Speaker Mike Johnson blocks Epstein-related votes as pressure mounts within GOP
House Speaker Mike Johnson announced on Monday that he will not allow any votes on legislation related to the Jeffrey Epstein case during the House's final week in session before its extended summer recess, a move that has sparked frustration among members of his party. Despite growing calls for transparency, particularly from conservative lawmakers and vocal supporters of former President Donald Trump, Johnson insisted the current course of action should be handled by the executive branch.
'I believe we need to give the administration the space to do what it is already doing,' Johnson told CNN. 'If further congressional action becomes necessary or appropriate, then we'll consider it, but I don't think we're at that point just yet.' His stance has triggered criticism from some Republicans who see this delay as a failure to act on an issue that remains a focal point for many constituents.
As frustration builds, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is working to bypass Johnson's decision through a rarely used procedural move known as a discharge petition. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, is leading this effort, with ten GOP members, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, already backing the initiative. If all House Democrats sign the petition as expected, it would be enough to force a floor vote.
Advertisement
The measure being proposed calls on the Trump administration to declassify and release all materials related to Jeffrey Epstein, including documents, communications, investigative records, and, crucially, a list of government officials who may be named in those records. This push is being driven in part by high public demand. Representative Greene told CNN that her office has received an overwhelming volume of calls from constituents asking for more information about Epstein, saying, 'People want the truth. They don't want another cover-up when it comes to the most notorious convicted pedophile in recent memory.'
Under House rules, even with a discharge petition in motion, the earliest possible vote could not take place until after the Labour Day recess. Procedural requirements stipulate that lawmakers must wait seven legislative days before formally collecting the necessary signatures.
This standoff over transparency comes just after the House delayed a separate $9 billion spending cut vote last week, largely due to heated debate over how to address the Epstein case. Ultimately, lawmakers passed a non-binding resolution urging further file releases, but Speaker Johnson has remained silent on whether that resolution will be acted upon in any meaningful way.
Former President Trump, who has been connected to Epstein through past social and professional ties, commented on the situation via his Truth Social account. He suggested that no amount of disclosure would ever satisfy what he called 'radical left lunatics' and 'troublemakers,' even if a court ordered full transparency.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has added to the controversy by confirming that there is no so-called 'Epstein client list,' contradicting previous statements by former Attorney General Pam Bondi. The DOJ also reiterated its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide while in jail, a determination that continues to face public scepticism and fuel conspiracy theories.
As Congress heads into its five-week summer break, the Epstein case remains a source of political tension, both within the GOP and across the broader political spectrum. What happens after Labour Day could test Speaker Johnson's control over his party, and the willingness of lawmakers to press forward in the face of internal resistance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
4 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Georgia Republican Mike Collins joins field seeking to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in 2026
ATLANTA — Georgia Republican Mike Collins said Monday that he will join the field challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff in the state the GOP has named as their top target to add a Senate seat in 2026. A second-term member of Congress from a district east of Atlanta, Collins becomes the newest top Republican to get into the primary race. U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter is already running, while state Insurance Commissioner John King dropped out. Also expected to run is former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley .
San Francisco Chronicle
6 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Georgia Republican Mike Collins joins field seeking to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in 2026
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia Republican Mike Collins said Monday that he will join the field challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff in the state the GOP has named as their top target to add a Senate seat in 2026. A second-term member of Congress from a district east of Atlanta, Collins becomes the newest top Republican to get into the primary race. U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter is already running, while state Insurance Commissioner John King dropped out. Also expected to run is former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley. 'Jon Ossoff must go,' Collins said in a July 8 video. 'He certainly doesn't represent the vast majority of Georgians. He certainly doesn't represent the Georgia values that I cherish so much. Collins had been mulling a run since Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp announced in May that he would not run against Ossoff, depriving Republicans of their top choice to challenge a senator who won the 2021 runoff in the wake of the 2020 election. Twin victories by Ossoff and Raphael Warnock gave Democrats control of the U.S. Senate at the time and. It was the first time since 2002 that Georgia had two Democratic senators. Although Democrats have made Georgia increasingly competitive, Collins is among those who view Ossoff's election as a fluke and proclaim that the state is still fundamentally conservative. 