‘I will follow the law,’ Bondi says after Democrats storm out of Epstein files briefing
Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives ahead of a closed briefing before the House Oversight Committee at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on March 18, 2026. (Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Committee Democrats said Wednesday that Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to commit to complying with a subpoena that compels her to testify at a closed-door deposition over the Jeffrey Epstein files on April 14.
Frustrations boiled over Wednesday evening as Democrats stormed out in protest of a closed-door briefing on the files — characterizing it as a “fake hearing.” Republicans chided Democrats for a “premeditated” stunt.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters, “She refused on multiple occasions to commit to following the subpoena that Chairman [James] Comer actually just put out. I asked her repeatedly that question. Other members asked her that question, and she would not commit to it. It is outrageous. It’s infuriating, and it’s continuous — this White House cover up of the Epstein files.”
Republicans, however, contended that Bondi actually stated that she would “follow the law” regarding her subpoena.
“She said she’s going to stick to the law, whatever the law is, that’s what it is. So, I’m not the attorney but that was a legal answer, and that’s what she’s required to do as the attorney general,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said. “It was all staged, you could tell it, because it just built up to it.”
Asked after the briefing if she would comply with the subpoena, Bondi replied, “I made it crystal clear. I will follow the law.”
Congressional subpoenas carry the weight of law behind them — defying one could result in a charge of contempt of Congress. But Democrats would need a handful of Republicans to vote with them to hold Bondi in contempt and the Department of Justice typically does not prosecute its own attorney general.
The attorney general admonished Democrats, who she said did not ask any substantive questions.
“We were there to answer questions. It’s the evening. We came at their convenience. We gave them as, really, as much time as they wanted,” Bondi said. “We sat there saying, ‘anything you want to ask us, ask us, anything you want to ask us.'”
After the briefing, Comer told reporters that he does not believe Bondi should sit for a deposition — even though the committee approved the subpoena.
“I personally don’t see any reason for her to do a deposition. She’s the sitting attorney general. She’s turning over documents. I think the Democrats want to do this to embarrass her,” he said.
Comer stressed that he did not vote for the subpoena to bring her in for a deposition.
“I want to bring in the bad guys for the deposition,” Comer emphasized. “I want to bring in the men who have abused women. I want to bring in anyone who is involved in the prosecution and or lack of prosecution, of Epstein Maxwell and and some of these other guys. So that’s where I think our time and energy should be spent.”
Comer and Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., told reporters that they had a heated exchange, with the chairman acknowledging he scolded Lee to stop “bitching.”
“She was just complaining about the format,” Comer said. “The attorney general and [Deputy Attorney General Todd] Blanche and all the top brass at the DOJ in here to answer questions, and yet they don’t ask a single question.”
Hillary Clinton speaks onstage at 92NY on May 01, 2025 in New York City. (Dominik Bindl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday made it clear that even though she and former President Bill Clinton agreed to a closed-door deposition, they are continuing to push for a public hearing as part of the House Oversight Committee’s probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith. We told them what we know, under oath,” she wrote on X. “They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”
“So let’s stop the games. If you want this fight, [Rep. James Comer], let’s have it — in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there,” she posted.
Comer, the committee’s chairman, announced on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify on Feb. 26. Bill Clinton will sit for deposition the following day, Feb. 27.
For months, the Clintons had insisted that the subpoenas were without legal merit. Comer had pushed back, saying the Clintons are not above the law and must comply with a subpoena.
A letter from the Clintons’ attorney Jon Skladany to Comer also said an open hearing “will best suit our concerns about fairness,” citing the requirement that the interviews be videotaped — but ultimately left the decision about whether to hold a hearing or a deposition up to Comer.
The subpoenas the committee sent to the Clintons were specifically for a closed-door deposition. That is what will occur, and Comer said a public hearing is welcome after that if the Clintons want to come in.
“The deposition will be made public, it’s going to be audio, video and the transcripts will be released,” Comer said in an interview on Newsmax on Wednesday.
“Depositions are always the preferred means of getting information from a witness. If you look at history, congressional hearings, they may be entertaining, but they’re not very substantive … So, we’re going to do the depositions. That’s what the subpoena is for,” Comer said. “And after the depositions, if the Clintons want more, they’re more than welcome to come to the House Oversight Committee after they’re deposed. If they want to testify in a public hearing in front of the Oversight Committee, they are more than welcome to do that.”
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny 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 or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
President Donald Trump, in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, repeated that he thinks it’s a “shame” that the Clintons will sit for depositions.
“It bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton. See, I like Bill Clinton. I still like Bill Clinton,” Trump said.
National Guard members Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe. (U.S. Department of Justice)
(WASHINGTON) – -The two West Virginia National Guard members shot in November will receive the Purple Heart, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Friday while addressing troops at the base of the Washington Monument.
Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died of her injuries on Nov. 26, the day before Thanksgiving. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe was shot in the head and remains in recovery, with skull reconstruction surgery scheduled for March.
“One lost, one recovering, both soon to be Purple Heart recipients,” Hegseth said, “because they were attacked by a radical.”
The suspected gunman, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who previously worked with the CIA in Afghanistan, was arraigned on nine charges Wednesday, including first-degree murder, assault with intent to kill and illegal possession of a firearm.
Prosecutors say they are seeking additional charges that would make Lakanwal eligible for the death penalty. He has pleaded not guilty.
Purple Hearts are typically reserved for troops wounded or killed by clearly identified enemy combatants in war zones, with awards for attacks on American soil relatively rare.
The question of eligibility resurfaced after the 2015 shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, when Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on a Navy Reserve center and a nearby recruiting station. Four Marines and a sailor died, Abdulazeez was killed by law enforcement.
For months, that attack sat in a bureaucratic gray zone for the Purple Heart. FBI Director James Comey eventually determined the shootings were motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.
The determination cleared the way for then- Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to announce Purple Hearts would be awarded to the victims of the shooting.
The Trump administration has labeled Lakanwal a terrorist, though it has not publicly produced evidence tying him to any designated terrorist organization.
Lakanwal was among thousands of Afghans evacuated to the United States after the Taliban’s takeover in 2021, and his asylum application was approved in 2025 during the Trump administration.
In Afghanistan, Lakanwal was affiliated with a so-called Zero Unit that worked closely with the CIA and elite special operations units, ABC News reported in December.
Officials with direct knowledge of the matter said he was considered a trusted member of the unit, which carried out American counterterrorism missions.
Investigators also believe Lakanwal was under financial strain after his work permit expired and may have been experiencing a mental health crisis.
“This announcement brings long-overdue honor to their service, offers meaning and reassurance to their families, and stands as a solemn reminder that West Virginia will never forget those who sacrifice in defense of others,” West Virginia GOP Gov. Patrick Morrisey, who called for Purple Hearts to be awarded after the ambush, said in a statement to ABC News.
A view of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts which was recently renamed The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the performing arts in Washington, DC on December 29, 2025. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(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.
