House GOP blocks Dem maneuver to force release of Epstein files
Why it matters: It's the outcome Democrats anticipated, and one they plan to gleefully cite as President Trump continues to grapple with the MAGA fallout over the DOJ's handling of the documents.
"The question with Epstein is: Whose side are you on?" Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the author of the Epstein measure, told Axios ahead of the vote.
"Are you on the side of the rich and powerful, or are you on the side of the people?" he said, promising to introduce the amendment "again and again and again."
What happened: The House Rules Committee, which prepares legislation for votes on the House floor, voted 5 to 6 against attaching Khanna's amendment to a procedural measure related to the GENIUS Act and a defense funding bill.
The measure would have forced Attorney General Pam Bondi to publish all documents related to Epstein on a "publicly accessible website" within 30 days of procedural measure being enacted.
Republicans said the amendment was not pertinent to the GENIUS Act, which would create the first regulatory framework for stablecoins, or the defense funding bill.
Yes, but: In a rare move, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) crossed over and voted with the panel's four Democrats in favor of attaching the amendment.
He told Axios earlier on Monday: "The public's been asking for it. I think there are files. All of a sudden not to have files is a little strange, We'll see how it plays out ... I think the president will do the right thing."
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the other right-wing member of the panel who occasionally breaks with his party, did not vote.
What they're saying: " I want to know what the hell is in these files," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, arguing in favor of the resolution.
"This is about trust. Republicans said, 'Trust us. Vote for us and we will release these files.' Well here we are — they're backtracking," McGovern added.
"I think most of us believe what's appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the chair of the Rules Committee, said after the vote.
Zoom in: McGovern also tried to ram through Rep. Marc Veasey's (D-Texas) five-page resolution demanding that the administration release the Epstein files and that the FBI release a report on "any delays, suppression or destruction of evidence" related to the files.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Largest teachers union slams ‘unlawful' cuts to Department of Education after supreme court ruling
The president of the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, slammed the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday for siding with the Trump administration on dismantling the Department of Education. 'Everyone who cares about America's students and public schools should be appalled by the Supreme Court's premature intervention in this case today, which stays preliminary relief ordered by the lower courts. Today's decision does not resolve the underlying merits of Trump's unlawful plan to eliminate the Department of Education,' Becky Pringle said in a statement. Advertisement She added, 'Parents, educators, and community leaders won't be silent as Trump and his allies take a wrecking ball to public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America. We will continue to organize, advocate, and mobilize until all students have the opportunity to attend the well-resourced public schools where they can thrive.' 5 Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, speaks during an immigrant rights protest outside of the Department of Justice headquarters. Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images 5 The president of the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, slammed the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday. 5 Protestors holding signs in front of the U.S. Department of Education building. Advertisement The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to fire hundreds of Department of Education employees, a move that advances President Donald Trump's plans to dismantle the department. The high court's decision in McMahon v. State of New York was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The decision temporarily pauses an order by a lower court judge that had reinstated roughly 1,400 employees at the Department of Education. In March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon laid off half of the department's workforce as part of the Trump administration's broader reduction in government efforts. Later that month, Trump announced in an executive order that he planned to shutter the department altogether. 5 The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to fire hundreds of Department of Education employees. Advertisement 5 The decision temporarily pauses an order by a lower court judge that had reinstated roughly 1,400 employees at the Department of Education. The Supreme Court's order arose from two lawsuits, including one brought by 20 Democratic-led states that challenged the Education Department's layoffs and planned closure. McMahon praised the ruling, vowing that the federal agency can now 'carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to return education back to the states.' Advertisement 'Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,' McMahon said on X. 'While today's ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.'
Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Understanding the Legal Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
President Donald Trump is fighting to end automatic citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country unlawfully or on temporary visas, part of his broader crackdown on undocumented immigrants and a change that could overturn more than a century of legal precedent. Trump took aim at birthright citizenship with an executive order hours after his January swearing-in, triggering lawsuits by civil rights groups and Democrat-led states. They argued Trump couldn't unilaterally alter birthright citizenship because it's enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Two Democrats Tie as Frontrunners If Kamala Harris Passes on 2028 Run—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former Vice President Kamala Harris choosing not to run for president would leave two high-profile Democrats tied as frontrunners in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary, according to a new poll. Why It Matters Harris' decision about whether to run for president again could be a major factor in how competitive the 2028 primary will be. Most polls show her as an early frontrunner, though some suggest her lead has slipped as voters eye other candidates. Harris, however, has not said for sure she plans to run again and has also been floated as a California gubernatorial candidate in 2026. The poll, conducted by Echelon Insights, comes as the party remains divided about the best way to move forward. While some Democrats believe the party lost 2024 due to moving too far left, more progressive Democrats say losses stemmed from voters believing the party abandoned the working class. The divide has left Democrats with little direction and no clear leader ahead of the primaries. What to Know If Harris ultimately decides to make another go at the White House, she would have an advantage over other Democrats, according to the poll, which found her leading with 26 percent support. However, if she does not, California Governor Gavin Newsom and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg would emerge as frontrunners with support of 12 percent of respondents. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat who is a favorite among more progressive Democrats, placed third at 9 percent. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in Atlanta, Georgia on June 27, 2024. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg attends a House committee hearing on April 30, 2024 in Washington, D.C. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in Atlanta, Georgia on June 27, 2024. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg attends a House committee hearing on April 30, 2024 in Washington, D.C.;New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro followed at 8 percent, 7 percent and 5 percent, respectively. No other candidate cracked 5 percent support. The poll surveyed 1,084 likely voters from June 10 to July 14, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. Newsom and Buttigieg have both fueled speculation they could run in 2028 over the past few months. Earlier in July, Newsom traveled to early-voting South Carolina to tour counties across the state. Buttigieg, meanwhile, opted against running for elected office in Michigan, where he now resides after serving in former President Joe Biden's administration. Candidates have already begun fundraising and making these early steps, even as the primary remains years away. A recent Emerson College poll found Buttigieg with a lead, even with Harris in the field. It found that 16 percent of respondents leaned toward Buttigieg, while 13 percent preferred Harris. Newsom placed third with 12 percent. Ocasio-Cortez and Shapiro both followed with seven percent. That poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from June 24 to June 25 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. What People Are Saying Harris, speaking about her plans earlier this year while visiting Los Angeles-area sites impacted by wildfires: "My plans are to be in touch with my community, to be in touch with the leaders and figure out what I can do to support them...I am here and would be here regardless of the office I hold, because it is the right thing to do, which is to show up in your community and thank the folks who are on the ground." Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in May: "Democrats do not have the best brand around here or in a lot of places. There's a lot of reasons for that. Some fair, and some not fair." Newsom told The Wall Street Journal in June: "I'm not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold." What Happens Next Typically, most candidates do not begin announcing presidential runs until after the midterm elections. Harris has laid out an end-of-summer timeline for an announcement about whether she will run for governor or president.