'We deserve to have two U.S. senators who are out there fighting for us, and protecting us, not some woke overlords or some far-left-wing California donor base," Collins said in the video. The 58-year-old Collins is the son of the late Mac Collins, who was an eight-term congressman who began his political career as a Democrat before becoming a Republican. Mike Collins is a co-owner of a family trucking firm and made a losing bid for Congress in 2014. He reemerged to win a 2022 race for an open seat, portraying himself as an everyman trucker and hard-core Donald Trump acolyte. With a big, booming personality and an edgy social media presence, Collins calls himself a 'MAGA workhorse.' Kemp and Trump have met and said they would try to agree on a preferred candidate. Anyone anointed by both of them would be stamped as the Republican front-runner. Kemp told Collins and others he would support Dooley, but Trump isn't ready to endorse yet. Collins has portrayed his interest in the Senate as seeking to best serve Trump 'I am going to continue to talk with President Trump and his team just about where we can be the best, beneficial, most help in this mission to make sure we get a Republican in the U.S. Senate from Georgia," Collins said in the July 8 video. Collins' district stretches across 18 counties from the eastern suburbs of Atlanta through Athens. His best-known legislative accomplishment is a law passed this year to require the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain undocumented immigrants charged with theft. That was a response to the 2024 murder of Laken Riley, a nursing student who was killed by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who federal officials said entered the U.S. illegally and was allowed to stay while he pursued his immigration case. The representative portrays himself as someone who can get things done, but he often takes a combative approach on social media. In March 2024 he was criticized for promoting a post from an antisemitic account that attacked a Jewish journalist as a 'garbage human.' In February 2024, his account on the social media platform X was temporarily suspended after he suggested that someone who had been arrested by federal authorities should be transported by 'Pinochet Air,' a reference to people who were thrown to their deaths from helicopters during the rule of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. That strategy could help Collins draw attention to wield against Ossoff — the only Democratic Senate incumbent seeking reelection in 2026 who represents a state Trump won. The race has already begun. Ossoff held his second campaign rally July 12 in Savannah. National Republicans have advertised against Ossoff's opposition to a bill barring schools from allowing transgender athletes to participate in women's sports. Ossoff raised $21 million in the first six months of this year and had $15.5 million in cash on June 30. But that's only the beginning. Ossoff and Warnock's twin Senate victories in 2021 cost more than $900 million combined, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks political spending. Warnock's 2022 reelection over Republican Herschel Walker cost more than $470 million, OpenSecrets found.
Atlantic
7 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Pentagon's Policy Guy Is All In On China
Elbridge Colby believes that China is the only country on the planet that has the ambition, resources, and military might to knock the United States off its pedestal as the world's leading superpower. Most in President Donald Trump's administration agree. But even by the standards of MAGA world, Colby is a divisive figure. And the Pentagon policy master's prescription for how to counter China's rise explains why. The only way to stop Beijing's bid for global dominance, he has argued, is for the U.S. to pour everything it can into securing the western Pacific, even if doing so comes at the expense of combating Russia or maintaining U.S. influence in the Middle East. That is, to remain superpowerful, the U.S. may need to temporarily stop superpowering. Colby didn't always think this way. During Trump's first term, he wrote a strategy document that advocated continuing to try to do it all, as superpowers do. But his attitude has evolved, and along the way, he has amped up the ire among his enemies—including fellow Republicans and U.S. allies abroad. Colby's worldview was at the root of U.S. indecision this summer over whether to provide Ukraine with badly needed weapons. When the U.S. military canceled an expected shipment late last month, catching even the White House off guard, the blame—and the credit—went to Colby. It was an unlikely moment in the spotlight for a policy wonk whose stances had, until recently, been little-noticed beyond the world of Beltway think tanks. Some on the right, including hawkish GOP senators, seized upon the decision as evidence that Colby should be ousted, and began pushing the White House to act. Others in the MAGA movement cheered the suspension—Tucker Carlson is a longtime Colby fan —and described the move as evidence of a truly 'America First' national-security strategy. Both wings of the movement were ultimately disappointed: Within days of the pause, Trump not only reversed it, he went a step further in providing new support to Kyiv. And far from being fired, Colby appears secure in his position at the Pentagon, his influence undiminished. In some ways, Colby personifies an ongoing shift within the Republican Party. Trump has moved away from positioning the U.S. as defender of the post–Cold War order and toward preserving its resources for threats that directly affect the U.S. homeland—with China at the top of the list. During Trump's first term, Colby led the development of the 2018 National Defense Strategy. The document concluded that the U.S. must be prepared to confront a wide range of threats beyond China, including from Russia, and also must be able to 'counter rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran, defeat terrorist threats to the United States, and consolidate our gains in Iraq and Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach.' More recently, Colby has come to the view that to meet the supreme challenge of China, other priorities will have to be sacrificed. 