
Trump Administration Live Updates: Top Vaccine Official Leaves F.D.A. After Right-Wing Pressure
Senate Democrats on Wednesday moved to compel the Trump administration to release material connected to the investigation into the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, invoking a little-known law in a bid to force Republican leaders to confront the growing furor over the case.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and all seven Democrats on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting that it turn over its files on Mr. Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.
Under a section of federal law commonly referred to in the Senate as the 'rule of five,' government agencies are required to provide relevant information if any five members of that committee, which is the chamber's chief oversight panel, request it.
That provision — which became law in 1928 and sets a seven-member rule for the House's oversight committee — effectively offers a way for members of the minority party to compel information from the executive branch because they cannot issue congressional subpoenas. But it has been infrequently used, and it has not faced significant tests in court, raising questions over whether it can be enforced.
Still, in invoking it, Democrats were trying to draw Senate Republicans into the debate over the release of the Epstein files, which has bitterly divided the House G.O.P. and wrought havoc in that chamber. If the Trump administration were to ignore the Democrats' request, the resulting legal battle would likely force Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, to decide whether to choose between backing the administration or defending the Senate's constitutional prerogative for congressional oversight.
Since President Trump returned to the White House this year, Congress has ceded much of its oversight power, with Republicans showing little willingness to hold hearings or otherwise demand answers from Mr. Trump or his administration. But the Justice Department's recent decision to backtrack from its promises to release new material in the Epstein investigation ripped open a rift in the party that led several rank-and-file Republicans to break from the president.
Though Mr. Trump has urged his supporters to move on from the issue, several House Republicans have joined Democrats to try to force a floor vote on releasing the files. Last week, several close Trump allies joined with Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to issue a subpoena to the Justice Department for its files. The committee has not yet sent its subpoena, though it is required to do so.
Exploiting the rift, House Democrats repeatedly threatened to force additional votes on the Epstein files before Republicans could debate unrelated bills. Facing conflicting demands from angry constituents and the White House, House Republicans were so sharply divided on the issue that Speaker Mike Johnson opted to send lawmakers home for the summer slightly ahead of schedule rather than risk having to vote on the matter.
The Senate has thus far not faced similar tumult, even as polls show growing dissatisfaction and division among Republicans over Mr. Trump's handling of the release of the Epstein files. The Democrats' letter is aimed at forcing Republican senators, including members of the governmental affairs panel, to confront the issue and is likely to needle Mr. Trump.
'Americans have every right to wonder, why he is breaking this promise?' Mr. Schumer said in a statement. 'What is Trump hiding? Trump campaigned on and promised Americans that he'd release the Epstein files. We're demanding he keep that promise. '
In their letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, the eight senators cited Mr. Trump's backtracking on the release of the Epstein files and called on the Justice Department and F.B.I. to give them to the committee by Aug. 15.
'After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump administration provide full transparency,' the senators wrote.
The letter was signed by Mr. Schumer; Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee; and Senators Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.
Lawmakers from both parties have previously invoked the nearly century-old provision that Senate Democrats are now using. But its enforcement has been a continued question. During the George W. Bush administration, House Democrats twice sued the executive branch to enforce the rule, but no clear resolution was ever reached.
More recently, House Democrats sued the General Services Administration in 2017, during Mr. Trump's first term, after the agency refused to comply with a seven-member request for the release of documents relating to the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
After several years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in May 2023, promising to weigh in on whether lawmakers could sue a government agency for information. But the case was never argued, after the House Democrats decided to dismiss their lawsuit.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, is moved to minimum-security women's prison in Texas
Advertisement Minimum-security federal prison camps house inmates the Bureau of Prisons considers to be the lowest security risk. Some don't even have fences. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The prison camps were originally designed with low security to make operations easier and to allow inmates tasked with performing work at the prison, like landscaping and maintenance, to avoid repeatedly checking in and out of a main prison facility. Prosecutors have said Epstein's sex crimes could not have been done without Maxwell, but her lawyers have maintained that she was wrongly prosecuted and denied a fair trial, and have floated the idea of a pardon from President Trump. They have also asked the US Supreme Court to take up her case. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists, and elements of Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government coverup. Advertisement Since then, administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. Maxwell, meanwhile, was interviewed at a Florida courthouse over two days last week by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said this week that they would be open to an interview, but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Friday to Maxwell's lawyers, US Representative James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team. Two women who have accused Epstein and Maxwell of abusing them, Maria and Annie Farmer, and the family members of another, Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide this spring, reacted angrily to the news of Maxwell's relocation. 'It is with horror and outrage that we object to the preferential treatment convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has received,' they said in a statement Friday. 'Ghislaine Maxwell is a sexual predator who physically assaulted minor children on multiple occasions, and she should never be shown any leniency.' Advertisement 'President Trump has sent a clear message today: Pedophiles deserve preferential treatment and their victims do not matter,' the statement said.


Washington Post
a minute ago
- Washington Post
Manhunt underway for Montana shooting suspect after 4 killed in Anaconda
A manhunt is underway for the suspect who authorities say shot and killed four people at a small town bar in Montana on Friday morning. The Montana Division of Criminal Investigation said the shooting took place at approximately 10:30 a.m. at The Owl Bar in Anaconda, home to less than 10,000 residents in the southwestern part of the state. Local law enforcement named the suspect, believed to be armed and dangerous, as Michael Paul Brown.


CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship faces skepticism from another appeals court
Donald Trump Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal appeals court appeared ready on Friday to become the second such court in the country to rule that President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unlawful. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals spent two hours looking skeptically at Trump's Day One order in a series of cases in which lower courts said the policy violated the Constitution, decades-old Supreme Court precedent and federal law. 'We have an opinion of the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard,' Chief Judge David Barron said at one point, referring to an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark that affirmed the idea that most people born on American soil are entitled to citizenship. Other members of the panel similarly said they were required to stick with the holding in that case, including Judge Julie Rikelman, who said the Trump administration was essentially asking the court to adopt the dissenting opinion issued in the 19th century case. 'We have to apply the majority decision, not the dissenting opinion,' she told DOJ attorney Eric McArthur. A ruling against the administration would represent the second time this summer that an appeals court, after reviewing the merits of Trump's order, concluded that it was unlawful. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Trump in a separate case. The rulings could ultimately be appealed up to the Supreme Court. The First Circuit judges did not indicate on Friday when they would issue a decision. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the US lawfully, but temporarily. In the set of cases before the Boston-based appeals court, three lower courts issued separate preliminary injunctions earlier this year that prevented Trump from implementing any part of his policy. (Other lower-court decisions similarly jammed up the policy). Among those rulings was a nationwide injunction, which barred Trump from enforcing his order anywhere in the country. The panel of judges had previously declined to lift those rulings while the cases unfolded and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. The high court – without reviewing the merits of Trump's order – made it more difficult for litigants to win nationwide orders blocking executive branch policies. While the First Circuit judges – all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents – asked a few questions on Friday that were somewhat critical of technical arguments being pushed by some of the challengers in the cases, they showed no support for Trump's attempt to rewrite how birthright citizenship works in the US. 'The rule is that everybody who is born here is a citizen or subject,' Rikelman said at one point.