House panel tees up vote on Jeffrey Epstein resolution
The panel voted 9-4 along party lines to send the measure to the House floor, with Democrats objecting to the resolution being non-binding.
It is unclear when leadership plans to stage a floor vote on the Epstein measure. House Rules Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) would make that announcement.
The measure reads: 'Providing for the public release of certain documents, records, and communications related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.'
It directs the Attorney General to make public 'all credible' documents, communications, and metadata related to the investigations into and prosecutions against Epstein and his convicted former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — providing considerable exceptions for information that could identify or depict victims, violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or is 'demonstrably false or unauthenticated.'
The measure is a House resolution, and not a bill — meaning it will not go to the Senate and does not have the legal weight to force the Trump administration to comply.
Pressed on that by Democrats in the committee, Foxx did not directly answer, saying it is a 'sound, good-faith resolution' and noting that Democrats, when they offered an Epstein-related measure several days ago, also did so in the form of a resolution rather than a bill.
Rules committee member Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said if the information was not released, the panel would urge all relevant House committees to initiate an investigation into any obstruction, suppression, or delay in the release of the files.
Ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) dismissed the resolution as a 'cover vote' without teeth that the panel's members advanced because they are taking heat over their vote earlier in the week against a Democratic-led amendment calling for the release of Epstein-related documents.
He offered an amendment that would tee up a more forceful bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to require the DOJ to disclose Epstein documents, which Republicans promptly dismissed.
If and when the measure comes to the floor, the procedural rule resolution that typically tees up debate and a final vote on legislation will instead 'deem' the measure passed — meaning members would vote only once on the resolution.
As the panel prepared to advance the resolution, President Trump — who for over a week has called the Epstein matter a 'hoax' and fumed at his prominent supporters objecting to a DOJ decision to not release any more information on the sex offender — relented by saying on his website Truth Social he would direct Attorney General Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.'
The vote by the panel is the latest development in the Epstein saga, which has infiltrated Capitol Hill and fractured the Republican Party. The GOP is grappling with a push by the MAGA base to release the documents and an effort by Trump to end discussion on the issue.
It also puts to bed a days-long saga that delayed action in the House on a package clawing back federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Republicans on the House Rules Committee huddled with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Scalise for nearly two hours on Thursday to discuss a path forward on the thorny matter that is the Epstein controversy.
On Monday, Democrats on the House Rules Committee forced a vote on whether the full chamber should vote on an amendment compelling the release of the Epstein files. That effort failed 4-8 with only one Republican — Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.) — voting in favor. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), another Republican on the panel, did not vote on the measure.
Republicans on the panel who voted against the effort have since received blowback for their vote, in-part prompting Thursday night's vote.
On Tuesday, Democrats made another attempt at forcing a vote on releasing the Epstein documents by urging the chamber to oppose a routine procedural vote which, if it failed, would have triggered a vote on publishing the files. All House Republicans voted together to defeat that effort.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
John Thune says recess appointments are ‘on the table' as battle for Trump confirmations drags on
WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) on Thursday floated allowing for recess appointments to speed up confirming a backlog of 161 administration officials tapped by President Trump. 'I think everything is on the table,' Thune told reporters, adding that alternatives — including limiting debate time or changing other procedural rules — 'make more sense.' The Senate has confirmed just 115 appointees, leading some members of the Republican conference like Mike Lee of Utah to call for a cancellation of the August recess to ram through the rest. Advertisement 5 Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) on Thursday floated allowing for recess appointments to speed up confirming a backlog of 161 administration officials tapped by President Trump. Mattie Neretin – CNP for NY Post But the recess appointments approach — which lets Trump unilaterally install nominees with both chambers of Congress out of session — is likely to run into obstacles given the need to clear a threshold of 50 Republican votes. It's a tough task given public opposition by a handful of senators in the conference and their 53-47 majority in the chamber. Advertisement House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and his conference would also have to OK the adjournment of their chamber, along with the Senate's, to bypass so-called 'pro forma' sessions that can halt the procedure. 5 Neither Trump nor former President Joe Biden made any appointments during a recess in their previous terms. Getty Images Neither Trump nor former President Joe Biden made any appointments during a recess in their previous terms. Former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, however, made dozens of them. In an exclusive interview with The Post Wednesday, Thune said 'at some point' the Senate will have to change the nominations process. Advertisement The holdup has largely been driven by Democrats' opposition to the simple voice vote, which was the standard for confirming typical nominations since the 1990s, Thune added. 