Mike Johnson Shuts Down U.S. House Until September to Prevent Congress from Voting to Release Epstein Files
House Speaker Mike Johnson is shutting the House of Representatives down early in order to prevent lawmakers from voting on the release of the Epstein files.
On Monday night, the House Rules committee came to a stalemate, with Democrats — and some Republicans — pushing to include Epstein-related proposals in bills up for debate this week. Rather than allow more votes on the Epstein evidence, Republicans recessed the committee.
This means that, while the House was due to be in session until Thursday, July 24, they won't have anything to vote on after Wednesday, and representatives will adjourn for their summer break.
Johnson toed President Donald Trump's party line when addressing the decision with reporters.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We all understand that the 'America First' agenda and the American people are best served by putting an end to the Democrat side shows, and that's what we're doing by not allowing the Rules Committee to continue with that nonsense this week," the Louisiana Republican said.
"We are not going to let them use this as a political battering ram," he added. "The Rules Committee became the ground for them to do that."
Andrew Harnik/Getty President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speak to the press on May 20, 2025
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice and FBI released a joint memo, which stated that their investigation into Epstein's alleged crimes and subsequent death in prison was complete. The memo also stated the investigation found that Epstein's long-rumored "client list" did not exist.
Since then, calls for the Trump administration to release the evidence in the 2019 child sex trafficking case against the billionaire and alleged predator have come from Democrats and Republicans alike.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump, who campaigned last year on promises that he would declassify and release more evidence related to the Epstein case, has since backtracked, referring to interest in the case as the "Epstein hoax," and shunning followers who "bought into" it.
Earlier this week, he did direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to release "any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony," though it's unclear how much evidence the president's social media orders will be able to make public.
By law, grand jury testimony is kept secret, except in matters of national security or counterintelligence, neither of which applies in this case. Moreover, some legal experts have said that the release of the grand jury testimony may be a misdirect to appease the public and distract from the other evidence in the case.
'Trump knows SDNY prosecutors seeking to indict Epstein and Maxwell didn't ask questions about him in their grand jury presentations while he was POTUS. It's a red herring to distract from the evidence that matters: witness interview notes, videos, photos, etc.,' wrote Kristy Greenberg, a legal analyst for MSNBC and a former federal prosecutor, on X on July 17.
Davidoff Studios/Getty Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 1997
According to an itemized list from the Department of Justice, the evidence in their custody includes photos, cameras, computers, hard drives and more, including one CD labeled "girl pics nude book 4."
ADVERTISEMENT
However, Trump's grand jury orders were enough for Johnson, who continued on Tuesday to accuse Democrats of playing "political games" in the House.
"The president has said clearly, and he has now ordered his DOJ to do what it is we've all needed DOJ to do for years now, and that is to get everything released," he said. "So they're in the process of that. There's no purpose for Congress to push an administration to do something that they're already doing."
"We can both call for full transparency and also protect victims. And if you run roughshod or you do it too quickly, that's not what happens," the House speaker added.
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian-aligned lawmaker, is one of the few congressional Republicans who has pushed back against Trump during his second term. He one of only two House Republicans who voted against Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" earlier this month and has been one of the most vocal members of the House calling for a vote on releasing the Epstein docs.
This has placed him in Trump's crosshairs and earned him a social media rant from the president on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Thomas Massie, the worst Republican Congressman, and an almost guaranteed NO VOTE each and every time, is an Embarrassment to Kentucky," Trump wrote. "He's lazy, slow moving, and totally disingenuous - A real loser! Never has anything positive to add. Looking for someone good to run against this guy, someone I can Endorse and vigorously campaign for!"
Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Speaking with a reporter outside the Capitol building later in the day, Massie didn't seem bothered by the president's threats.
"They're trying to beat up on me to keep everybody else in line here," he said. "I think it's not working. I think what's gonna happen is this will be a referendum on whether the executive branch controls the legislative branch."
"I'm gonna prevail, and what they're gonna find out is, it will embolden members of Congress here to go with their heart, with their mind, with their constituents, and not just toe the party line," Massie added.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Defends Firing of U.S. Jobs Data Chief Amid Economic Uncertainty
The White House is defending President Donald Trump's surprise firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Erika McEntarfer, amid rising concerns that it could damage trust in official U.S. economic data.
