Senate passes bill to fund all parts of DHS except for ICE and parts of CBP
U.S. Capitol Buildiong. (Tim Graham/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Senators at last agreed via voice vote early Friday morning to approve a funding package that funds the Department of Homeland Security besides Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and part of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — a critical step toward ending most of the 42-day long DHS shutdown.
Agencies that would be funded by the Senate’s approved package include TSA, FEMA, The Coast Guard and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
The vote was called by Sen. Bernie Moreno, who was presiding over the chamber just after 2 a.m. ET on Friday morning. The bill will now head to the House where it will need to be approved. If passed, it will then head to the desk of President Donald Trump who would need to sign it for it to become law.
In remarks on the Senate floor early Friday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was proud of Democrats who “held the line” on their objection to funding ICE and CBP without reforms.
“Democrats held firm in our position that Donald Trump’s rogue and deadly militia should not get more funding without serious reforms and we will continue to fight for those reforms,” Schumer said. The package the Senate approved does not include funding for ICE and parts of CBP, though those agencies will continue to receive funds due to the influx of cash in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill.
Also absent from the package are any of the reforms to ICE’s operating procedures that Democrats have been repeatedly demanding since the debate over DHS funding began.
Majority Leader John Thune lambasted Democrats on the floor for what he framed as their refusal to negotiate in good faith. He said Democrats could have secured some of their desired reforms if they hadn’t complicated negotiations.
“We could be standing here right now passing a funding bill with a list of reforms if the Democrats had made the smallest effort to actually reach an agreement. But they didn’t, because it’s now clear to everyone, Democrats didn’t actually want a solution, they wanted an issue, politics over policy, self-interest over reform, pandering to their base over actually solving a problem,” Thune said. “It’s an appalling commentary on the state of the Democratic Party.”
Schumer was asked by reporters about how Democrats would get reforms from this point going forward.
“We’re going to continue to fight hard for reforms, there’ll be opportunities,” Schumer said, though he provided no detail.
Though there was an effort by Republicans tonight to unanimously pass annual funding for ICE, it was blocked by Democrats.
Republicans are vowing to work on a package later this year to approve even more funding for ICE and CBP, saying they aim to do it using reconciliation — a budget tool that, if successful, would allow them to sidestep Democratic objection and pass the bill without any Democratic support.
Republicans are already warning that that bill will be a much harsher and Sen. Eric Schmitt vowed it would “supercharge deportations.”
Rep. Valerie Foushee speaks to a small crowd before President Joe Biden during a visit to Wolfspeed, a semiconductor manufacturer, as he kicks off his Investing in America Tour, March 28, 2023, in Durham, N.C. (Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — As the first primaries in the 2026 midterm elections kick off on Tuesday, Democrats once again are dealing with divides in their party, including over generational change and immigration enforcement, in contests where progressives are taking on incumbents.
One of these faceoffs is set for Tuesday in North Carolina. Nida Allam, 32, vice chair of the Durham County Board of Commissioners, is mounting a primary challenge from the left to Democratic Rep. Valerie Foushee, 69. Allam previously lost to Foushee in the 2022 primary in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District.
“We have an opportunity to push and champion not just Trump and the right-wing administration, but also our own party; that this seat could be the most powerful tool for progressives and Democrats in the South, but it’s only as powerful as the person sitting in that seat,” Allam told ABC News in an interview.
Allam has the support of progressive stalwart independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who campaigned for her in mid-February and told supporters at a rally, “At a moment when the oligarchs are tightening their grip on our society, we need leaders like Nida, leaders who answer to working families and not the billionaire class.”
Foushee, in a statement to ABC News, pushed back on Allam’s claims that she is not progressive or present enough, pointing to her endorsement by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and to securing millions for the district.
“My opponent’s claim that I have been absent from my role with zero ability to describe what more she would have done in Congress under the Republican majority demonstrates that she is trying to apply for a job that she does not understand,” Foushee wrote.
Similar primary rumbles are set to play out over the coming months, including in Colorado’s June 30 primaries. Melat Kiros, 28, a Ph.D student and barista, is running against longtime incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette, 68, who has represented the state’s 1st Congressional District since 1997.
Kiros previously worked for a law firm and wrote an open letter in 2023 criticizing how law firms were responding in 2023 to pro-Palestinian protests. “I was asked to take the letter down. I said no, and then I was fired,” Kiros said. (The firm, Sidley Austin, did not reply to a request for comment from ABC News.)
Kiros says she draws a direct contrast with DeGette on the U.S.-Israel relationship and that DeGette’s opposition to further offensive aid to Israel does not go far enough.
The debate surrounding U.S. support for Israel, or whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, has sometimes been cast as a divide between younger and older Democrats. (Israel strongly disputes the allegations of committing genocide in Gaza and has said it took care to avoid civilian casualties during its military campaign against Hamas.)
Kiros believes the divide is more complicated than a generational one, but said young people “are seeing on our phones a genocide happening in real time … and want to see representatives who are committed to actually holding Israel accountable and ending this genocide.”
DeGette’s campaign did not provide comment or respond to a request for an interview when contacted by ABC News. She told NBC News in December more broadly, “We must defend our democracy against Donald Trump and work to solve our problems with dignity, justice, and a future grounded in compassion, not cruelty.”
Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, says the divide among Democrats over support for Israel — or even how to refer to its actions — reflects a “broader debate within the party about both Israel, but also America’s role in the world and what it should stand for … it’s a moment of flux in that way for the Democratic Party.”
“The moderates are in a tough spot,” he added, as moderates may oppose policies by Israel’s leadership but disagree with the claim that Israel was committing a genocide and feel Israel had the right to defend itself. “It’s a bit harder to message or navigate the complexities of the issue.”
Another flashpoint in some of these primaries is the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), especially in the wake of the shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis last month.
Jonathan Paz, a 32-year-old former city council member from the Boston suburb of Waltham, is mounting a primary challenge to Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, 62, who currently serves as the House Minority Whip — the second-most powerful Democrat in the House.
Paz told ABC News, “She seems determined to write strongly worded letters. I’m calling to disband ICE and cut all their funding … [people] don’t want that empty rhetoric. They want to dismantle this agency because they want to see the violence stop.”
He added that he feels Clark did not do her job as whip — the whip works to get party members aligned on how to vote — given that 21 House Democrats voted for continuing Department of Homeland Security funding as part of ending a partial government shutdown.
Clark has called for guardrails and restrictions on ICE, and urged voting against the appropriations bill with DHS funding; she also said in early February that she was denied access to an ICE facility in her district while trying to conduct oversight.
“Katherine is doing the work to hold ICE and the Administration accountable and end its reign of terror in our neighborhoods,” Clark’s reelection campaign said in a statement to ABC News.
The progressive challengers more broadly lay bare another ongoing debate within the Democratic Party: whether the party should stand behind incumbents or usher in a new generation of younger and potentially more progressive lawmakers.
“What the voters in this country are fed up with is the corruption of this political system that continues to reward and profit billionaires at the expense of everyone else,” Usamah Andrabi, communications director at the progressive group Justice Democrats, told ABC News.
The group recently unveiled a slate of 12 primary endorsements, including Allam and Kiros.
But others within the Democratic ecosystem have cautioned against reading too much into the progressive versus moderate primary challenges.
David de la Fuente, deputy director for politics and research at the centrist group Third Way, told ABC News he would point to how those challenges are happening often in safely blue districts, not competitive toss-up seats.
He also argued against conflating generational change with an ideological shift to the left.
“Young candidates, whether they’re moderate or progressive, are representing change and a generational shift. That is a tale as old as time,” he said.
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.
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.
