” Pingree told ABC News, adding,” he tore down the East Wing. Does this mean he thinks he’s going to tear down the Kennedy Center and just rebuild it as a monument to himself?”
With lawmakers beginning discussions on funding for 2027, Pingree said she is working with her Republican counterpart to demand information.
“We will certainly say to them, we’re not going to allocate any money in this cycle until you give us more information about what you’re doing,” Pingree said.
“If that money is currently being used just to keep the place afloat because ticket sales are off and performers won’t perform, then it’s not going to go to the desperately needed. I believe there are some really important things that need to be done to that building,” she said.
President Donald Trump posted new renderings of the ballroom that is currently under construction, Feb. 10, 2026. (The White House)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday posted new renderings of his “Great Ballroom” and said it “will also be used for future Presidential Inaugurations.”
“Two views of the Great Ballroom being built on the site of our wonderful White House — It is on budget, and ahead of schedule!” Trump said of the construction on the former site of the demolished East Wing.
In the social media post, Trump claimed that the new ballroom “will also be used for future Presidential Inaugurations,” because of the ballroom’s expected “unprecedented structural, safety, and security features.”
According to the Library of Congress, the Constitution lays out the language of the inaugural oath but does not dictate where the ceremony must take place.
The Library of Congress adds that in the 21st century, “inaugurations usually take place on the west front of the U.S. Capitol,” but adds that “there have been many other inauguration sites in the nation’s history.”
Trump initially said in July that the $300 million ballroom project would not interfere with the existing White House structure. Later, when crews began tearing down the East Wing, an official said the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized” as the massive 90,000 square foot ballroom is built.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project.
In January, a federal judge presiding over the challenge signaled doubts about the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the legal authority to undertake the renovations and to fund them with private donations.
That judge said the decision on whether to block Trump’s renovation plans will “hopefully” come this month.
ABC News’ Steven Portnoy and Nathan Lee contributed to this report.
Rep. Bennie Thompson speaks during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Feb. 10, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A top Democrat said Tuesday’s House committee hearing on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement is the beginning of “accountability” for Department of Homeland Security officials, including Secretary Kristi Noem.
“This hearing is just the start of a reckoning for the Trump administration and its weaponization of DHS against American citizens, and the principle our country stands for. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem must be held accountable for this lawlessness immigration operation,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Rodney Scott, and Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, are appearing in the first of two hearings on oversight of the two agencies.
Scott highlighted the low border crossing numbers and the work of the men and women of CBP.
“We have now implemented effective policies, established unified priorities and objectives across all federal departments, and empowered our workforce to do their jobs by simply enforcing the laws that already exist,” Scott said.
Lyons pushed back on those who label ICE officers “Gestapo or secret police.”
“I know this first hit firsthand because my own family was targeted, but let me send a message to anyone who thinks they can intimidate us: You will fail,” Lyons said. “Despite these perils, our officers continue to execute their mission with unwavering resolve. We are only getting started. ICE remains committed to the fundamental principles that those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable.”
Lyons said that since the beginning of the second Trump administration, ICE has achieved “historic results.”
“ICE has conducted nearly 379,000 arrests, among those arrests were for more than 7,000 suspected gang members and over 1,400 known or suspected terrorists,” he said.
Lyons declined to apologize to the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were shot by federal agents in Minneapolis last month, when asked by Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., to respond to remarks by administration officials calling them domestic terrorists. He instead offered to meet with their families in private.
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the family in private. But I’m not going to comment on any active investigation.”
Lyons said he wants to release the body-worn camera footage from Minnesota, now that ICE agents are equipped with them.
“That’s one thing that I’m committed to is full transparency,” Lyons said.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testifies before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, February 10, 2026. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday was grilled on Capitol Hill about his past association with Jeffrey Epstein, following revelations that the two men remained in contact years after Lutnick suggested he had distanced himself from the convicted sex offender.
Lutnick strongly denied any wrongdoing, but one Democrat said he had “totally misrepresented” the extent of their relationship “to the Congress, to the American people and to the survivors of his despicable criminal and predatory acts.”
