Supreme Court strikes down Colorado law banning ‘conversion therapy’ for minors

(WASHINGTON) — Members of the House Oversight Committee are set to depose a key member of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle who for more than two decades had a critical role managing his personal, financial and legal affairs.

Darren 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. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination to be the secretary of Homeland Security narrowly cleared a committee vote Thursday morning with the help of Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, teeing the Oklahoma Republican’s nomination up for a final vote on the Senate floor as soon as next week.

Mullin’s nomination advanced out of committee by a vote of 8-7. He needed a simple majority of votes to clear the committee.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate, now facing an impasse in negotiations, did not cast votes on a government funding deal on Thursday, sending the government ever closer to a partial shutdown with a little more than 24 hours until funding runs out.

Senate Democrats announced earlier Thursday they had struck an agreement with the White House to move forward with a plan that would see the Department of Homeland Security funding bill separated from a package of five other bills. Programs funded by the five-bill package would be funded until the end of September. DHS would be funded for two additional weeks to allow lawmakers to negotiate on other provisions in the package. 

The Senate must get unanimous agreement to move forward with this plan if it wants to hold votes before Friday night’s deadline. As it stood Thursday night, there seemed to be objections by senators on both sides of the aisle gumming up the works. 

“Tomorrow’s another day, and hopefully people will be in a spirit to try and get this done tomorrow,” Majority Leader John Thune said as he was leaving the Capitol late Thursday.

If Senators can’t win over the objectors by Friday, they’ll force the government into a partial shutdown. The Senate will reconvene at 11 a.m. Friday to see if they can reach an agreement. Any agreement they do reach would still need to be approved by the House, so at least a brief partial shutdown is, at this stage, highly likely. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is the Senate’s most vocal objector to the deal. He stormed into Republican Leader John Thune’s office earlier tonight calling the agreement stuck between Democrats and the White House a “bad deal” and telling reporters he was objecting to its advancement.

Graham called the treatment of ICE officers “unconscionable” as he was asked about his objections to proceeding.

“From a Republican point of view, the cops need us right now. They are being demonized. They’re being spat upon. They can’t sleep at night,” Graham said. “Are they right to want to change some ICE procedures? Absolutely. But I’m not going to lead this debate for two weeks before I can explain to the American people what I think the problem is. The problem is, structurally, for four years, the country was ruined.” 

Graham also seems to be opposed to the deal because it would strip a controversial provision, passed in a stopgap funding bill earlier this year, that allows senators to file lawsuits if their phone records are accessed without notice. Graham was one of seven Republican senators whose phone toll data were accessed by Special Counsel Jack Smith during his investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. 

“I am not going to ignore what happened,” Graham said. “If you were abused, your phone records were illegally seized, you should have your day in court.

It seems there may be other senators who have separate challenges with the funding bill plan as well, but it’s not yet clear who those senators are. 

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer placed blame on Republicans for the stall in votes tonight.

“Republicans need to get their act together,” he said as he left the Capitol. 

But when pushed on whether any Democrats had outstanding objections to the bill that might stall things, Schumer didn’t give a clear answer.

Thune said there remains “snags on both sides” stopping the bill from advancing but wouldn’t give details about Democratic objections.

“They’ve got a couple issues on their side they’ve got to clear them up, we’ve got some things we’ve got to work on. But hopefully by sometime tomorrow we’ll be in a better spot,” Thune said. 

It is likely that even if the Senate passes the bills, there will still be a short partial shutdown — the bills would need to go back to the House for consideration. It seems unlikely the House, which is in recess until Monday, could pass any of these bills before Friday night’s funding deadline.

Earlier Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News’ Selina Wang that bringing the House back before Monday “may not be possible.”

“So, we have got some logistical challenges, but we’ll do it as quickly as we can and get everybody back,” Johnson said at the premiere of the “Melania” film. “And if there is a short-term shutdown, I think we’ll get it reopened quickly.”

Asked earlier Thursday if he was on board with the deal struck by Democrats in the Senate, Johnson said he had not yet seen details of the bill. But when asked if he supports Democrats’ demands to reign in federal agents — including prohibiting face masks and requiring body cameras — Johnson said “No.”

Democrats called 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 killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement over the weekend.

After Democratic urging, a critical mass of Republicans seemed prepared Thursday afternoon to support an agreement.

Earlier Thursday, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block the package of six funding bills, with it failing to advance by a vote of 45-55. It would have needed at least 60 votes to proceed. Multiple Republicans also cast votes against the package.

Coming into the negotiations, Senate Democrats laid out a list of additional demands including: ending roving patrols, ensuring federal agents are held to the same use of force policies that apply to state and local law enforcement, preventing agents from wearing masks and requiring body cameras.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump struck an optimistic tone about averting a shutdown.

“Hopefully we won’t have a shutdown and we’re working on that right now. I think we’re getting close,” Trump said during his Cabinet meeting. “The Democrats, I don’t believe want to see it either, so we’ll work in a very bipartisan way.”

ABC News’ Selina Wang contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.