'We see with Colby's recent comments a shift towards a military almost entirely focused on one region and one opponent,' Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told us. 'And the question is: What drove that change? The only thing that seems to have changed is the political zeitgeist within the Republican Party.' During an October speech at Dartmouth, Colby argued that the threat from Beijing was paramount—and that the U.S. was ill-equipped to deal with it. The U.S., he told the audience, faces 'the possibility of a World War III in the coming years. We're not prepared.' America needs 'to prioritize the potential for a conflict with China precisely in order to avoid it.' The 45-year-old Yale and Harvard graduate—who goes by 'Bridge,' speaks animatedly, and is known for his thick head of blond hair—comes to the role of Pentagon undersecretary with a pedigree as a consummate Washington institutionalist and foreign-policy intellectual. The grandson of former CIA Director William Colby, he spent part of his childhood in Japan and much of his adulthood cycling between government and think tanks, at times working across bipartisan lines on issues including nuclear-weapons policy and the Middle East. He wasn't always a Trump supporter—but was never a Never Trumper. Now he has gone all in for Trump and the president's norm-breaking approach to world affairs. Over the past decade, China has developed a bigger navy, launched more sophisticated cyber warfare and missile systems, and expanded its global footprint, all while the U.S. has been divided over how to stop its advances. Under Colby's strategy, the U.S. can both focus on China and deploy troops to protect the homeland. But it likely can't do those missions and also sustain air-defense systems and naval ships in the Middle East, not to mention tens of thousands of troops in Europe. Those regions need to do more for themselves, Colby has said. Since taking over the Pentagon's No. 3 position in April, he has argued that support for allies such as Israel and Ukraine risks coming at the expense of U.S. interests in Asia. He has proposed moving Pentagon funding away from the Army toward the services that would spearhead the fight against Beijing—the Navy and the Air Force. That suggestion has forced the Army to scramble to prove its continued relevance. Colby advocates withdrawing forces from Europe and redistributing them around the Asia-Pacific region. The nation's main geopolitical goal, he believes, should be deterring a Chinese attack on Taiwan—and defending the island if deterrence fails. His critics have been unnevered by some of his early moves. After taking the post, Colby told his British counterparts that the Royal Navy should focus on threats from Russia and leave the U.S. Navy to lead in the western Pacific, defense officials told us. Colby also helped trigger a review of former President Joe Biden's multibillion-dollar U.S.-U.K.-Australia submarine pact, out of concern that the Australians might not deploy U.S.-provided submarines during a U.S.-led campaign on Chinese forces in the event of an assault on Taiwan. (Lawmakers from both parties have urged the Pentagon to go ahead with the deal.) Detractors charge that Colby wants to jettison an international-security approach that has held for the past 80 years and replace it with an overly simplistic alternative. 'His belief is that we can only accomplish one thing at a time and that we can't maintain troops or defensive positions worldwide,' one Senate aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told us. 'That is counter to what most national-security experts believe and what the U.S. has done since World War II.' Threats from China and Russia are too intertwined to have a strategy for one nation but not the other, European officials told us. Russia's war in Ukraine and China's push in the South China Sea reflect their shared territorial ambitions. Allied diplomats bristle at the idea that they should leave such a massive part of the world to the Americans when Europe has its own economic and security interests in Asia that must be defended. 'We agree on the basic principle that we in Europe should lead our security. We also feel we have a role in the Asia-Pacific,' one European official told us. Although Colby has not spoken extensively in public since taking up his new post, he has outlined parts of his approach on social media. Earlier this month, after the president's announcement that aid to Ukraine would go ahead, Colby wrote: 'Central to President Trump's common sense, America First message is that our alliances have to be fair and equitable for them to be sustainable. This is eminently reasonable but was treated for many years as heresy.' Colby narrowly secured the undersecretary job on a largely party-line confirmation vote. Opposition from within the GOP, such as it was, came from those who questioned whether he would be tough on other adversaries aside from China. Colby was at pains to insist he could be. He had previously said that if Iran obtained nuclear arms, the U.S. could contain it, but in his hearings he insisted that Washington must avoid that possibility at all costs. In response to questioning from Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, he said using American tankers and bombers to go after Iran's nuclear facilities were options that 'I would raise for the consideration of the secretary and ultimately the president.' Colby may not be well known among the general public, but he is considered highly influential within