New date set for Bondi deposition in House Oversight’s Epstein probe after Democrat threatens contempt
Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on October 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win Mcnamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After a top Democrat introduced a resolution to hold former Attorney General Pam Bondi in civil contempt, a GOP spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said Bondi will appear on May 29 for a deposition as part of the panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the committee’s top Democrat, on Wednesday morning introduced a resolution to hold Bondi in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena.
“Just a few minutes ago, we filed official contempt charges against Pam Bondi,” Garcia announced to reporters at the Capitol.
Moments later, a House Oversight Committee spokesperson said that “former Attorney General Pam Bondi is appearing on May 29. We will have more details to share later.”
Garcia applauded the news as he spoke to reporters.
“Clearly, we’re being effective, because it’s interesting how only when we take action and when we actually have to force Republicans to do anything, to call subpoenas, to get in front of our committee that they actually ever do anything,” he said.
“So, I am so glad that Chairman [James] Comer is scared of this group back here, and then we’ll continue to push every single time,” Garcia continued. “So, that’s great to hear. If that’s the truth. I’m glad he told him he made that announcement today.”
Bondi had been expected to testify behind closed doors on April 14 pursuant to the committee’s bipartisan subpoena. But after she was removed from her role by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said the subpoena no longer obligated her testimony in the Epstein matter.
Bondi’s handling of the Epstein documents and the Justice Department’s compliance with the Epstein Transparency Act was a point of bipartisan criticism, and stoked frustration within the Trump administration.
Garcia’s civil contempt effort, if successful, would elevate the matter to a federal court where a judge would be tasked with deciding whether Bondi is legally obligated to comply with the subpoena.
According to the Congressional Research Service, civil contempt allows Congress to “seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.”
In January, the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to hold former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in criminal contempt. The Clintons ultimately agreed to testify, and Republicans dropped the contempt effort.
Comer has depositions scheduled with several other witnesses in the probe through June, prolonging the committee’s Epstein investigation into the summer.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on February 18, 2026, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The standoff between Democrats and the White House over Department of Homeland Security funding and immigration enforcement continued on Wednesday, with both sides digging in as the partial government shutdown hit its fifth day.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the counteroffer made by Democrats “very unserious,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries remained firm that Democrats would not back away from their demands for reform.
President Donald Trump, who had said he would be personally involved in negotiations, hasn’t yet spoken with Democrats, according to Leavitt.
“He hasn’t had any direct conversation or correspondence with Democrat lawmakers recently. It doesn’t mean he’s not willing to. I’m just not aware of any conversations that have taken place,” she told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing.
Funding for DHS lapsed on Saturday, affecting agencies like the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.
A majority of DHS employees are expected to work during the shutdown, though they could miss a paycheck.
FEMA has paused almost all travel related to the agency’s work, according to multiple sources familiar with the decision, though travel related to disaster relief will continue.
“These limitations are not a choice but are necessary to comply with federal law. FEMA continues to coordinate closely with DHS to ensure effective disaster response under these circumstances,” a FEMA spokesperson said.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is at the center of the funding fight after two fatal shootings of American citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection remain operational due to billion-dollar infusions from Trump’s massive spending and tax-cut bill passed by Republicans in Congress last summer.
Democrats have asked for a range of new restrictions on immigration enforcement, including a mandate for body cameras, judicial warrants before agents can enter private property — rather than administrative warrants — and a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks. They also want stricter use-of-force policy and new training standards for agents.
The White House and Democrats have traded offers over the past week, though the details haven’t been released publicly. Both sides have called the other’s proposals “unserious.”
“We’ve been engaged in good faith negotiations with the Democrats … They sent over a counterproposal that, frankly, was very unserious. And we hope they get serious very soon because Americans are going to be impacted by this,” Leavitt said on Wednesday.
Jeffries said Wednesday the ball was in the White House’s court.
“We’ve reiterated our perspective on the types of things that are absolutely necessary in order for a DHS funding bill to move forward, all anchored in this principle that ICE needs to conduct itself like every other law-enforcement agency in the country, and stop using taxpayer dollars to brutalize the American people,” he said.
Trump said on Sunday he didn’t like some of what Democrats are asking for, and emphasized his administration is “going to protect ICE.”
In the wake of the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis during the administration’s immigration crackdown and resulting protests, an ABC News review found multiple examples of public statements appearing to be in inaccurate that the agency initially made after using force.
