Kash Patel set to testify on Capitol Hill amid controversies
FBI Director Kash Patel holds a news conference at Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2026. (Photo by Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — FBI Director Kash Patel is set to be questioned by members of the Senate Appropriations Committee Tuesday afternoon amid several controversies involving the director.
Patel will testify alongside the other heads of the Department of Justice agencies such as the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Marshals Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
While it’s a hearing regarding the 2027 budget request, Patel is expected to face questions about a host of issues from the alleged misuse of FBI resources for travel to the story in The Atlantic that alleged he has had “bouts of excessive drinking” and job performance issues.
Patel said last month that he’s “never been intoxicated on the job,” following the report. Patel sued The Atlantic over the article, demanding $250 million in damages.
Asked about the article during an unrelated press conference last month, Patel railed against negative media coverage.
“I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia and when they get louder, it just means I’m doing my job,” Patel said.
In February, Patel joined in on Team USA hockey’s locker room celebrations in Italy shortly after the team won the gold medal — a move that drew scrutiny about his use of FBI resources to attend.
Patel, a hockey fan, was said to have had meetings in Italy prior to attending the game. Ben Williamson, an FBI spokesperson, said on social media that Patel’s trip had been previously scheduled. He added that “any other personal expenses would be reimbursed.”
During the hearing, Patel is also expected to tout his successes at the FBI.
“Whether it’s rebuilding our entire backbone infrastructure, caring more for our workforce, actioning the business side of the house, eliminating bureaucracy, integrating AI, procuring equipment, developing new private sector partnerships – we have delivered the changes you have been requesting for years… and we did it in just over 1 year,” Patel said in a message to the FBI last week. “Together, these reforms have truly transformed this FBI into the premier modern-day law enforcement organization we need to be.”
When Patel last testified on Capitol Hill in September 2025, he sparred with Democrats as he faced questions about the assassination of conservative activist and influencer Charlie Kirk and his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon, March 31, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A group of Senate Democrats are demanding more information about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s finances and investments following a report — which the Pentagon demanded be retracted — that he may have tried to invest in defense stocks before the war in Iran began roughly five weeks ago.
“If this report is accurate, it would appear to represent an appalling effort to profit off of your knowledge of the President’s plans for war,” Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, Tammy Duckworth, Jeff Merkley and Gary Peters wrote in a letter to Hegseth — and provided exclusively to ABC News — on Wednesday night. “This would be a profound conflict of interest and a potential violation of your federal ethics agreement — and betrayal of the nation paying the price for this war and the troops you are sending into harm’s way.”
The Financial Times reported earlier this week that a broker for Hegseth at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock — an equity fund — and tried to make a multimillion-dollar investment into a fund with defense stocks weeks before the Iran war.
The investment did not go ahead because it was not yet available for Morgan Stanley clients, the Financial Times reported — adding that it’s not clear whether Hegseth’s broker found another defense fund to invest in.
ABC News has not independently confirmed the Financial Times’ report.
When reached by ABC News, Morgan Stanley and BlackRock declined to comment on the Financial Times report
In a post on X on Monday, Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell dismissed the report calling it “entirely false and fabricated” and demanded a retraction from the Financial Times.
Still, the Democratic senators, led by Armed Services Committee member Warren, said in their letter that if the report turns out to be accurate, it would be a “serious breach of the public’s trust” and in violation of the ethics agreement he signed ahead of his confirmation as secretary of defense.
“The American people deserve leaders they can trust to put national security ahead of their own financial self-interest,” the senators wrote to Hegseth.
Hegseth is prohibited, under the Department of Defense’s standards of conduct, from owning stock in 10 major industry-specific corporations including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Boeing, RTX Corporation and L3Harris, which are part of the fund that the Financial Times article claims Hegseth’s broker attempted to purchase.
Hegseth does not have any major holdings in defense companies, according to his most recent financial disclosure reviewed by ABC News.
“Since this was a multi-million dollar investment in a sector-specific fund, your agreement appears to indicate that your broker would have needed your approval or that you did not intend to meet the commitments you made in your ethics agreement,” the senators wrote.
