answer

WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was subpoenaed Tuesday to answer questions from Congress about the Justice Department’s sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and the agency’s handling of millions of files related to the disgraced financier.

Bondi was ordered to appear for a deposition on April 14 by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform after a vote earlier this month that five Republicans supported.

The Justice Department’s failure to fend off the subpoena from the Republican-led committee underscores widespread discontent among President Trump’s own base over Bondi’s management of the review and release of a trove of documents from the criminal investigation into Epstein.

“The Committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chairman, said in a letter to Bondi.

“As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department’s collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts,” he wrote.

The department on Tuesday called the subpoena “completely unnecessary.” Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche were expected to provide a private briefing Wednesday to members of the committee.

“Lawmakers have been invited to view the unredacted files for themselves at the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress,” the department said in a statement. The agency said it looks forward to “continuing to provide policymakers with the facts.”

The Trump administration has faced constant political headaches since the rollout of the files began in December, with critics accusing the department of hiding certain documents and over-redacting files. In other cases, victims have slammed the department for sloppy redactions that revealed their sensitive information.

The Justice Department has fiercely defended its handling of the Epstein files, saying it worked as quickly and diligently as possible to review and release millions of documents required under the law. The department has denied any accusations that it used redactions to protect certain people or improperly withheld certain materials. And it has said it immediately worked to fix any redaction errors raised by victims.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio had some explaining to do when he arrived on Capitol Hill for a classified briefing with lawmakers in early March.

Members of Congress wanted to know why, two days earlier on Feb. 28, the United States and Israel had attacked Iran and killed its supreme leader — without notifying them first. After the briefing, Rubio told reporters the U.S. preemptively struck Iran to get ahead of an Israeli attack. A day later, he tried to clarify his remarks.

“The bottom line is this: The president determined we were not going to get hit first,” Rubio said. “It’s that simple, guys.”

For members of Congress, the moment underscored how marginal a role Congress has been able to play in a war that, two weeks in, has spread into more than a dozen neighboring countries, led to the deaths of at least 13 American service members and cost billions of dollars.

In the two weeks since the war began, Congress has largely been sidelined. Lawmakers have cycled through classified briefings, TV interviews and hallway scrums with reporters, but have taken little formal action related to Trump’s war efforts — just two unsuccessful votes aimed at limiting the conflict.

Most of the debate has taken place online, where some GOP lawmakers have drawn rebukes from colleagues for saying America “needs more Islamophobia” and other Islamophobic rhetoric about Iran and its people.

At the same time, Trump has pressed Congress to focus instead on a controversial voting law, signaling to the Republican-led Congress that he wants their focus on the election rather than a historic moment abroad. The president, meanwhile, has offered shifting explanations on how much longer he intends to be at war in the Middle East, telling Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Friday that he will conclude the hostilities when “I feel it in my bones.”

Taking Trump’s statements at face value, Democrats and some Republicans have begun to worry that more American troops could be deployed inside Iran to complete the mission — and lawmakers are still trying to understand the war’s threat to the global energy markets as fighting encroaches on the Strait of Hormuz and Americans face soaring gas prices.

The Republican majorities have for the most part rallied behind President Trump, and have blocked measures in both the House and Senate that would have halted the war against Iran and forced him to seek congressional approval for additional hostilities.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) likened efforts to rein in Trump’s war efforts to siding “with the enemy.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was even more effusive, arguing there is a precedent for presidents using military force without congressional authority.

“The norm in this country is not to declare war by Congress, but for the military to be used by the commander in chief. Sometimes authorization from the Congress is requested, sometimes it is not,” Graham said during a Senate floor speech. “More than not, it is not requested.”

Presidents have frequently used military force without a formal declaration of war — including in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq — but experts argue there is a difference between bypassing a formal declaration and sidelining Congress altogether.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who served under President Obama, pointed to the 2011 raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as an example of how the process once worked.

Even though it was a covert Special Forces operation, Panetta said, he personally briefed key congressional leaders before Bin Laden’s killing took place.

That kind of consultation, he said, no longer happens. Instead, lawmakers learn about military operations the same way ordinary Americans do — by watching the news — and then demand to be briefed, he said.

“By that time, the country is pretty much committed to war,” Panetta said.

Presidents of both parties have expanded their power to wage war unilaterally, but Panetta said he believes Trump has crossed a new threshold by dispensing not just with congressional approval but with the courtesy of a briefing.

“It’s not good for our democracy. It’s not a good process,” he said. “It’s not what our forefathers would have wanted.”

