DHS inspector general probing contracts handled by ex-Secretary Kristi Noem
Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General is probing contracts that were handled by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the influence of former staffer Corey Lewandowski, according to sources.
The investigation is sprawling, according to sources, and court records indicate that at least one former Federal Emergency Management Agency official has received a notice to retain documents.
The IG’s office doesn’t confirm or deny “criminal or administrative” investigations, according to a statement from the office. The office did say it is auditing DHS grants and contracts, which it publicly posted on its website.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
During his confirmation hearing last month, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said that the department will cooperate with any such investigations.
The IG will be “doing the investigation,” Mullin said. “I will do everything required to me by law. And in the policies that you guys give me, there won’t be any gray area with me. We want to have a good relationship with, with the IG. He’s got a job to do.”
The FEMA official in question, Kara Voorhies, was installed by Noem to work at the department on a contract basis, according to sources.
The IG is probing her involvement in FEMA contracting processes. The cost of her contract also is under scrutiny by the IG, according to a source.
Sources have told ABC News that during the Texas floods over the July 4 holiday last year, Voorhies was unreachable during the early part of the floods and senior leadership ended up acting without getting her approval, due to the life and death nature of the floods.
A court filing said last week she is no longer a contractor or employee of FEMA, and acknowledged that her devices were with the OIG as part of the investigation. The lawsuit relates to the FEMA contracting process.
Contact information wasn’t immediately available for Voorhies.
Before President Donald Trump fired Noem as DHS secretary, the DHS IG, Joseph Cuffari, had repeatedly warned Congress that the former secretary was blocking his investigations into various matters and stalling reports from being implemented.
Lewandowski was known around the department as “the chief” according to sources, and had heavy influence in decision making at the Department. He is no longer an employee at DHS, according to a department spokesperson.
The inspector general, according to sources, is scrutinizing how he — along with Noem — handled and awarded the contracts at DHS.
Through a spokesperson to other outlets, he has denied any wrongdoing. ABC News has reached out to Lewandowski’s attorney for comment.
Cuffari warned that the policy change last July eliminating the need for airline passengers to remove their shoes as part of Transportation Security Administration screening procedures created a “significant” security risk, and the recommendations to that report have not yet been implemented despite the secretary’s assertions to Congress that they have.
“I am writing to inform you that OIG has not received such information — written or oral — from DHS or TSA, despite our requests to the Secretary and you for that information,” Cuffari wrote to Ha Nguyen McNeil, the acting TSA administrator, in a March 4 letter. “After receiving this information, OIG will assess whether TSA’s actions adequately address the findings and recommendations and we will evaluate any evidence provided to determine whether the status of each recommendation should be ‘open and unresolved,’ ‘open and resolved,’ or ‘closed.'”
John Sandweg, the former acting general counsel at DHS, said the IG investigation appears to be wide-ranging.
“The scope of the IG review will be sweeping, looking for any improprieties in how contracts were awarded, to include whether any crimes were committed,” he told ABC News. “At the conclusion of the review, the IG would normally document their findings in a public report, describing any violations of regulation or policy or summarizing the ways in which the contract approval process hindered DHS operations.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) talks to reporters after former President Bill Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2026 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.
“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.
“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.
A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition.
In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.
“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.
The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.
“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”
For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October.
Kendall has continued to argue that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall has contended that the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.
Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.
Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.
What is contempt of Congress?
The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.
“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty.
What would the process look like?
To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.
A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.
History of contempt
Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.
The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.
The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the media during a news conference on Capitol Hill on March 4, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The House failed to adopt a war powers resolution that attempted to curtail President Donald Trump’s military actions in Iran.
It failed by a vote of 212-219. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson bucked GOP leaders by voting in favor; four Democrats voted against the resolution, including Reps. Greg Landsman, Henry Cuellar and Jared Golden.
The resolution, which only expresses the sentiment of Congress, called on the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces in hostilities against Iran or any part of the Iranian government or military unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force is enacted.
The measure was non-binding and not subject to the president’s signature or veto.