The senators have asked Hegseth to respond to a number of questions about the Financial Times report.
They ask Hegseth to say whether he shared any information with his broker about pending military action or whether he directed his broker to invest in any defense related funds, including BlackRock as the Financial Times report suggests, ahead of the Iran war. They also ask what instructions Hegseth has given his broker to try to avoid conflict of interests and they ask for an accounting of defense stocks owned and sold by Hegseth and his wife.
In his statement, Parnell said that Hegseth and the Department of Defense “remain unwavering in their commitment to the highest standards of ethics and strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations.”
The senators say that getting answers to their questions will help them to “understand where there may be gaps in current department practices and policies to prevent conflicts of interest.”
House Democrats are also looking into the allegations made about Hegseth in the Financial Times report.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, announced Tuesday that he’d launch an investigation into the matter.
Republicans have not been publicly commenting on Financial Times report. ABC News has reached out to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker for comment about Democrats’ calls for an investigation, but did not receive a response.
ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect Sen. Jeff Merkley is one of the co-signers of the letter.
Richard Kahn, an accountant for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, arrives for a House Oversight Committee deposition about Epstein, in Rayburn building on Wednesday, March 11, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In his opening statement to the House Oversight Committee, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime attorney Darren Indyke claimed that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of the late financier’s crimes and categorically denied facilitating the sex trafficking of women.
“I’m left trying to explain what many people who knew Jeffrey Epstein have noted after his death: he led two entirely separate lives, his professional one and the other, a private, personal one that caused many others to suffer,” Indyke said on Thursday, according to his prepared remarks obtained by ABC News. “That I did not know what my client did in his private life may be difficult for some to believe, but it is true.”
Indyke addressed some of the allegations levied against him in civil lawsuits filed after Epstein’s death, including that he withdrew hundreds of thousands in cash for Epstein and coordinated sham marriages to keep victims in the United States.
According to Indyke, he never tried to “structure” cash withdrawals to avoid triggering an alert to the Treasury Department. He seemingly acknowledged that he did withdraw thousands for Epstein, arguing that the sex offender required large amounts of cash because he had trouble obtaining credit cards from major banks.
“For a person in Mr. Epstein’s financial position – with five multimillion-dollar residences staffed by dozens of employees and with an extensive travel itinerary – it did not strike me as unusual that Mr. Epstein’s business, household and personal needs required large amounts of cash on a regular basis,” he said. “I never believed that cash that I withdrew for Mr. Epstein and his staff was used by Mr. Epstein or his staff for any improper purposes.”
Indyke also said he never did “arrange, assist or facilitate any marriages between acquaintances of Mr. Epstein.” Multiple now-settled lawsuits alleged that he assisted with at least three marriages to keep Epstein’s victims in the United States.
“I did not consider it appropriate to interrogate anyone as to the reasons for their decisions to marry or the bona fides of their relationships,” Indyke said in his remarks.
Indyke claimed that he would have quit working for Epstein had he known about his abuse and trafficking of women and girls. According to Indyke, Epstein vowed to never commit another crime after his 2008 guilty plea.
“After he pled guilty in 2008 to procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, Mr. Epstein appeared to me to be devastated and extremely contrite,” Indyke said. “He was adamant that he had no idea anyone involved was underage, and personally assured me he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him, and I made the mistake of believing Mr. Epstein that he would not again commit a crime. I deeply regret doing so. Most importantly, I feel horrible for those women whom Mr. Epstein abused.”
Indyke served as Epstein’s longtime attorney since the mid-1990s.
As Epstein for years attempted to avoid scrutiny while orchestrating a notorious sex trafficking operation, Indyke — together with accountant Richard Kahn — allegedly helped him navigate legal issues and formed part of the financier’s inner circle. Indyke allegedly helped facilitate at least three sham marriages between Epstein’s victims and withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for Epstein, according to one lawsuit, and attested to Epstein’s character when he faced legal scrutiny.
“Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking, Indyke and Kahn chose money and power over following the law,” alleged one lawsuit that Indyke and Kahn agreed to settle with no admission of wrongdoing.