Rubio, however, has argued the administration has kept congressional leaders apprised. He told reporters there is no legal requirement to notify all members of Congress and that he briefed the Gang of Eight — a group made up of the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, as well as the leaders of the respective intelligence committees — within 48 hours of the attack against Iran.

“We notified congressional leadership,” Rubio said. “The law says we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities. We’ve done that.”

In the statement issued Friday, the White House defended the president’s approach to the war in relation to how its involved Congress, adding that Trump and administration officials “continue to keep bipartisan lawmakers in Congress apprised of the operation as the United States continues to dominate.”

“Past presidents have talked about this for 47 years — but only President Trump has had the courage to do something about it,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said.

Democrats say they’re ‘flying blind’

Democratic lawmakers, including some who have been included in classified briefings, have accused administration officials of keeping them “in the dark” and are beginning to demand public congressional hearings.

“I want this administration to testify in public, under oath, regarding a bunch of questions we have in order for the American people to see for themselves,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). “I do believe this administration has lied to the American public and Congress.”

Gomez, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said he never expected that he would have to spend so much time trying to discern if the administration is lying to lawmakers.

“I think it’s that’s what makes the job harder,” he said.

Democrats, who are in the minority, have limited power to call those briefings, but have continued to put pressure on the administration in a public way.

Senate Democrats last week sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, demanding answers by Wednesday about reports that a U.S. airstrike hit an Iranian elementary school.

Iranian officials said the explosion killed at least 175 people, most of them children. The U.S. has not taken responsibility for the attack, and Hegseth has said the matter is under investigation. Trump, without providing evidence, has claimed Iran was responsible for the attack.

Seeking answers has been a common theme among Democrats since the start of the war. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), for instance, said after a classified briefing last week that he had “left with more questions than answers” and a real concern about the possibility of deploying American troops to Iran.

Power of the purse

If the war continues, Congress still retains some leverage.

Under the War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973, unauthorized deployments into hostile situations must end after 60 days unless Congress votes to declare war or passes legislation authorizing the use of the military.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he has told Hegseth and Rubio that if they violate that provision it will be like “stealing money” for actions that are not approved by Congress and warned they could be held civilly liable.

The 60-day deadline will be a key moment for Congress to step in, Sherman said; otherwise there will be growing concern about Trump having “unchecked power.”

So far, he thinks Republicans in control view their job as “butler to the president,” and that the Constitution already gives Trump “too much power over the military.”

“If Congress is controlled by people who want to be servants to the president, it’s going to do an incredibly bad job of being a check on the president,” he said.

Beyond the War Powers Resolution, lawmakers also have power over the appropriations process and could deny the administration’s request to boost military funding.

“The Congress can stop military action by cutting off funding. If you don’t like the war in Iran, say we won’t pay for it. We have the constitutional power of the purse,” Graham said in a Senate floor speech early in March.

The Trump administration’s war with Iran cost $11.3 billion during its first six days, according to the Associated Press.

But Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Diego), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, says he is aware of the figure only because of news reports — not because the Pentagon has been transparent.

“We are flying blind in the sense that we just don’t know. We don’t know how much is being spent or what it’s being spent on,” Levin said.

Levin says the military will probably need to bolster its munitions stockpile at the rate the conflict is going.

If the Pentagon does request more money, Levin said, he would try to ensure that “not one more dollar goes toward any of this without clear answers and a clear plan.”

SAN DIEGO — Light rain slicked the pavement in San Diego’s East Village neighborhood on a recent morning, forcing some homeless people to scatter while others huddled under tents or slept through the drizzle.

I was on foot with Dr. Aaron Meyer, a psychiatrist frustrated by California’s most visible crisis: The failure to provide help for many of the people who need it most, despite all the programs rolled out over the years, and all the billions of dollars spent.

We see them in parks, on sidewalks and in other public spaces in obvious distress, and we’ve heard the never-ending conversations and political promises of better days. The problem goes well beyond homelessness: Thousands of severely ill people live with exasperated family members who wear themselves out trying to get help for loved ones.

“We have a history of services that have ended up prioritizing less severe people rather than the most severe,” said Meyer, a UC San Diego associate clinical professor of psychiatry who was speaking on his own behalf, as a university rep.

In searching for answers, Meyer teamed with lawyer Ann Marie Council, a former San Diego deputy city attorney who once worked in drug court. She was struck by the number of clients spun through the system countless times without getting treatment for addiction or mental illness.

“I was really sick and tired of watching people go to jail when they weren’t getting the help they needed,” said Council, who retired from public service and started Quarter Turn Strategies, a nonprofit focused on practical solutions to fractured public services.

