Archive August 6, 2025

After the US House Speaker, Mike Johnson, sent lawmakers home early for recess in July, he said if they were so concerned about releasing records related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, they could have sought them during Joe Biden’s presidency.

US Representative Thomas Massie and Representative Ro Khanna – along with 30 Democratic and 11 Republican cosponsors – filed legislation to try to force the government’s release of federal Epstein investigation files.

During the last presidency, “neither of those guys said a word about it”, Johnson said of Massie and Khanna on July 24 on CBS.

Trump made a similar argument that Democrats could have acted before he took office in January.

Democrats controlled the files for four years, Trump said, “So if they had something, they would’ve released it before the election.”

Khanna said on July 27 on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the Trump administration’s conflicting statements about its plans to release the Epstein files prompted the legislation.

We decided to explore Johnson’s larger point about what lawmakers said before this year about releasing Epstein records or investigating the case. We focused on Democrats; Massie is a conservative maverick who has clashed with Trump.

Democratic lawmakers began to seek records about Epstein after the Miami Herald’s late 2018 investigation into the case.

Before then, political coverage of the Epstein case was typically framed around the financier’s ties to former President Bill Clinton. His wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, lost the presidential election to Trump in 2016, and her role as a Trump rival kept the Epstein topic alive, especially in conservative media outlets.

Given this framing, Democrats often weren’t asked to comment on the topic, declined to comment, or didn’t raise Epstein as an issue.

Starting in 2019, but before Epstein’s arrest that year on federal sex trafficking charges, some Democratic lawmakers including Representative Lois Frankel and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, both of South Florida, launched a years-long quest to release Epstein records.

The Democrats called for former US Attorney Alex Acosta, who served as labour secretary during Trump’s first term, to testify about Epstein’s plea deal. They asked the Justice Department to investigate and release records. Democrats later pursued other strategies, including asking a Palm Beach, Florida judge to release records.

“A full accounting for these heinous crimes is lacking,” Wasserman Schultz told PolitiFact in an August 1 written statement. “Those prospects changed when Republicans momentarily joined the call for full disclosure.”

In 2019, some Democrats called for a plea deal investigation

Acosta signed off in 2007 on Epstein’s secret plea deal in which he agreed to plead guilty to state prostitution charges, serve 18 months in county jail and pay monetary damages to his victims. In exchange, the US attorney’s office agreed to forgo federal prosecution. Epstein entered his guilty plea in 2008.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigated Acosta’s role and, in November 2020, released a summary that said he showed “poor judgement”.

Spring 2019: Focus on Acosta’s role

Before Epstein’s July 2019 arrest on federal charges, Frankel and Wasserman Schultz called on the Justice Department to make public Acosta’s role in the plea deal.

Frankel submitted a list of questions for Acosta, including whether any politicians lobbied prosecutors on Epstein’s behalf.

Senator Tim Kaine and Senator Patty Murray joined the effort, sending a separate letter to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility asking to make its records public.

Summer 2019: Focus on how past investigations were handled

US Representative Elijah Cummings invited Acosta to testify before the House oversight committee, which Cummings chaired. A few days later, on July 12, Acosta announced he had resigned as labour secretary, after Democratic leaders and presidential candidates called for him to do so.

On the day Acosta resigned, Khanna said Acosta should testify before the House oversight committee, and later that month Senator Chuck Schumer was among the Democrats who called on the Justice Department to make public the results of its review of Acosta’s handling of the Epstein case.

Also in July, the congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus requested that the House Oversight and Reform Committee open an investigation into how the Palm Beach, Florida Sheriff’s Office handled the Epstein investigation.

Days after Epstein’s August 2019 death in a Manhattan jail cell, Khanna posted his support for an investigation into the death, writing: “There are too many unanswered questions, and far too many who deserve closure, to leave this case unexamined.” Khanna attached to his post a link to a Daily Beast article that said bipartisan lawmakers sent a letter to the FBI demanding answers about Epstein’s suicide.

Democrats continued their push for a plea deal investigation, writing multiple letters, including one to Trump’s then-Attorney General Bill Barr and another to the House judiciary and oversight committees.

Democrats, along with some Republicans, proposed legislation to prevent prosecutors from striking secret plea deals, and Democrats also sought records about the Epstein case from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

2020 to 2024: Focus on records

Democrats tried other tactics to obtain records, such as requesting them from a Palm Beach judge – a strategy spearheaded by the Palm Beach Post that can take years to succeed.

Some records emerged from civil lawsuits and the federal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted for her role in a scheme with Epstein to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls.

When Maxwell was charged in 2020, Democrats continued to push for transparency.

Frankel told PolitiFact in an August 1 interview that the House oversight committee wanted to hold a hearing at which they would hear from Epstein victims, their lawyers and prosecutors. They wanted to subpoena the prosecutors to ask them under oath “why they gave this guy a slap on the wrist, who pressured them?” Frankel said.

However, “We were told by the Justice Department to cut it off” because it could compromise the Maxwell investigation, Frankel told PolitiFact.

After Biden took office in 2021, Democrats appeared to dial back their public calls for Epstein records’ release.

“Pushes for oversight and record releases were at times tempered by a need to respect both the victims’ pursuit of justice in courts and their fears of reprisals,” Wasserman Schultz told PolitiFact. “As disclosures were denied or delayed, we did what lawmakers do and legislated to protect future victims.”