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Eliminating Capital Gains on Home Sales Could Impact Housing Market
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. President Donald Trump said he's "thinking about" eliminating the federal capital gains tax on home sales, in a move that experts are welcoming while warning that it would favor wealthier homeowners more than anyone else. "We are thinking tax on capital gains on houses," Trump told the press on July 22, showing support for a proposal that was first floated by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. While it is not yet clear whether any real change would come out of either Greene's bill—the "No Tax on Home Sales Act"—or Trump's suggestion, experts already estimate that the change would benefit wealthy American homeowners over low-to-mid-earning buyers, exacerbating existing inequality in the U.S. housing market. Even so, most agree that a revision of the current capital gains tax system is urgently needed to address the current housing affordability issues. What Is the Capital Gains Tax on Home Sales? Homeowners who sell a home on which they have realized a significant capital gain, meaning that they are now selling it for more than they originally purchased it for themselves, are likely to pay a federal capital gains tax on part of that gain. This is true for long-term homeowners, while those offloading a property within a year of buying it won't have to pay capital gains on the sale. Homeowners who have lived in a home as their primary residence for at least 24 months in the five years before the sale receive an exemption on the first $250,000 of gains for individuals and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images "Put simply, the number of homeowners who pay capital gains taxes on a sale is limited due to these exclusions, but there's a big catch," Chief Economist Danielle Hale said in a statement shared with Newsweek. "This exclusion was put into place in 1997 and was not indexed for inflation. If it had merely been indexed for inflation when originally enacted, those exclusions would be more than twice as large as they are today ($506k and $1.13M)," she said. "And home price increases have outpaced inflation in many of those years, further eroding the value of the exclusions." As it is, Hale said, "the cap is most likely to be a problem for homeowners in high-cost states where home prices have appreciated sharply, like California and Massachusetts. "It may also be an issue for those with above-median priced homes in lower cost states, especially in areas where home prices have increased rapidly and if the homeowners have lived in their homes for an extended period of time, which is more common for older homeowners," she added. But as property values have skyrocketed since the pandemic homebuying frenzy, more and more homeowners across the country are finding themselves realizing high capital gains, whether they are in expensive areas of the U.S. or not. How Would Its Elimination Impact the U.S. Housing Market? Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told Newsweek that her group welcomes any proposal addressing "the outdated capital gains thresholds hurting American homeowners." According to McGahn, "this is no longer just a concern for high-end properties," but one that is likely to affect more and more American homeowners in the near future. NAR's research has found that nearly 29 million homeowners, roughly one-third of the market, already face potential capital gains taxes if they sell, "and that number is expected to climb sharply over the next decade," McGahn said. By 2035, nearly 70 percent of homeowners could exceed the $250,000 cap, according to NAR, "including many middle-class families who've simply owned their homes for a long time in fast-growing markets," McGahn said. "These tax burdens create a 'lock-in effect,' especially for seniors, discouraging people from selling and keeping much-needed homes off the market," she said. Increasing the exclusion or eliminating the capital gains tax for home sellers "could enable those who would otherwise face a steep tax bill to sell and downsize or relocate, potentially opening up housing inventory in some of the highest-cost housing markets," Hale said. "Otherwise, the current tax structure actually incentivizes homeowners who may be facing a large capital gains tax bill to stay in their homes until they die—even if the home is no longer a good fit for their needs," she added. "This is because when a homeowner passes away, the home receives what's called a stepped-up basis—the amount used to calculate capital gains is reset to the current market value, essentially eliminating any outstanding capital gains liability for individuals with a similar but more nuanced result for surviving spouses." According to McGahn, eliminating capital gains on home sales is about fairness. "A homeowner shouldn't be taxed like an investor," she said. "This is about protecting equity and helping the entire market function more efficiently. President Trump's comments reflect growing momentum for reform, and we're encouraged to see this issue gaining attention at the highest levels." But other experts are skeptical of the impact that eliminating capital gains on home sales could have on American homeowners right now. "Long-term homeowners in markets that rapidly appreciated over the last 5+ years may feel an additional burden, which could discourage them from selling. However, these taxes generally apply to a relatively small subset of sellers, and are not likely influencing the broader market too severely," Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at previously told Newsweek. "For sellers in low-to-mid priced markets, the current exclusion is sufficient. The national median listing price was $441,000 in June, which is less than the $500,000 joint exclusion, meaning the typical U.S. home seller is not subject to capital gains tax if filing jointly," she said. There are also some potential downsides to consider that may follow a potential abolition of the federal capital gains tax on home sales. "Ongoing affordability issues could be exacerbated by abolishing this tax as it could fuel demand and lead to a more competitive housing market, especially where supply is constrained," Jones said. "Removing this tax would favor wealthy owners which could worsen equity inequality and make the market even more challenging for low-to-mid earning buyers."