5 The Senate has confirmed just 115 appointees, leading some members of the Republican conference like Mike Lee of Utah to call for a cancellation of the August recess to ram through the rest. AP 'Going back multiple administrations, both Democrats and Republicans, as recently as Bill Clinton, 98% of all the noms considered were handled either by voice [vote] or UC [unanimous consent] and it's just deteriorated over time to where Trump's, you know, we're at zero here,' he noted. 'It's got to be fixed.' Senate Republicans have discussed eliminating the cloture vote, shortening debate time for nominees down to just two hours or voting on a group of noms in a block after they advance out of committee. Advertisement 'This is not sustainable, and it, it certainly hamstrings, I think, the functioning of our government in a way that's really detrimental to the country,' Thune claimed, saying he had been negotiating with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for potential handshake agreements. 5 Thune has been negotiating with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for potential handshake agreements. Getty Images Some of those have involved Democratic slots on the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission that have yet to be filled. Others include prosecutorial positions such as the Southern District of New York US attorney, which is currently occupied in an acting capacity by Jay Clayton, who chaired the Securities and Exchange Commission under Trump's first administration from 2017 to 2020. 5 'Schumer, he's got folks over there who keep approaching members on our side about wanting to make a deal on noms, but he's not having it,' Thune added. Mattie Neretin – CNP for NY Post 'They want him as US attorney for the Southern District — I'd figure out a way to make a deal, and I think there are things you can trade,' Thune said, 'That's the other part of this that, you know, you've got to give us trade bait.' 'Schumer, he's got folks over there who keep approaching members on our side about wanting to make a deal on noms, but he's not having it,' he added.
Axios
a minute ago
- Axios
Musk's erratic June included a $10 million peace offering
Elon Musk contributed $10 million to congressional Republicans just days after his public blowup with President Trump, an indication the tech billionaire was looking to make peace with the White House. But Musk reversed course less than two weeks later, when he called for the creation of a third party. Why it matters: Musk's donations, and his ensuing about-face, underscores his erratic relationship with the president since leaving the administration in late May. The contributions were made public on Thursday in campaign finance disclosures from the pro-GOP Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund super PACs. Here's how the Trump-Musk timeline breaks down. May 27: Musk noted he was "disappointed" with Trump's "big, beautiful bill," saying it would increase the budget deficit and undermine DOGE. May 28: Musk officially left his role as head of DOGE, saying on Twitter that he would "like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending," June 5: Musk attacked Trum p over the "big, beautiful bill," called for his impeachment, and asserted without evidence that the president is included in the Jeffrey Epstein files. June 6: Musk had a phone call with Vice President Vance and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles with an eye toward making amends. June 7: Musk deleted his posts from June 5 savaging Trump. June 9: Musk spoke by phone with Trump. June 11: Musk posted that he "went too far" in his posts attacking Trump. June 27: Musk gave contributions of $5 million each to the Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund. June 30: Musk threatened to form a third party called the America Party if Congress passed the "big, beautiful bill." July 5: Musk said he formed the America Party "to give you back your freedom." Zoom out: Musk also contributed more than $45 million to America PAC over the first six months of 2025, new disclosure reports showed.
San Francisco Chronicle
a minute ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Thousands of DACA recipients in California to lose health insurance
More than 2,300 Californians enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program will lose their health insurance next month due to a change in federal policy, state officials announced Thursday. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently revised its rules to exclude DACA recipients from the definition of 'lawfully present' under the Affordable Care Act. As a result, they are no longer eligible for coverage through federal health insurance programs. Covered California, the state's health insurance marketplace, said it will terminate coverage for affected enrollees on Aug. 31. 'Covered California is deeply disheartened by the updated rule issued by this federal administration, which targets DACA recipients who are working to provide for their families and secure access to essential health insurance,' said Jessica Altman, the agency's executive director. 'The decision is deeply unfair to hard-working, tax-paying individuals in California who trusted that they would have health insurance for 2025, only to have it stripped away eight months later.' The change is part of a series of recent actions by the Trump administration aimed at restricting benefits for DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers. Earlier this summer, the Department of Health and Human Services barred them from the federal healthcare marketplace, and the Department of Education launched investigations into colleges offering them financial aid. Covered California said it is reaching out to all impacted individuals and providing guidance on alternative coverage options, including Medi-Cal, employer-based plans and private insurance. Legal aid organizations and immigrant advocacy groups are also offering support. The policy shift has intensified fear and uncertainty among many DACA recipients, most of whom have lived in the U.S. since childhood and remain ineligible for permanent legal status.
