lawmaker

WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday publicly posted the files it had received from the Justice Department on the sex trafficking investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, responding to mounting pressure in Congress to force more disclosure in the case.

Still, the files mostly contain information that was already publicly known or available. The folders — posted on Google Drive — contained hundreds of image files of years-old court filings related to Epstein, who died in a New York jail cell in 2019 as he faced charges for sexually abusing teenage girls, and Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for assisting him.

The files also included video appearing to be body cam footage from police searches as well as recordings and summaries of law enforcement interviews with victims detailing the abuse they said they suffered.

The committee’s release of the files showed how lawmakers are eager to act on the issue as they return to Washington after a monthlong break. They quickly revived a political clash that has flummoxed House Republican leadership and roiled President Trump’s administration.

House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quell an effort by Democrats and some Republicans to force a vote on a bill that would require the Justice Department to release all the information in the so-called Epstein files, with the exception of the victims’ personal information.

What’s in the released files

If the purpose of the release was to provide answers to a public still curious over the long concluded cases, the raw mechanics of the clunky rollout made that a challenge.

The committee at 6 p.m. released thousands of pages and videos via the cumbersome Google Drive, leaving it to readers and viewers to decipher new and interesting tidbits on their own.

The files released Tuesday included audio of an Epstein employee describing to a law enforcement official how “there were a lot of girls that were very, very young” visiting the home but couldn’t say for sure if they were minors.

Over the course of Epstein’s visits to the home, the man said, more than a dozen girls might visit, and he was charged with cleaning the room where Epstein had massages, twice daily.

Some pages were almost entirely redacted. Other documents related to Epstein’s Florida prosecution that led to a plea deal that has long been criticized as too lenient, including emails between the defense and prosecutors over the conditions of his probation after his conviction. Barbara Burns, a Palm Beach County prosecutor, expressed frustration as the defense pushed for fewer restrictions on their client: “I don’t know how to convey to him anymore than I already have that his client is a registered sex offender that was fortunate to get the deal of the century.”

Some of the interviews with officers from the Palm Beach Police Department date to 2005, according to timestamps read out by officials at the beginning of the files.

Most, if not all, of the text documents posted Tuesday had already been public. Notably, the probable cause affidavit and other records from the 2005 investigation into Epstein contained a notation indicating that they’d been previously released in a 2017 public records request. An internet search showed those files were posted to the website of the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office in July 2017.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, chided Republicans on the panel for releasing material that he said consisted almost entirely of already available information.

“The 33,000 pages of Epstein documents James Comer has decided to ‘release’ were already mostly public information. To the American people — don’t let this fool you,” Garcia said in a statement.

The disclosure also left open the question of why the Justice Department did not release the material directly to the public instead of operating through Capitol Hill.

Survivors meet with lawmakers

On Capitol Hill onTuesday, the House speaker and a bipartisan group of lawmakers met with survivors of abuse by Epstein and Maxwell.

“The objective here is not just to uncover, investigate the Epstein evils, but also to ensure that this never happens again and ultimately to find out why justice has been delayed for these ladies for so very long,” said Johnson, R-La., after he emerged from a two-hour meeting with six of the survivors.

“It is inexcusable. And it will stop now because the Congress is dialed in on this,” he added.

But there are still intense disagreements on how lawmakers should proceed. Johnson is pressing for the inquiry to be handled by the House Oversight Committee and supporting the committee as it releases its findings.

Push for disclosure continues

Meanwhile, Democrats and some Republicans were still trying to maneuver around Johnson’s control of the House floor to hold a vote on their bill to require the Justice Department to publicly release files. Democrats lined up in the House chamber Tuesday evening to sign a petition from Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, to force a vote. Three other Republicans also supported the maneuver, but Massie would need two more GOP lawmakers and every Democrat to be successful.

If Massie, who is pressing for the bill alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), is able to force a vote — which could take weeks — the legislation would still need to pass the Senate and be signed into law by Trump.

The clash suggests little has changed in Congress since late July, when Johnson sent lawmakers home early in hopes of cooling the political battle over the Epstein case. Members of both parties remain dissatisfied and are demanding more details on the years-old investigation into Epstein, the wealthy and well-connected financier whose 2019 death has sparked wide-ranging conspiracy theories and speculation.

“We continue to bring the pressure. We’re not going to stop until we get justice for all of the survivors and the victims,” Garcia told reporters.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Kevin Freking and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, Mike Sisak in New York and Meg Kinnard in Chapin, S.C., contributed.

Democratic leaders in the United States are warning that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to deploy US troops to Chicago amid reports of administration plans to send National Guard soldiers to the Midwestern city.

Trump, a Republican, has said he would likely expand the deployment of federal forces to oversee policing in Washington, DC, to other cities, including Chicago. On Sunday, he also suggested the possibility of sending troops to Democratic-run Baltimore in Maryland.

Democratic House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday denounced plans to deploy federal forces to Chicago. Crime rates, including murders, have declined in Chicago in the last year.

“There’s no basis, no authority for Donald Trump to potentially try to drop federal troops into the city of Chicago,” Jeffries told CNN.

The US Constitution gives the power of policing to the states.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the Pentagon has been drawing up plans for a potential troop deployment in Chicago for weeks.

JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, where Chicago is located, was quick to reject the push.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families,” JB Pritzker said in a statement.

