House Oversight Committee report says a lawful subpoena "preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA"
House committee, in its report on the contempt resolution submitted by Chairman James Comer
“Mr. Black invoked no valid reason for refusing to appear for a deposition and refusing to produce all non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) referencing Epstein or Maxwell as well as all NDAs to which he is a party, and the Oversight Committee's efforts to persuade him to testify and produce documents have reached an impasse. ... A lawful, duly issued congressional subpoena preempts any terms of confidentiality in an NDA and it is the prerogative of the Oversight Committee to consider or weigh privacy concerns against its investigative needs. ... Mr. Black's willful refusal to comply with the Oversight Committee's subpoenas constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution as prescribed by law.”
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The committee's report on the contempt resolution. It sets out the subpoena history, the committee's account of Black's non-compliance, its response to the reasons Black gave, and the recorded committee vote. It states the committee's position, not a court finding.
Original text
About this source
Official record of the House floor action on H. Res. 1543: Comer's request for unanimous consent, the absence of objection, and agreement to the resolution.
Before the quotation
Comer issued a deposition subpoena and a document subpoena to Black on June 26, 2026. The report says the deposition was moved at Black's request to September 3, that Black's counsel declined to give deposition testimony in a letter hours before it began, and that Black sued the committee that day.
After the quotation
The committee approved the report by a recorded vote of 41 to 0 on September 15. The House agreed to the resolution on September 16 by unanimous consent.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in House Report 119-831 that Leon Black willfully failed to comply with its June 26, 2026 deposition subpoena and document subpoena, and that his stated reasons for not complying are without merit.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the decision to hold Black in contempt, the committee argues that Black's stated reasons for not complying do not excuse it and asks the House to adopt the contempt resolution. That is a defense of the action itself, which separates it from a statement that only disputes how the action is described.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Leon Black
Was the House justified in holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress over the Epstein inquiry?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“an outrageous action that ignores the facts and the truth about Mr. Black ... The House of Representatives has rushed through every stage of this inquiry. ... The full House is holding him in contempt without any regard to the active litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Committee’s actions and the ethics complaint against Chairman Comer ... politically motivated and completely retaliatory by a Chairman who is focused solely on himself and his own political ambitions without any regard for the truth and the law. ... To think, he is being held in contempt over invalid subpoenas is ridiculous.”Read statement
“We just unanimously voted to hold Leon Black in contempt of Congress. His name appears in the Epstein files hundreds of times, and he gave Epstein $180 million. The survivors told us to follow the money and that is exactly what we are doing. ... Whatever happened, the reality is he has a lot of information, a lot of documents that are central to our investigation and he's refusing.”Read statement
“This vote is an important step towards justice and accountability. Leon Black has continued to defy two congressional subpoenas and we need to know why he gave Jeffrey Epstein $180 million dollars.”Read statement