Appearing before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Lutnick was asked repeatedly about his correspondence with Epstein detailed in files recently released by the Justice Department, and President Donald Trump’s commerce secretary revealed he visited Epstein’s Caribbean island in 2012 with his family and others.
“I did have lunch with him, as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies,” Lutnick testified under questioning by Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.
Lutnick told Van Hollen that another couple and their children were with them during the visit.
“We had lunch on the island, that is true, for an hour, and we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together,” he said.
When asked if he saw anything inappropriate during his visit, Lutnick responded, “The only thing I saw with my wife and my children and the other couple and their children was staff who worked for Mr. Epstein on that island.”
Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein for over a decade, previously suggested he had distanced himself from Epstein back in the mid-2000s prior to Epstein’s conviction in 2008.
“So, I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross,” Lutnick said on the “Pod Force One” podcast back in October.
“That’s my story. A one and absolutely done,” Lutnick said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Commerce told ABC News on Monday, “Mr. and Mrs. Lutnick met Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and had very limited interactions with him over the next 14 years.”
However, the documents released over a week ago showed one email from Epstein’s schedule for May 1, 2011, showing plans for drinks with Lutnick.
Legal documents also showed both Lutnick and Epstein invested in the same business in 2012.
Lutnick testified that he did not have lunch with Epstein in 2011. He also testified that he had no idea about an email from the documents that said Epstein had expressed interest in meeting his nanny.
“I had no idea what that was about. Had nothing to do with me,” he testified.
Van Hollen questioned why Lutnick would make the visit even though Epstein had already been convicted.
“You made a very big point of saying that you sensed that this was a bad person in 2005 and then, of course, in 2008, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution of a minor and yet, you went and had this trip and other interactions,” the senator said.
Lutnick told the committee that he had “nothing to hide, absolutely nothing,” and would speak to the committee about sharing his own records as they relate to Jeffrey Epstein.
“I have done absolutely nothing wrong,” he testified.
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons also criticized Lutnick.
“It troubles me that you took your family to lunch on his island, that you had appointments with him. Please disclose everything. Put this to rest, because this is an issue of grave concern to my constituents,” Coons told Lutnick. “President Trump ran on releasing the Epstein files.”
Lutnick again maintained he had limited interactions with Epstein.
“I did not have anything you could call a relationship, anything you could call an acquaintance,” he told Coons
The White House has defended Lutnick, following the release of the new Epstein files.
“The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement Monday.
Several Democratic lawmakers, however, have called on Lutnick to resign because of his appearance in the files.
“It’s now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein. He said he had no interactions with Epstein after 2005, yet we now know they were in business together. Lutnick must resign or be fired,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an X post Sunday.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie also called for Lutnick to resign.
“So, he’s got a lot to answer for. But really, he should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign,” Massie told CNN Sunday.
Lutnick did not respond to questions from ABC News prior to the hearing about those calls for him to step down.
House Speaker Mike Johnson voiced confidence in Lutnick, telling reporters Tuesday that bipartisan calls for his resignation are “absurd.”
“Howard Lutnick is a great commerce secretary who’s done an extraordinary job for the country, and Thomas Massie should stop playing political games,” he said.
Reporters pressed the speaker on whether he harbors any concerns about Lutnick given his ties to Epstein.
“I don’t know anything about that. I know Howard as an individual, and I trust his word on it,” Johnson said.
U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) (R) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hold a press conference on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding at the U.S. Capitol on February 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — With just a few days until a Friday deadline to fund the Department of Homeland Security, Republican and Democratic lawmakers still appear to be at an impasse on how to move forward with Democrats’ demands for new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats delivered proposed legislative text that reflects their 10-item list of demands to Republican leadership over the weekend. The GOP presented a counterproposal, which Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said they rejected Monday night.
Details of the GOP counteroffer have not been made public, but according to Democrats, it didn’t include “details” or “legislative text.”
“The initial GOP response is both incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct. Democrats await additional detail and text,” Schumer and Jeffries said in the statement.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune would not provide details on the GOP offer when asked by reporters on Tuesday.