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump keeps making disastrous trade deals because of it
Trump's tariffs have already collectively cost American car manufacturers billions of dollars. That isn't sustainable – and it gives foreign automakers a leg up. The Trump administration has struck a tariff deal with Japan, marking a significant accomplishment ahead of the Trump-imposed Aug. 1 deadline for deals to be reached. But the deal has some obvious problems, namely with how it fits into the automotive industry landscape. As it stands, the tariff burden on Japanese manufacturers importing their vehicles to the United States is lower than that on domestic producers importing their materials. American automakers are not happy with the deal. President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with Japan serves to demonstrate how little administration officials actually understands what they are doing in the trade policy arena. Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump's tariffs are being implemented in the most chaotic manner possible. Trump's trade policy doesn't even give US car companies a leg up Proponents of tariffs love to claim that their policies will incentivize domestic production, but the reality is that they add additional burdens to domestic producers. The Japanese trade agreement spans many sectors, but this idea can be seen clearly in the automotive industry. American car manufacturers are charged tariffs of 25% on imported parts and 50% on imported aluminum and steel. The costs of tariffs on importing components and raw materials essential to vehicles only serve to drive up production costs for those companies doing what Trump wants, building in America. Opinion: Republicans accused Biden of trying to bribe voters. Now they're doing the same. These tariffs have already collectively cost domestic producers billions of dollars. Ford alone lost $800 million to tariffs in the second quarter and expects to lose $2 billion this year. Ford has rather admirably taken on a great portion of the costs of these tariffs themselves rather than raising prices, but because of that, tariff policies have resulted in Ford's first quarterly loss in two years. That isn't sustainable. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Not only are these tariffs costing domestic producers money, but they are also disadvantaging them against foreign competition. Japanese car companies face a tariff of just 15%, thereby further incentivizing the import of Japanese cars over domestic production. This rate is also notably lower than the 25% rate on vehicles coming from Mexico and Canada, both of which produce vehicles for American car companies. There's an even greater irony in that fact because Japanese manufacturers, such as Toyota, have announced expansions to their already existing U.S.-based manufacturing plants. It turns out that continuing production in Japan will be better. Tariffs are bad – but Trump's aren't even doing what he claims The backward effects that tariffs are having on domestic car production are a perfect example of how dysfunctional this administration's policy is on the issue. Even the tariffs that are put into effect don't achieve what they purport to. Opinion: I'll never have a car payment. Here's my secret. In the case of cars, they are doing the opposite, giving manufacturers from a foreign nation an artificial leg up over American ones. In this case, the disparity is a result of negotiated deals taking place at different times. Trump is rewarding Japan by coming around to make a deal before both Mexico and Canada. Another area of concern is the sudden and unexpected shock of tariffs, often with little advance notice to the impacted industries. Tariffs don't make sense, but they make even less sense when there is no phase in the window in which companies can change their manufacturing practices to avoid them. Nor can any company be faulted for not rapidly changing any of their practices, given the fact that Trump's tariff policies have changed by the week, or sometimes even by the day. The volatile nature of these policies has made it impossible for any affected parties to make reasonable decisions going forward. This administration's dysfunctional approach to tariffs has resulted in a headache for everyone involved. While everyone suffers, domestic producers end up getting the short end of the stick. None of this is good. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