One example occurred last month in Minneapolis when Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan migrant, was shot in the leg by an ICE agent.
At the time, DHS said its agents were “violently assaulted … with a shovel and broom handle.” ABC News obtained a frantic 911 call made by apparent relatives saying agents fired the shot as Sosa-Celis ran away. Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, later said two of his agents appear to have made “untruthful statements” about the moments before the shooting. Both officers were placed on administrative leave and Lyons said they may face federal charges.
Another case unfolded in Chicago last October when Marimar Martinez, an American citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times by federal agents.
DHS initially said that the agents were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.” But an ABC News analysis of video footage shows that agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles, and that at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front. A CBP spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident and the Department of Justice dropped the charges against Martinez.
U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard attends an event where President Donald Trump delivered an announcement on his Homeland Security Task Force in the State Dinning Room of the White House on October 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — For the first time since the start of the war, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced pointed questions Wednesday on whether Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S. as President Donald Trump has maintained.
Lawmakers pressed Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel and other national security officials on the conflict, and other global matters, on the intelligence community’s annual assessment of such worldwide threats on Capitol Hill.
The hearing came one day after the resignation of Joe Kent, the Trump administration’s top counterterrorism official, who stepped down over his objections to the war, arguing there was no “imminent threat” from Iran.
Gabbard says only Trump can determine an ‘imminent threat’ in contentious exchange
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff pointedly questioned Gabbard about the intelligence community’s assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
President Trump previously said Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated” by U.S. strikes last summer. Among its several justifications for the current war, however, the White House said Tehran posed an imminent nuclear threat.
“Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?” Ossoff asked Gabbard.
“Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Gabbard said.
Ossoff pushed back, accusing Gabbard of not answering directly because her response would contradict a statement from the White House.
“It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, you represent the [intelligence community’s] assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC’s assessment of threats,” Ossoff said.
At another point in the hearing, CIA Director Ratcliffe said Iran has “been unwilling and incapable of enriching uranium to 60% as a result of” last summer’s strikes.
Lt. General James Adams, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, deferred questions about Iran’s existing nuclear capability and discussion about the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground to eliminate it to a classified session.
On Iran’s missile capabilities, Gabbard said Iran “previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM [Intercontinental Ballistic Missile] before 2035, should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.”
Her remarks repeat an earlier assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency before the U.S. and Israel began the war on Iran on Feb. 28. Gabbard said the assessment would be updated with the impact of the administration’s military campaign “Operation Epic Fury.”
Gabbard says Iranian regime appears ‘intact’ but ‘largely degraded’
In her opening statement, Gabbard provided the latest intelligence community assessment on Iran.
On the country’s current leadership, Gabbard said the regime “appears to be intact, but largely degraded due to attacks.”
“Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran’s strategic position has been significantly degraded,” she said.
She also warned that while “internal tensions are likely to increase” inside Iran as its “economy worsens.”
“If a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a yearslong effort to rebuild its military, missiles and UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] force,” Gabbard said.
CIA director pushes back on ex-counterterrorism official
Ratcliffe told senators that Iran “posed an immediate threat” when the U.S. decided to attack the country, pushing back on the statements made by Kent when he resigned.
Kent said in his resignation letter he could not “in good conscience” support the war and argued that Iran posed “no imminent threat” to the nation.
Asked whether he believed “Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions, or … its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East” by Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn, Ratcliffe said “the intelligence reflects the contrary.”
“So you disagree with Mr. Kent?” Cornyn asked.
“I do,” Ratcliffe said.
Cornyn did not put the question to Gabbard, Kent’s former boss.
“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time, and posed an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.
Officials pressed on planning for Strait of Hormuz, Gabbard sidesteps
Gabbard sidestepped questions on whether she briefed the president on a probable response from Iran — which has been now beared out with Iranian strikes against U.S. partners in the region and a closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz.
Asked by Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, whether that contingency was “communicated to the president,” Gabbard would only say that the U.S. military took “preemptive planning” measures ahead of its attack.
She later acknowledged that it’s “long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage.”
“Did you brief the president, if he starts a war of choice, that the likely result would be that Iran would strike adjacent Gulf nations and close the Strait of Hormuz?” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Gabbard at one point.
“I have not and won’t divulge internal conversations,” Gabbard replied.