“I think both sides are right now trying — other than it sounds like the Democrats up here are talking about it — are trying to keep the conversations moving forward and not litigating that in public,” Thune said.
The negotiations are coming as another partial government shutdown looms. If a DHS funding solution is not reached and passed in both chambers by the end of the day Friday, DHS would then shut down.
The TSA, Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Secret Service, CISA and FEMA would be impacted even though lawmakers’ focus is on Immigration and Customs Enforcement reform. ICE operations would not be impacted after it received $75 billion in separate funding from the already-passed “Big Beautiful Bill.”
In a letter last week to Republican leaders, Jeffries and Schumer laid out 10 key demands from Democrats on DHS funding, including calling for judicial warrants before agents can enter private property, a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks, requiring the use of body cameras and new laws for use-of-force standards.
Schumer has called Democrats’ demands “exceedingly reasonable.”
“We are asking ICE to do nothing more than follow the standards that the vast majority of law enforcement agencies already follow. Why should ICE be different, especially when they have such a record of brutality?” Schumer said.
The funding fight over DHS erupted in the aftermath of the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement in Minneapolis on Jan. 24. Renee Good, a mother of three, was fatally shot by ICE agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Earlier Monday, Thune said on the Senate floor that Democrats engaged in “meaningful talks” with the White House on a path forward for funding DHS over the weekend.
“Democrats have made their demands known in detail. Some of them are positive starting points for further discussions; others are non-staters and unnecessarily tie the hands of law enforcement,” Thune said on the Senate floor.
But Thune said Republicans, in conjunction with the White House, will seek demands of their own.
“I expect that the Trump administration, with the full backing of congressional Republicans, will continue to resist any effort to make it harder for law enforcement to detain and deport dangerous illegal aliens, which is what many of the Democrats demands would do, and I expect that the administration — again with the backing of Republicans here in Congress — will insist on reforms of its own,” Thune said.
As negotiations continue behind the scenes, Thune said on Monday that lawmakers will likely need more time to complete their work. He urged Democrats to support a stopgap funding proposal to keep the lights on at DHS while they continue discussions on ICE reform.
“We are just a few days away from the deadline that Democrats chose,” Thune said. “And it’s very possible we won’t have our work finished by then. If Democrats are serious about finding a solution there, they may need to find more time to bring these efforts to a productive conclusion.”
Todd Lyons, acting director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), speaks during a news conference in Nogales, Arizona, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026. (Ash Ponders/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Amid a funding fight on Capitol Hill and polls showing more than 60% of Americans disapproving of how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is enforcing immigration laws, senior immigration officials will testify Tuesday before the House Department of Homeland Security Committee.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Rodney Scott are to appear in the first of two hearings on oversight of the two agencies. Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is also expected to appear.
The three are scheduled to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday.
Tuesday’s testimony will be their first since two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens by federal law enforcement officers in Minneapolis and since the partial drawdown of federal officers from Minnesota.
“In order to get [Department of Homeland Security funding] done, I think we need to get some questions asked and make everybody feel comfortable about what ICE, USCIS, and CBP are doing, what their goals are, and what they’re trying to accomplish,” House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y. said on the “Julie Mason Show” over the weekend. “I think having these directors there will give them the opportunity to talk about the training that their officers receive. There was a huge investment to hire more ICE and CBP officers that came through the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s going to be good to have these directors giving answers and setting the record straight.”
Democrats have been calling for more accountability for ICE and CBP. They have also called on Department of Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees the immigration agencies, to resign, which she has said she will not.
In a statement released Monday, Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the hearing “is going to be just the start of a reckoning for the Trump administration and its weaponization of government against our country.”
“Donald Trump and Kristi Noem must be held accountable for the immigration operations creating chaos in our communities, terrorizing people, and hurting U.S. citizens and immigrants alike,” he continued. “I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that our job is to conduct oversight, not cover for Donald Trump and his out-of-control administration, which is running roughshod over Americans’ rights, killing U.S. citizens, and threatening our very democracy.”
Polls show Americans disapprove of how the agencies are conducting President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement operation.
A Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month found that 63% of voters disapprove of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws and 34% approve — a lower rating than the agency received in a January Quinnipiac poll, when 57% disapproved and 40% approved.
And an Ipsos poll from early February found that 62% of Americans said efforts by ICE officers to deal with unauthorized immigration goes “too far.” That is up slightly from 58% who said the same in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted the week before. The share of Republicans saying ICE efforts go too far was up 10 points, from 20% to 30%.
Funding for DHS is set to expire on Friday if there is no deal on DHS reforms Democrats want passed for CBP and ICE.
In a letter last week to Republican leaders, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laid out 10 key demands from Democrats on DHS funding, including calling for judicial warrants before agents can enter private property, a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks, requiring the use of body cameras and new laws for use-of-force standards.
Republican Sen. Katie Britt, who has been deputized by leadership to lead talks on behalf of Senate Republicans, ripped into the Democrats’ proposal in a post on X last week.
“Democrats’ newest proposal is a ridiculous Christmas list of demands for the press,” Britt said. “This is NOT negotiating in good faith, and it’s NOT what the American people want. They continue to play politics to their radical base at the expense of the safety of Americans.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Monday evening that Republicans are preparing a counteroffer to Democrats’ proposal that could be made available soon.
Rep. Thomas Massie arrives for a House vote on the funding bill to reopen the government, February 3, 2026, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a key member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, is facing bipartisan calls to resign over new revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Documents released by the Justice Department late last month show Lutnick remained in contact with Epstein as recently as 2018, years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes including soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island if we believe what’s in these files. He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted. You know, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said on CNN’s “Inside Politics” on Sunday.
“So, he’s got a lot to answer for. But really, he should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign,” Massie said.
Massie, along with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, led the push for the Justice Department to release its files on Epstein and has since raised questions about the department’s transparency on the matter. Massie, Khanna and other members of Congress on Monday are visiting the Justice Department to view unredacted Epstein documents.
Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote on X: “It’s now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein. He said he had no interactions with Epstein after 2005, yet we now know they were in business together. Lutnick must resign or be fired. And he must answer our questions.”
Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein for over a decade, previously suggested he had distanced himself from Epstein back in the mid-2000s prior to Epstein’s conviction in 2008.
“So, I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross,” Lutnick said on the “Pod Force One” podcast back in October.
“That’s my story. A one and absolutely done,” Lutnick said.
But one email from Epstein’s schedule for May, 1, 2011, showed plans for drinks with Lutnick.
And in December of 2012, other documents showed Lutnick and his family planned to visit Epstein’s private island. That same month, both Lutnick and Epstein invested in the same business, according to legal documents.
A spokesperson for the Department of Commerce told ABC News on Monday, “Mr. and Mrs. Lutnick met Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and had very limited interactions with him over the next 14 years.”
The White House stood by Lutnick when asked about the latest reports detailing their relationship.
“President Trump has assembled the best and most transformative cabinet in modern history. The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
ABC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Jay O’Brien asked House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who is leading the panel’s investigation into Epstein, if he plans to add Lutnick to the panel’s list of subpoenas.
“We’re going to try to get these five [subpoenas] nailed down,” Comer said, referring to the individuals the committee has called to testify, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, billionaire businessman Les Wexner and others.
“We’ve got a lot of very important people we’re trying to bring in that to answer questions. We don’t want to do anything to jeopardize the five that we have on the books. So we’ll see what happens here, and we’ll move forward,” Comer, a Republican, said.
The chairman added, “We’re interested in talking to anyone that might have any information that would help us get justice for the survivors.”
Democrats, many of whom have begun calling on Lutnick to step down, were also asked if they’d be open to calling Lutnick’s testimony.
“It’s really important for folks to understand that in order for us to subpoena anybody, the majority has to consent. And so while we appreciate that there is bipartisan cooperation in this case, we have a whole list of individuals we would like to subpoena before the committee that they have not consented to,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat, said. “Of course, we would like to speak to Secretary Lutnick, and I personally believe that Mr. Lutnick needs to step down immediately.”
Massie, on CNN on Sunday, was asked on CNN on Sunday if Lutnick should come and testify before Congress about Epstein.