the Pentagon. As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth focuses on his TV appearances and rooting out symptoms of a 'woke' military, Colby has been working quietly in the background. Colby has earned fans in the MAGA movement for his efforts to push U.S. allies to spend more on their own defense. His emphasis on China has won praise from within the administration and from key outside advisers including Steve Bannon. Supporters tout him as a future secretary of defense or state. But he's also made enemies among more traditionally hawkish Republicans, who fear that focusing on China will let Russian President Vladimir Putin off the hook. Those concerns were magnified when, at his confirmation hearings, he repeatedly refused to say Putin had attacked Ukraine. The suspension of military aid to Kyiv came at a particularly inopportune moment: just as a growing number of senators from both parties had signed onto a bill calling for more sanctions on Russia, reflecting their frustration with Moscow's continued attacks on Ukraine. Colby had in previous months led the development of a memorandum evaluating Ukrainian weapons requests and how they lined up (or didn't) with America's own needs. Officials said the framework, which was presented to Hegseth and other senior officials, was 'outcome agnostic' and contained no recommendation to pause weapons shipments to Ukraine. But Colby's critics blamed his memo for influencing the decision to suspend aid, noting that though it didn't explicitly state a position, it made clear that providing Ukraine more weapons could put a strain on missions elsewhere, a position Hegseth ultimately adopted. Senator Mitch McConnell, the former majority leader, who opposed Colby's confirmation, complained to the White House about the pause. Other Republicans, including Cotton, have also expressed unhappiness, an administration official and another White House aide told us. 'The strategic incoherence of underfunding our military and restricting lethal assistance to partners like Ukraine is measured in the avoidable erosion of American credibility with allies and the mounting deaths of innocents,' McConnell said in a statement at the time of the pause. Since reversing the move, Trump has adopted a tougher approach to Russia—for now. No evidence suggests that Trump held Colby responsible for temporarily suspending the aid, and Colby's allies in the administration were quick to absolve him of blame. Although Colby declined to speak to us for this story, multiple administration allies and GOP senators sent us unsolicited quotes of support once we reached out to the White House for comment. 'President Trump has an extremely knowledgeable and fiercely loyal advisor in Elbridge Colby,' Vice President J. D. Vance, who introduced Colby at his confirmation hearing, told us in a statement. 'The commitment Bridge has demonstrated to President Trump's foreign policy goals is unmatched throughout this administration, and we are incredibly grateful to have him as a part of our national security team.' Christopher Landau, Marco Rubio's deputy at the State Department, called Colby 'a creative thinker in fields that haven't seen a lot of creative thinking in decades.' A White House official suggested that the flap over the Ukraine memo was shrugged off internally and was instead simply evidence of Colby—'a consummate policy guy,' the official told us—presenting a series of options in line with Trump's views. Trump-administration officials working on Asia are sometimes divided into three categories: 'primacists,' who believe that the U.S. must lead the global response to threats around the world, a onetime Colby position; 'restrainers,' who want a foreign policy based primarily on U.S. economic interests; and 'prioritizers,' which Colby is frequently described as personifying. Prioritizers want Washington to focus above all on threats from China, and move away from concerns over Russia and Iran. Those who have worked with Colby—who bears the name of his great-grandfather, an Army officer who served in China—describe his views as an amalgamation of the three approaches. He is not an isolationist, they say, but rather a proponent of a precise use of American assets with the goal of defending its economic and military interests across Asia. He believes that the U.S., more than any other nation, should lead the world effort to combat threats from China, which he sees as singular. Colby's defenders say that Trump likewise encapsulates all three tendencies, advocating the use of force in discreet ways and leveraging U.S. influence to get allies to take up more of the shared defense burden. Colby's advocacy of moving away from legacy American missions in the Middle East and Europe has an impact on U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific region, opponents argue. They note that if the U.S. doesn't support Ukraine and allows Russia to prevail, it will diminish American credibility with allies like Japan and South Korea, which are key to combating threats from China. Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, where Colby worked between Trump terms, told us there is broad agreement across the administration that the United States must devote greater resources to Asia and do more to prioritize the threat posed by China's military rise. But some—whom he put in the 'Asia only' camp—would be more willing to accept risk or trade-offs in other areas, such as the Middle East and Europe. Those people, Fontaine told us, 'seem to dismiss Europe as a distraction from the real game, which is in the Indo-Pacific.' Of course, there may be another way to contain China while maintaining American commitments elsewhere. Colby's approach, the Hudson Institute's Clark explained, presumes that the U.S. can halt Beijing's advances only through a large-scale deployment to the western Pacific. But less military power, he told us, could be equally effective: 'The U.S. just has to be smarter about how it deploys and orchestrates its power.'
