Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn tells ABC News he’s running for reelection

(WASHINGTON) — Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation on Monday that would direct the Senate to initiate legal action to hold the Justice Department accountable for failing to release the complete files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by Friday’s deadline, which was mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Schumer’s announcement came after Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie announced on Sunday that they are pursuing “inherent contempt” charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi for not complying with the law to release the complete Epstein files.

If the effort passes, it could lead to Bondi’s arrest — though the pair is expected to introduce the resolution as “privileged” once the House returns in January, which would force a vote within two legislative days on the House floor, and it’s unclear if this effort would even be successful when it comes up for a vote.

“The law Congress passed is crystal clear: release the Epstein files in full so Americans can see the truth,” Schumer said in a statement. “Instead, the Trump Department of Justice dumped redactions and withheld the evidence — that breaks the law. Today, I am introducing a resolution to force the Senate to take legal action and compel this administration to comply.”

The DOJ faced a Friday deadline imposed by Congress and signed into law by the president to release a massive cache of records gathered during government investigations into the sex offender, who died in jail in 2019.

The Justice Department released thousands of files — ranging from investigative documents to grand jury testimony to snapshots taken by Epstein and his friends — but said it would fail to fully release all the files by the deadline. The law contains exceptions to protect victims and other circumstances, but critics say the DOJ is not following the letter and spirit of the law.

Schumer called the DOJ’s partial release on Friday a “blatant cover-up.”

“Pam Bondi and [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche are shielding Donald Trump from accountability, and the Senate has a duty to act,” Schumer said.

Schumer is expected to force consideration of this bill on the Senate floor in January when the Senate returns from its holiday break. The bill would likely require unanimous consent to pass.

It is unclear if it would have that support, but the Senate unanimously passed the Epstein Transparency Act, which compelled the release of the Epstein documents.

On Sunday, Khanna and Massie, the co-authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced their intent to pursue inherent contempt proceedings.

The inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a “contemnor” — someone held in contempt — until the individual complies with congressional demands like a subpoena or a monetary fine, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The power directs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena or fine, however, once the witness complies with the subpoena, they are released.

Notably, the resolution would not require passage in the Senate to be enforced.

“The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” Massie said on “CBS News’ Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Khanna, who also appeared on the same program on Sunday, reiterated that inherent contempt is the right path at this point.

“We only need only need the House for inherent contempt, and we’re building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents. I’ll tell you why, I’ve talked to the survivors, why this is such a slap in the face,” Khanna said.

On NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Blanche said he wasn’t taking Massie and Khanna’s threats seriously because he said he believes they are in compliance with the law. Specifically regarding threats of legal action against the department, Blanche said, “Bring it on.”

A statement released Monday morning by attorneys representing a group of Epstein survivors said omissions in the files by either redactions or unreleased pages amounted to a failure.

“We are told that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of documents still unreleased,” the statement said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s plan for a “Complete Rebuilding” of the Kennedy Center in Washington has sparked a legal debate over whether he — or Congress — has the power to control the high-profile cultural institution.

The battle began in December, when Trump’s name was added to the building’s facade — above the existing signage that reads “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” — following a unanimous vote by Trump’s hand-picked board of center trustees.

It escalated recently, when Trump announced it would close in July for two years — to make major renovations he said were necessary.

Some members of Congress are pushing back, including in court, alleging Trump’s actions are unlawful and should be reversed.

What does the law say?
Here’s a closer look at what the law and history say on the question:

Since Congress created the cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death and then through its expansion in the 2010s, it has been operated by both the executive and legislative branches — contributing to the legal debate.

While the executive branch oversees the appointments of the center’s board of trustees, Congress has the ultimate say on what money gets appropriated and what projects get approved.

The House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies grants the center’s board the power to act on any proposed and approved changes.

According to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the panel has historically controlled all funding, project management and security, separate from the executive branch or what is voted on by the center’s trustees.

