The files, the silence, and the breaking point – How the Epstein case shook the House of Representatives and how Jeffrey had no "fun" at all

Even before the House of Representatives could head into summer recess, it was clear: something in Washington had begun to falter. This wasn’t about a new immigration rule, budget issues, or environmental laws - it was about the case of Jeffrey Epstein. And about one simple question: how much truth can a parliament endure that likes to see itself as a moral authority? When Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, stepped in front of the press, it was his final appearance before the traditional August recess - and one that’s likely to be remembered. Instead of addressing the growing calls within his own party to finally vote on the release of the Epstein files, Johnson announced that the session would end early. It was “not necessary” to put pressure on the White House, he said, as President Trump was “already” working to release the information. Rarely have we laughed so hard. Johnson said nothing more - at least nothing on the substance. Instead, he spoke of moral responsibility and the need to “give space.” But the ranks within his own caucus are no longer as united as he would like them to be. Especially right-wing party allies are showing outrage. The pressure to finally confront the Epstein abuse investigations publicly no longer comes only from conspiracy posters and Telegram groups but directly from the constituencies. “The public won’t forget this - and rightfully so,” said Ralph Norman, representative from South Carolina. This very phenomenon - the moral vacuum of a political class that confuses accountability with delay - has also fueled the rise of right-wing populists in Germany. Where political responsibility is denied, distrust grows - and with it the space for radical narratives. It then falls to investigative journalists to do what the powerful are ashamed to do: uncover, document, name. Usually without institutional backing, often for nothing but principle - because major media outlets no longer calculate in truths but in ad space and political favor. A system that reaches its limits with every critical publication. Visibility under these conditions is no longer a privilege but a liability: an open invitation to repression - be it through algorithms, through authorities, or through orchestrated attacks that suddenly turn personal. We could write books about this. And perhaps we should.

In fact, the Republican-led Oversight Committee had already moved further than the Speaker: even before Johnson’s press conference, the committee had issued a subpoena for Ghislaine Maxwell - Epstein’s former accomplice, currently serving a long prison sentence. The committee’s chairman, James Comer, announced plans to negotiate with Maxwell’s attorneys about the terms of her testimony - possibly directly from prison. The Department of Justice also indicated that it was seeking to conduct its own questioning of Maxwell. The Democrats supported the subpoena but with a clear warning. Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the committee, called her a “proven liar” and instead demanded full release of the investigative files. “We must not rely on a perpetrator,” said Garcia. “What we need is full transparency.” Donald Trump, on the other hand, remained silent - another form of transparency. At a reception for Republican lawmakers at the White House, he made no mention of Epstein, but praised Johnson effusively - calling him “one of the greatest speakers in the history of the House.” And Johnson? Also silent. Behind the scenes, however, it had already become apparent that the Speaker had lost control. On Monday evening, it was in the powerful Rules Committee - the body that prepares legislation for floor votes - that a serious rupture occurred. Republicans abruptly walked out of the meeting when it became clear that Democrats would introduce new motions to release the Epstein files. Parliamentary activity came to a halt. And this after the GOP had originally prepared a series of legislative initiatives - including tougher penalties for irregular immigration, loosening of environmental regulations, and accelerated water infrastructure projects. All of that was postponed. The Epstein debate had thrown the party off course.

For Johnson, it’s a dangerous moment: his position as Speaker depends more than ever on Trump’s goodwill - and on maintaining balance within a deeply fractured caucus. His decision to ignore both external and internal pressure may come back to haunt him. Because contrary to his hopes, the issue hasn’t been laid to rest with the start of recess. Lawmakers like Thomas Massie are already working on a so-called “discharge petition” - a procedure that allows a vote to be forced without leadership approval. Massie: “Some here in Washington seem to think five weeks of vacation will make this all go away. I don’t think so.” There is also mounting pressure from the Democrats. Ro Khanna, one of the initiators of the bipartisan bill to release the files, put it bluntly: “This is about transparency. It’s about whose side you’re on. Are you on the side of the rich and powerful - or on the side of the young girls and children of America?” Because what Jeffrey Epstein did is documented. Over more than a decade, he abused minors, some barely 14 years old. Without Maxwell’s help, that would not have been possible - according to the indictment. That such a grave case of sexual abuse is now becoming a pawn in partisan tactics has outraged many - even outside their usual political camps. Even within the Senate, unease is growing. Republican Majority Leader John Thune said he trusted that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi would make “the right decisions” - but didn’t rule out the possibility that the relevant committees might take the matter up. Meanwhile, those responsible are trying to survive the moment with rhetorical tightrope walking. Johnson declared they wanted to “expose the evil of Epstein - absolutely.” But at the same time, he said, “the innocent must be protected.” It was “a fine needle to thread.” But that “fine needle” is trembling. Because many, even within the GOP, sense that more is at stake here than just an intraparty disagreement. This is about fundamental questions of democracy: truth, accountability, justice. And those who refuse them may end up losing not just control over a committee - but over the public narrative itself.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.