Leveling criticism at Maryland’s Democratic Governor Wes Moore over crime rates in Baltimore, Trump said he was prepared to deploy troops there, too.

In July, the Baltimore police department said there had been a double-digit reduction in gun violence compared to the previous year. The city has had 84 homicides so far this year – the fewest in over 50 years, according to the mayor.

“If Wes Moore needs help… I will send in the ‘troops,’ which is being done in nearby DC, and quickly clean up the Crime,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Sunday.

Since he entered politics in 2015, Trump has described major cities, which are almost all run by Democrats, as infested by crime, drugs and homelessness.

That perception echoed some rural conservative attitudes towards liberal cities.

Earlier this month, several Republican governors sent hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington at Trump’s request. The president has depicted the capital as being in the grip of a crime wave, although official data shows crime is down in the city.

On Sunday, Trump asserted without evidence that there was now no crime in the US capital and credited it to his deployment of troops and hundreds of federal law enforcement personnel.

The US president’s critics have warned that the crackdown in Washington may be a test run for the broader militarisation of US cities.

Trump has much less power over Chicago and Baltimore than he does over the District of Columbia, the seat of the federal government, which is not part of a US state.

Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, includes a provision allowing the president to deploy National Guard units to repel an invasion, to suppress a rebellion or to allow the president to execute the law.

Trump cited this provision, known as Section 12406, when he sent National Guard units to California earlier this year to counter protests, over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom.

In the case of Chicago, Trump may argue that local laws that bar city officials from cooperating with federal immigration agents justify the military presence.

Trump is almost certain to face legal challenges if he uses Section 12406 to send National Guard troops from Republican-led states into Democratic strongholds.

As the Trump administration continues to ramp up immigration enforcement actions, a group of lawmakers is suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement for placing restrictions on detention center visits — obstructing Congress’ role in overseeing government functions.

Twelve House Democrats filed a lawsuit challenging new guidelines that require advance notice for oversight visits and render certain facilities off-limits. “No child should be sleeping on concrete, and no sick person should be denied care,” said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). “Yet that’s exactly what we keep hearing is happening inside Trump’s detention centers.”

These lawmakers are right to seek access to detention facilities. Detention centers have long been plagued by poor conditions, so the need for oversight is urgent. With record numbers of migrants being detained, the public has a right to know how people in the government’s custody are being treated.

The U.S. operates the world’s largest immigration detention system, at a cost of $3 billion a year. This money is appropriated by Congress — and comes with conditions.

Under existing law, none of the funds given to Homeland Security may be used to prevent members of Congress from conducting oversight visits of “any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.” In addition, the law states that members of Congress are not required to “provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility.” So ICE’s attempt to place limits on oversight appears to be illegal.

The restrictions are also problematic because they claim to exempt the agency’s field offices from oversight. However, migrants are being locked up in such offices, including at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles, and 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. In the former, one detainee reported being fed only once a day, at 3 a.m. In the latter, as many as 80 detainees have been crammed into a single room amid sweltering summer temperatures. These offices were never set up to house people overnight or for days or weeks. If they are functioning as de facto detention centers, then they must be subject to inspections.

Congressional oversight of immigration detention is vital right now. The current capacity for U.S. detention facilities is 41,000. Yet the government was holding nearly 57,000 people as of July 27. That means facilities are far over capacity, in a system that the Vera Institute of Justice describes as “plagued by abuse and neglect.”

No matter who is president, conditions in immigrant detention are generally abysmal. Migrant detention centers have been cited for their lack of medical care, poor treatment of detainees, and physical and sexual violence. In 2019, the federal government itself reported that conditions in detention were inhumane. At least 11 people have died in detention since January. This reality cries out for more transparency and accountability — especially because Homeland Security laid off most of its internal watchdogs earlier this year.

The ranks of detainees include asylum-seekers, teenagers, DACA recipients, pregnant women, journalists and even U.S. citizens. Most of the detainees arrested lately have no criminal convictions. These folks are often arrested and moved thousands of miles away from home, complicating their access to legal representation and family visits. A visit by a congressional delegation may be the only way to ensure that they are being treated properly.

In response to the lawsuit by House Democrats, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Homeland Security, said: “These members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour. Instead, they’re running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails.” She added that ICE was imposing the new limits, in part, because of “obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves.”

McLaughlin might have been referring to a May scuffle outside a Newark, N.J., detention center that led to charges being filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the arrest of the city’s mayor. But this incident would not have occurred if immigration officials had followed the law and allowed lawmakers inside to survey the facility’s conditions.

Indeed, the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, told a congressional hearing in May that he recognized the right of members to visit detention facilities, even with no notice. And the notion that any government agency can unilaterally regulate Congress runs afoul of the Constitution. The legislative branch has the right and obligation to supervise the executive branch. Simply put, ICE cannot tell members of Congress what they can or cannot do.

The need for oversight in detention facilities will only become greater in the future, as Congress just approved $45 billion for the expansion of immigrant detention centers. This could result in the daily detention of at least 116,000 people. Meanwhile, 55% of Americans, according to the Pew Center, disapprove of building more facilities to hold immigrants.

ICE’s new policies violate federal law. No agency is above oversight — and members of Congress must be allowed full access to detention facilities.

Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1