Congress has proposed and authorized expansive construction projects, such as the REACH expansion adjacent to the Kennedy Center, designed for artist collaboration, to smaller standard year-to-year maintenance costs.

When Trump’s signature legislation passed in July, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it circumvented the subcommittee, instead directly appropriating $256,657,000 for “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures of the building.”

In a statement, the Kennedy Center’s new president, Richard Grenell, a Trump appointee, said, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”

The Trump administration has suggested these already appropriated funds will cover any costs of his proposed major renovation.

“It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive,” Grenell said. “It also means we will be finished faster.”

Limits on the president’s power?
Georgetown University law professor David Super told ABC News that even though the money for those changes is already appropriated by Congress, Trump and his administration do not have total freedom to make decisions.

“The Constitution says that no money shall be drawn for the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation passed by Congress,” Super said. “He can spend that money for any of the purposes Congress provided it for, and that includes deferred maintenance, repair, restoration, renovation. It does not allow him to rebuild it.”

While Trump has suggested major renovations, no plans have been officially released or shared with the congressional subcommittee overseeing the center. During an Oval Office photo, Trump said the steel would be “fully exposed” but not removed.

“I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel,” he said. “So, we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble and some of the marble comes down, but when it’s opened, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful. It’ll be at the highest level.”

Super said if those renovations align with the language of the law Congress has passed, it is within Trump’s legal right both as president — and chair of the Kennedy Center’s board — to go forward. If the renovations go beyond what the law spells out and allows, Super said, his moves would be unconstitutional.

“Some of his remarks about ‘maybe, they will use the marble, maybe they won’t’, imply that he’s planning something much more than renovation or repair,” Super said. “If so, then he would be violating the language of the appropriation, and therefore the Constitution.”

When asked whether the president would keep his plan within the constraints laid out by Congress, White House spokeswoman Liz Hudston told ABC News: “While the Democrats neglected the Trump-Kennedy Center for years, President Trump immediately stepped up to rescue and revitalize the institution.”

Hudston also included some intended uses of the funds for maintenance, including “repairing and, where necessary, replacing elements on the exterior of the building,” and “work to bring the Trump-Kennedy Center into compliance with current life safety codes and security standard.”

So far, there are no lawsuits alleging Trump’s proposed renovations to the center are illegal.

The renaming
The center’s controversial renaming presents another legal question.

When the building was designated a living memorial in 1964, Congress wrote in explicit language on how the center should be named and operated.

U.S. Public Law 88-260 dictates the U.S. must “be held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

“They really left very little to the imagination, and detailed what they wanted the Kennedy Center to be,” Super said, adding, “there are many things Congress creates that it doesn’t name, and that’s left to the president to name, but here is a law saying it shall be known as the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

Super said that regardless of what the board of trustees decides, the name will legally remain as written in the statute.

“And as a duly passed law of Congress, this binds you, it binds me, and it binds the president,” Super said. “The money that the president says he wants to spend on renovating the Kennedy Center is money that was appropriated for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, not for the Trump-Kennedy Center. So, if he in fact uses that money, he is acknowledging that its name did not change.”

A former Kennedy Center trustee, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, has filed a lawsuit to stop Trump and the board of trustees from changing the Kennedy Center’s name and wants Trump’s name removed.

U.S. Code § 76j states that “the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

“Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” Beatty’s lawsuit said. “But on December 18 and 19, 2025 — in scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic — the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”

Pingree said her subcommittee has been told little about Trump’s plans and that she had instead learned about his proposed changes through social media.

“What’s going to happen now?” Pingree told ABC News, adding,” he tore down the East Wing. Does this mean he thinks he’s going to tear down the Kennedy Center and just rebuild it as a monument to himself?”

With lawmakers beginning discussions on funding for 2027, Pingree said she is working with her Republican counterpart to demand information.

“We will certainly say to them, we’re not going to allocate any money in this cycle until you give us more information about what you’re doing,” Pingree said.