“No, he should just resign,” Massie said.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
US President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn of the White House after arriving on Marine One in Washington, DC, US, early on Monday, Feb. 9, 2026. (Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Later this month, President Donald Trump is hosting an annual meeting with governors at the White House, but he will not invite any Democrats, only Republicans, breaking a long-standing tradition.
The meeting, part of the National Governors Association winter gathering, will only include Republican governors, a spokesperson for the organization confirmed to ABC News.
“The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year. To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration,” Brandon Tatum, acting Executive Director and CEO of the National Governors Association, said in a statement to ABC News.
Trump is still planning to hold a separate, bipartisan dinner for governors and their spouses at the White House as part of the NGA activities. But Trump did not give invites to two Democrats: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.
It’s unclear why Trump did not invite Polis and Moore to the dinner. Moore also serves as the vice chair of the NGA.
“This is a disappointing decision for a traditionally bipartisan event between Governors and whomever occupies the White House,” Ally Sullivan, a spokesperson for Polis, said to ABC News in a statement. A source close to Polis said the governor was not given a reason for not being invited.
Over the past few months, Trump has put pressure on Polis to release Tina Peters from prison following her receiving a presidential pardon. Peters was convicted on state charges for a scheme to tamper with voting systems driven by false claims about the 2020 election. Trump’s pardon power does not extend to state crimes.
Moore was also not informed why he was not invited to the annual dinner and blasted Trump in a statement released on Sunday, appearing to suggest his race was a factor.
“My peers, both Democrats and Republicans, selected me to serve as the Vice Chair of the NGA, another reason why it’s hard not to see this decision as another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership,” Moore said.
“As the nation’s only Black governor, I can’t ignore that being singled out for exclusion from this bipartisan tradition carries an added weight — whether that was the intent or not,” he continued.
ABC News has requested comment from the White House regarding Moore’s remarks.
Moore said to CNN on Sunday that he has received a commitment from the bipartisan National Governors Association that it will not recognize the dinner as an official NGA event.
In a statement to ABC News, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s decision to exclude Democratic governors from the annual NGA meeting at the White House, adding that Trump did invite them to the dinner.
“These are White House events and the President can invite whomever he wants. With that being said, the White House has been coordinating meetings with the President, cabinet secretaries, and Democrat governors for more than a week,” Leavitt said in her statement. “Democrats were invited to the dinner at the White House. This is a non-story.”
Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, in an appearance on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, slammed Trump’s decision to only invite Republicans to the annual meeting with governors at the White House and exclude Moore and Polis from the bipartisan dinner. Beshear also said he would not be attending the bipartisan dinner.
“No, I ain’t going,” Beshear said. “Wes is a friend of mine. Even if he wasn’t a friend of mine, this would be wrong — and Jared as well — but the other thing that’s going on is they didn’t invite any Democratic governor to the business section.”
Ghislaine Maxwell October 18, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Jimi Celeste/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, invoked the Fifth Amendment during the closed-door virtual deposition before the House Oversight Committee on Monday, according to Chairman James Comer.
It was expected that Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison in Texas, would refuse to answer questions from lawmakers and committee staffers as part of the panel’s investigation into the late financier and his ties to some of the world’s most powerful figures in politics, business and entertainment. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died by suicide in 2019 while at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
Maxwell has a petition pending in federal court in New York which seeks to overturn her conviction or reduce her sentence.
Some committee lawmakers were expected to attend the closed deposition.
The deposition was more than six months in the making, and was first requested last July, when Comer formally issued a subpoena for a deposition with Maxwell to occur at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee on Aug. 11.
Comer agreed to delay the deposition as Maxwell awaited a Supreme Court ruling on her appeal, which she ultimately lost.
During that interview, Maxwell told Blanche that she never witnessed nor heard of any criminal or inappropriate activity by President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, nor any of the well-known men who associated with Epstein, according to the sources.
The closed deposition with Maxwell comes on the same day that members of Congress can go to the Department of Justice to view unredacted versions of the Epstein files that the department has withheld from public disclosure.