Neither man has been charged with any crimes. They both deny any wrongdoing and say they were unaware of Epstein’s crimes while working for him.
The deposition Thursday comes as the House Oversight Committee attempts to zero in on members of Epstein’s inner circle to better understand how the disgraced financier was able to commit decades of crime with seeming impunity.
Following higher profile depositions of people like billionaire Leslie Wexner as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the questioning of both Indyke and Kahn arguably presents the committee with their strongest opportunity to learn more about Epstein’s life and crimes.
“I was not aware of the nature or extent of Epstein’s abuse of so many women until after Epstein’s death,” Kahn told lawmakers last week, according to his prepared remarks. “However, it pains me to think, and I deeply regret, that I may have unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way.”
Executor of Epstein’s Trust
In a will signed two days before he was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell, Epstein named Kahn and Indyke as the co-executors of his estate and bequeathed them $25 million and $50 million, respectively. At the time of his death, Epstein’s estate was valued as much as $650 million. It was last valued at approximately $127 million, according to an October 2025 court filing, after paying out multiple settlements to Epstein’s victims.
As co-executors of Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn recently agreed to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims that accused them of “facilitation, participation, and concealment of Epstein’s illegal conduct” for their own financial gain.
According to the lawsuit, both men helped “structure Epstein’s bank accounts and cash withdrawals to give Epstein and his associates access to large amounts of cash in furtherance of sex trafficking.”
“The Epstein Enterprise would not have existed for the duration it did and at its scope and scale, without the collaboration and support of others. No one, except perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell, was as essential and central to Epstein’s operation as these Defendants,” the lawsuit alleged.
The settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing and still needs to be approved by a judge. Though the lawsuit was brought against them personally, the $25-35 million settlement would be paid by Epstein’s estate, according to the settlement terms.
“Neither Mr. Indyke nor Mr. Kahn socialized with Mr. Epstein, and both men reject as categorically false any suggestion that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that they were aware of his actions while they provided professional services to him,” an attorney for the men told ABC News in December.
Allegedly arranged sham marriages
In a lawsuit filed by government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Indyke and Kahn were alleged to have helped facilitate at least three sham marriages created to secure immigration status for some of Epstein’s victims, further securing control of the women and ensuring they could remain in the United States.
“The victims were coerced into participating in these arranged marriages, and understood that there would be consequences, including serious reputational and bodily harm, if they refused to enter a marriage or attempted to end it,” the complaint alleged.
According to a civil lawsuit filed in 2019 by an anonymous accuser, one woman alleged that Epstein’s longtime attorney — not explicitly named as Indyke in the lawsuit — helped prepare the legal paperwork for the marriage, going as far as arranging photographs “to give the appearance that the marriage was legitimate.”
“When the victim inquired about getting divorced … Indyke tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein’s protection,” a 2024 lawsuit alleged.
Files released earlier this year by the Department of Justice appeared to reference some of the marriages allegedly arranged by Indyke and Kahn.
“Good morning Jeffrey! We are going now to get marriage license,” an unidentified individual wrote Epstein in 2013. “She is asking if it’s possible to meet with you? Because she has some questions.”
Withdrawing thousands in cash
Court filings as well as documents released by the Department of Justice suggested that both Indyke and Kahn played integral roles in managing Epstein’s wealth and overseeing his regular expenses, including alleged payments to women.
According to the Virgin Islands lawsuit — which was settled by the Epstein estate with no admission of wrongdoing — Indyke and Kahn allegedly arranged payments from Epstein’s personal, corporate and nonprofits bank accounts to victims. That lawsuit alleged that Epstein — together with Kahn and Indyke — managed more than 140 different bank accounts.
According to documents released by the DOJ, Indyke served as an officer for many of the holding and shell companies related to Epstein’s real estate and financial holdings.
A 2020 settlement between Deutsche Bank and the New York state financial regulator also suggested that an attorney for Epstein — who sources told ABC News is Indyke — methodically withdrew cash for Epstein in a manner they said intentionally avoided scrutiny.