It turns out the doctor and the lawyer make a pretty good team. In their research, they came upon a tool that could address chronic severe mental illness and addiction, and it was hiding in plain sight: in a book of California statutes, namely Section 5200 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code.

The state law governing involuntary commitments and conservatorships for people with severe mental illness is known as the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, and it includes the commonly used Section 5150 for those deemed “gravely disabled.” The process begins with a 72-hour hold that can lead to a longer commitment, but often does not.

Section 5200 outlines a far more thorough evaluation and care plan than 5150. The 5200 process can be initiated by anybody concerned about someone who is gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others (with misdemeanor penalties for abuse of the reporting privilege).

Dr. Susan Partovi, who has practiced street medicine in Los Angeles for many years, has a term for the 72-hour hold under 5150:

“We call it the 72-second hold,” she said.

I’ve written previously about Partovi’s moral outrage over the number of severely ill people who either are not deemed “gravely disabled” or who spin repeatedly through three-day holds and return to the same self-destructive routines. I’ve also heard her talk about who among her clients is likely to die next.

Partovi is a member of Grave Disability Workgroup of California, which has endorsed a research paper on 5200, “The Lost Legal Pathway to Mental Health Care,” co-written by Meyer and Council and released a few weeks ago by Quarter Turn. It detailed the frustrations of families, outreach workers and first responders and concluded that 5200 could help break down some of the bureaucratic barriers to life-changing mental health care.

In San Diego, as Meyer and I passed a woman trying to erect a tent in the rain and a person asleep on a littered patch of weeds, I asked him to explain the difference between 5150 and 5200.

Under a 5150 commitment, he said, a person is often brought to an emergency room for an assessment by someone who is not necessarily a behavioral health specialist. A decision is then made about whether the person meets the legal criteria for an involuntary hold.

“If they don’t, then they’re released, and there’s no requirement for any care coordination,” Meyer said. Under 5200, a full medical evaluation is required with a multidisciplinary team, “and it also requires a coordinated care plan on discharge,” raising “the hope of leading to something substantive.”

In their research, Meyer and Council found that 5200 is not known to be in use in any of the state’s 58 counties, with public officials either unaware of it or under the impression that it’s an unnecessary tool given other initiatives over the decades, and cost of implementation could be a problem.

Meyer argues that the state spends billions without addressing glaring needs, and 5200 could cost less than roller-coastering people through hospitals, courts, jails and prisons without putting them on a healthier track.

Meyer said he’s gotten pushback from civil libertarians and disability rights groups, both of which have long opposed coerced treatment and argued instead for a host of greater resources in housing and preventive healthcare, and for more outreach that can lead to voluntary treatment.

I understand the pitfalls of forced treatment, having been on a 20-year journey with someone who initially resisted help and objected to medication. It’s true that forced treatment doesn’t always get the desired outcome, and can backfire if it makes the person more resistant to treatment.

But some people can become too sick to make a decision in their own best interest, which is why we’ve seen so many of them at death’s door, living in squalor and desperation, tortured by psychosis or chewed up by killer drugs.

Care Courts, which were meant to help address this, have not yet had the anticipated impact, and some families have felt let down. Meyer and Council say that although those courts can implement 5200, that isn’t happening yet.

The fact that 5200 is little known and never used “is another example of systems failure,” said former state senator and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg.

Steinberg said although 5200 isn’t a one-step answer to homelessness or untreated severe mental and addiction illness, it’s worth implementing given the existing “set of systems that are not responsive to people who are the sickest of the sick.”

Jon Sherin, former head of L.A. County’s mental health department, called 5200 “one of the most powerful tools” available and said he tried to implement it several years ago but faced some of the same resistance described by Meyer.

“If you used it thoughtfully and had capacity, you could actually have a massive impact,” said Sherin, who urged those running for governor to “bring 5200 into the limelight and guarantee resources to counties.”

The same can be said about the race for Los Angeles mayor. Despite some progress, homelessness is still a public catastrophe, and gravely ill people are a haunting representation of policy failures.

Supporters of 5200 include Bay Area resident Teresa Pasquini, a mental health reform advocate whose brother and son have both dealt with severe mental illness. Pasquini, whose causes include “Moms on a Mission” and “Housing that Heals,” told me her son, now in his 40s, has been through the 5150 turnstile 40 times.

Pasquini said people in her circumstances have been accused of wanting to shed their troubles by having their kids locked away. All she really wants, she said, is for him to be housed and safe and given proper care.

“We need all the tools we can get … and we need 5200,” Pasquini said. “I’ve watched my son walk out the front door in handcuffs over 40 times. Treatment is not a bad word.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com