The House Oversight Committee’s unanimous recommendation that Leon Black be held in contempt of Congress has intensified a dispute over how far an Epstein-related investigation can reach into private agreements and testimony.

Committee chair James Comer, a Republican, says Black failed to comply after a voluntary interview in which he declined to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements, followed by missed deposition dates and limited document production. The panel voted 41-0 to send its contempt report to the full House. Comer argued that “subpoenas are not suggestions; they carry the force of law and require full compliance,” calling Black’s testimony crucial because of his years-long relationship with Epstein.¹

Black, who has sued to block the subpoenas, offers a sharply different reading. His legal challenge argues that the requests exceed the committee’s delegated authority by seeking private information without a legitimate legislative connection. His lawyers say disclosure could expose women who value their privacy and have no known public connection to Epstein. They called the subpoenas “illegitimate, illegal and a textbook abuse of power designed to bully and destroy legal protections of private citizens.”¹

The committee’s position is that the NDAs may help clarify Black’s relationship with Epstein and others in his orbit; survivors of Epstein’s abuse have also urged Black to comply. Black’s lawyers, meanwhile, say he regrets doing business with Epstein, had no knowledge of Epstein’s conduct and committed no abuse or trafficking. Black has not been charged in connection with Epstein’s alleged crimes, and appearing in Epstein-related files alone does not establish wrongdoing.²

The clash has a bipartisan dimension: the same committee previously pursued contempt resolutions against Bill and Hillary Clinton after they initially declined Epstein-related testimony, though both later appeared before the House. The Black resolution now awaits possible consideration by the full chamber.²