Limiting the withdrawals to $7,500 in cash — the maximum amount permitted and below the threshold to trigger concerns — Indyke allegedly withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars for Epstein over four years. While the transactions were below the $10,000 limit to trigger an alert to the Treasury Department, a report by New York State’s Department of Financial Services faulted Deutsche Bank for ignoring red flags about Epstein’s bank accounts.
Jail visits and a character reference
After securing a plea deal in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein was visited in jail frequently by Indyke, according to visitor logs maintained by the Palm Beach Sheriff. Indyke also helped secure a lenient work-release program for Epstein by vouching for his employment, allowing Epstein to leave the jail for up to 16 hours a day, ABC News reported in 2021.
Prior to Epstein’s plea deal, Indyke also attested to Epstein’s character. According to a letter sent from defense lawyers to prosecutors in Florida, Indyke vouched for Epstein’s character and claimed that Epstein provided financial and emotional support to his family.
“Although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing, Jeffery honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children,” the letter quoted Indyke.
Three minutes and two seconds before the first shot is fired, Alex Pretti holds a phone before a federal officer on Nicollet Ave in Minnesota. (Obtained by ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — With just days until a partial government shutdown, the shootings in Minneapolis have left Senate Democrats and Republicans in a standoff over how to advance a package of bills necessary to fund the government.
Democrats have made their position clear: Republicans should agree to separate the bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security from a package that includes five other government funding bills so that changes to the DHS bill aimed at reining in Immigration and Customs Enforcement can be made without affecting the other agencies that still need to be funded.
There were Democratic calls to separate the DHS funding following the deaths of Renee Good, a mother of three who was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, and became more urgent after the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was fatally shot by a federal agent over the weekend.
“The appalling murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti on the streets of Minneapolis must lead Republicans to join Democrats in overhauling ICE and CBP to protect the public. People should be safe from abuse by their own government,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Sunday night. “Senate Republicans must work with Democrats to advance the other five funding bills while we work to rewrite the DHS bill. This is best course of action, and the American people are on our side.”
But for now, Republicans have said they plan to push forward with the six-bill package, keeping DHS funding tied to the other funding bills.
“Government funding expires at the end of the week, and Republicans are determined to not have another government shutdown. We will move forward as planned and hope Democrats can find a path forward to join us,” a GOP aide told ABC News.
There will be a partial government shutdown — one that results in closures for only specific agencies where funding has lapsed — on Friday night going into Saturday morning if Congress does not approve of the remaining funding bills.
Advancing any government funding bills this week will require the support of at least seven Democrats. If the DHS bill is not decoupled form the other bills — which fund things such as the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and more — it seems unlikely that Democrats will furnish the necessary votes to allow any of those bills to proceed.
A Democratic source confirms that Democrats have been in touch with the White House about funding in light of the Minneapolis shootings.
“Republicans and the White House have reached out, but have not yet raised any realistic solutions,” the Senate Democratic leadership aide told ABC News Monday morning.
The House is on recess for the entire week, making modifications to any of the bills ahead of the Friday deadline nearly impossible.
There are a number of agencies and programs that could be affected if Congress does not act by the deadline on Jan. 30. Air traffic controllers and military personnel could go without pay, and the IRS and USPS will also be affected.
The DHS bill that the House approved last week would keep funding for ICE roughly flat from the year prior through September 2026, although ICE is receiving separate funding from the already-passed “Big Beautiful Bill.” It also funds other agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard.
If lawmakers do cause a shutdown of DHS, it won’t have an immediate impact on ICE operations.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, warned in a statement last week that the “Homeland Security funding bill is more than just ICE.”
“If we allow a lapse in funding, TSA agents will be forced to work without pay, FEMA assistance could be delayed, and the U.S. Coast Guard will be adversely affected. All while ICE continues functioning without any change in their operations due to $75 billion it received in the One Big Beautiful Bill. A continuing resolution will jettison the guardrails we have secured while ceding authority to President Trump, Stephen Miller, and Secretary Noem.”