“If that money is currently being used just to keep the place afloat because ticket sales are off and performers won’t perform, then it’s not going to go to the desperately needed. I believe there are some really important things that need to be done to that building,” she said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — One year after Elon Musk began an unprecedented attempt to eliminate swaths of the federal government, newly released deposition videos are providing a never-before-seen look at two of the people responsible for the largest mass termination of federal grants in the National Endowment for the Humanities’ history.

According to the depositions and other materials released as part of a civil lawsuit related to the funding cuts, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) relied on ChatGPT to identify more than $100 million in grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that were later cancelled.

When President Donald Trump returned to office last January, he empowered Musk to slash federal spending as a lead adviser in the newly created DOGE. Within days, all agencies were directed to put DEI staff on leave and related programs were shuttered.

In lengthy depositions, two DOGE employees — Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh — defended the effort to cut “useless agencies” as part of DOGE’s attempt to reduce the federal deficit.

“You don’t regret that people might have lost important income … to support their lives?” an attorney asked Cavanaugh about the grant cancellations.

“No. I think it was more important to reduce the federal deficit from $2 trillion to close to zero,” Cavanaugh said.

“Did you reduce the federal deficit?” the attorney asked.

“No, we didn’t,” Cavanaugh said.

With backgrounds in tech and finance, neither man worked in government prior to joining DOGE last year. Cavanaugh said they originally determined which grants could be cut based on if they included certain words — like “DEI, DEIA, Equity, Inclusion, BIPAC, LGBTQ” — though the final decision about cuts was up to the head of individual agencies.

“Do you think it’s inappropriate in any way that someone in their 20s with no experience with grants for the federal government was making personal judgment calls about what grants to cancel?” an attorney asked.

“Um, no. I don’t think it’s inappropriate,” Cavanaugh said, arguing that he did not need formal education or experience to make informed judgments.

“So presumably you read some of these books that would have informed you on how to cancel a grant based on DEI,” the attorney asked.

“Um, I did not read a book, um, on how to discern whether a grant includes DEI or not. I read the actual description of the actual grant,” Cavanaugh said.

Fox said they instead turned to OpenAI’s ChatGPT to help sift through the thousands of grants awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.

According to court filings, the men prompted ChatGPT by asking, “From the perspective of someone looking to identify DEI grants, does this involve DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters.· Begin with ‘Yes.’ o. ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.· Do not use ‘this initiative’ or ‘this description’ in your response.”

Fox was repeatedly pressed by attorneys to explain certain funding decisions, such as defunding a language center — described as a “wasteful, noncritical spend” — or projects related to Black history and civil rights.

“Why is a documentary about Holocaust survivors DEI?” an attorney asked.

“It’s a gender-based story that’s inherently discriminatory to focus on this specific group,” Fox said.

According to the depositions and legal documents, the men did not provide a clear definition for DEI or take additional steps to ensure the decisions were not discriminatory — arguing it was not necessary because AI software was not the final decision-maker.

“Did you do anything to ensure that ChatGPT’s perception of DEI as applied here wouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex?” an attorney asked, prompting another objection.

“It didn’t matter,” Fox said.

DOGE’s efforts in multiple federal agencies and departments last year faced opposition and lawsuits, with critics raising concerns about the group’s effectiveness and its access to sensitive data. 

Both Fox and Cavanaugh defended the funding decisions, arguing the cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit, though they never achieved their goals.

“Did you ever find it problematic that you were, alongside Nate, short-listing for termination projects that had hits on words like Black, homosexual, LGBTQ+?” an attorney asked, prompting an objection and follow up question.

“We were identifying wasteful spend in the government based on administration direction. That was the whole reason we were there, was to find savings,” Fox said, though he acknowledged the deficit was never reduced.

Their work cutting grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities was memorialized in a social media post by DOGE, which vowed that any future grants would be “merit-based and awarded to non-DEI, pro-America causes.”

According to the depositions, some of the saved funds were spent on the National Garden of American Heroes — a sculpture garden to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.