Speaker Mike Johnson argued Wednesday that the United States is “not at war” but only engaged in a “defensive operation” in Iran.
“We’re not at war right now,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. “We’re in — four days into a very specific, clear mission and operation.”
Later on Wednesday, Trump contradicted Johnson, repeatedly referring to the conflict in Iran as a “war” hours after Johnson said it wasn’t.
Sitting next to Johnson during a roundtable on energy prices, Trump said “we’re doing very well on — on the war front, to put it mildly.”
Johnson had said that the “passage of a war powers resolution right now would be a terrible, dangerous idea.”
“It would empower our enemies. It would kneecap our own forces, and it would take the ability of the U.S. military and the commander in chief away from completing this critical mission to keep everybody safe,” he said Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Senate Democrats failed to meet a 51-vote threshold on an alternate Iran war powers resolution sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Sen. Rand Paul. The resolution failed behind a 47-53 tally.
Rep. Thomas Massie arrives for a House vote on the funding bill to reopen the government, February 3, 2026, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a key member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, is facing bipartisan calls to resign over new revelations about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Documents released by the Justice Department late last month show Lutnick remained in contact with Epstein as recently as 2018, years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes including soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island if we believe what’s in these files. He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted. You know, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said on CNN’s “Inside Politics” on Sunday.
“So, he’s got a lot to answer for. But really, he should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign,” Massie said.
Massie, along with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, led the push for the Justice Department to release its files on Epstein and has since raised questions about the department’s transparency on the matter. Massie, Khanna and other members of Congress on Monday are visiting the Justice Department to view unredacted Epstein documents.
Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote on X: “It’s now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein. He said he had no interactions with Epstein after 2005, yet we now know they were in business together. Lutnick must resign or be fired. And he must answer our questions.”
Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein for over a decade, previously suggested he had distanced himself from Epstein back in the mid-2000s prior to Epstein’s conviction in 2008.
“So, I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going because he’s gross,” Lutnick said on the “Pod Force One” podcast back in October.
“That’s my story. A one and absolutely done,” Lutnick said.
But one email from Epstein’s schedule for May, 1, 2011, showed plans for drinks with Lutnick.
And in December of 2012, other documents showed Lutnick and his family planned to visit Epstein’s private island. That same month, both Lutnick and Epstein invested in the same business, according to legal documents.
A spokesperson for the Department of Commerce told ABC News on Monday, “Mr. and Mrs. Lutnick met Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and had very limited interactions with him over the next 14 years.”
The White House stood by Lutnick when asked about the latest reports detailing their relationship.
“President Trump has assembled the best and most transformative cabinet in modern history. The entire Trump administration, including Secretary Lutnick and the Department of Commerce, remains focused on delivering for the American people,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
ABC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Jay O’Brien asked House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, who is leading the panel’s investigation into Epstein, if he plans to add Lutnick to the panel’s list of subpoenas.
“We’re going to try to get these five [subpoenas] nailed down,” Comer said, referring to the individuals the committee has called to testify, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, billionaire businessman Les Wexner and others.
“We’ve got a lot of very important people we’re trying to bring in that to answer questions. We don’t want to do anything to jeopardize the five that we have on the books. So we’ll see what happens here, and we’ll move forward,” Comer, a Republican, said.
The chairman added, “We’re interested in talking to anyone that might have any information that would help us get justice for the survivors.”
Democrats, many of whom have begun calling on Lutnick to step down, were also asked if they’d be open to calling Lutnick’s testimony.
“It’s really important for folks to understand that in order for us to subpoena anybody, the majority has to consent. And so while we appreciate that there is bipartisan cooperation in this case, we have a whole list of individuals we would like to subpoena before the committee that they have not consented to,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat, said. “Of course, we would like to speak to Secretary Lutnick, and I personally believe that Mr. Lutnick needs to step down immediately.”
Massie, on CNN on Sunday, was asked on CNN on Sunday if Lutnick should come and testify before Congress about Epstein.
“No, he should just resign,” Massie said.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