In February 2024, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a bill to allow the release of Epstein 2006 grand jury testimony after a similar effort failed in previous state legislative sessions. Frankel praised the legislation.

A Palm Beach judge released records in July 2024, which showed prosecutors had heard testimony about how Epstein sexually assaulted two teenage girls before they gave Epstein a plea deal. Frankel again repeated her push for an explanation.

In September 2024, Wasserman Schultz along with Representative Burgess Owens, introduced a bill, similar to earlier proposals, to require prosecutors to inform victims of such plea deals. The bill did not receive a vote.

The US State Department has announced that it will start requiring travelers from some nations to pay bonds of up to $15, 000 to enter the country as part of its immigration crackdown.

Beginning on August 20, the 12-month pilot program affects B-1 business and B-2 tourism visas. According to the department’s temporary final rule, which was made public on August 5 in the Federal Register, it targets travelers from nations with historically higher visa overstay rates. The money will be refunded if visitors follow the bond’s terms.

The State Department announced on Tuesday that visitors from Zambia and Malawi would be the first to be targeted by the new policy.

The rule follows a a travel ban  for US citizens from 12 nations, and new fees are being levied on US visitors.

Citizens from nations with high visa overstays are targeted by the new rule. Visitors to the US Visa Waiver Program are not permitted to travel to Mexico, Canada, or any other more than 40 nations. Citizens are granted up to 90 days of visa-free travel to the US for business or tourism.

What else should you know about the proposal’s mechanics and its history.

A visa bond is what?

Some nations demand a financial guarantee from some foreigners applying for temporary visas to make sure visa holders adhere to the terms of their visa, particularly their stay duration.

The US provides visas to foreign students, tourists, and workers for thousands of temporary nonimmigrants annually. The duration of the visas ranges from a few weeks to several years.

A nonimmigrant stays in the US for longer than is permitted under the law as a visa overstay.

Most nations require visa applications for money, but don’t require visitors to post a refundable bond to enter. Prior to now, New Zealand had a visa bond policy  to prevent overstays, but it is no longer in effect. A plan to impose a bond on visitors from some “high-risk” nations was attempted and later abandoned in the United Kingdom in 2013.

What is the bond size?

The proposed US bonds have three tiers: $5, 000, $10, 000 and $15, 000.

According to the State Department’s notice, the program will require the posting of visa bonds for about 2,000 applicants.

“If the average bond is $10, 000 (from options of $5, 000, $10, 000, and $15, 000), the initial cost to aliens of bonds for 2, 000 visa applicants will be $20, 000, 000”,&nbsp, the notice said.

Consular officers will decide the bond amount, taking into account an applicant’s “personal circumstances,” including their travel, employment, income, skills, and education.

According to the department, in limited circumstances, such as when US government employees need to travel or when there are urgent humanitarian needs, consular officers will be able to request waivers.

Has anyone tried this before?

Due to a decline in global travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s State Department attempted a visa bond program in 2020, but it was not fully implemented.

Consular officers were historically urged by State Department guidance because it was “cumbersome” and could lead to misperceptions in the eyes of the public, according to the State Department’s notice.

However, the department claimed that this view “is not supported by any recent examples or evidence,” not to mention that a 2020 pilot program that did not provide any meaningful data.

According to the notice, citing&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp, the number of noncitizens who arrived on a visa without having the matching departure data “demonstrates that hundreds of thousands of nonimmigrant visitors fail to timely depart in accordance with the terms of their visitor visa”.

Which nations would be impacted?

The State Department announced on August 5 that Malawi and Zambia would be the first two nations to be subject to visa bonds.

Nationals of Malawi and Zambia will be required to post a bond of up to $15, 000 as of August 20, according to Tammy Bruce, a State Department official.

Based on high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information are determined insufficient, or nations that offer citizenship through investment, additional nations that are subject to the bond program will be identified. The list, according to the department, could be changed throughout the program.

Citizenship by Investment programs, which essentially sell citizenship to noncitizens, require them to make an investment in the nation’s economy and do so without having to reside there. Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Jordan, St. Lucia, and Turkiye are just a few of the nations that are participating in these programs.

Which nations require more visas than others?

According to a Department of Homeland Security Overstay Report, many African nations, as well as Haiti, Laos, Myanmar, and Yemen, had the highest overstay rates for visitors with B-1 and B-2 visas in fiscal year 2023.

Many of the 12 nations, including Chad and Eritrea, are also experiencing high rates of visa overstays, according to Trump’s travel ban.

What proportion of illegal immigrants enter the country on visas?

In its report to Congress, the DHS stated that it anticipated 39 million visa departures for holders in the fiscal year 2023. That year saw approximately 400, 000 visa overstays.

According to a report from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, visa overstayers are reportedly responsible for a sizable portion of the country’s illegal migrant population.

The then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated in 2002 that about 41% of illegal immigrants in the country are visa overstayers based on data from the 1990s. John Carter, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio all echoed that figure, which became the most frequently quoted figure.

According to the INS, 33 percent of the undocumented migrant population in 2000 had overstayed their visas after the INS reprocessed the data in 2003.

About 42 percent of the country’s population without proper documentation was overstayers, according to the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank that studies international migration in recent years. In 2024, the center cited this figure.