Comer says Black defied the subpoenas and "We have no choice but to hold him in contempt"
Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, in opening remarks at a committee markup
“I subpoenaed Leon Black for testimony and documents critical to our investigation, but he has refused to comply. Leon Black is legally required to appear for a deposition before the Oversight Committee and required to turn over all non-disclosure agreements to which he was a party. The Committee also asked for all NDAs and confidentiality agreements that Epstein and Maxwell were involved or referenced in. He defied Congress and refused to do either. Instead, Mr. Black is hiding behind litigation to delay having to provide answers to the American people. No one is above the law. ... Subpoenas are not suggestions. They carry the force of law and require full compliance. ... We made it clear to Mr. Black and his attorneys that if he did not comply, then the Committee would initiate contempt proceedings. We have no choice but to hold him in contempt.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
Committee press release with the text of Chairman Comer's opening remarks for the September 15 markup and the committee's background summary of the subpoenas.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original video
About this source
Committee video of the September 15 markup of the Black contempt resolution. It shows Chairman Comer's opening remarks, Ranking Member Garcia's remarks, the chair's call for other members to be heard, and the announced vote total.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The committee said Black failed to appear for his September 3, 2026 deposition, withheld nondisclosure agreements and sued Comer and the committee.
After the quotation
The committee then voted 41 to 0 to report the resolution to the full House, according to the vote total announced at the meeting.
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, Comer argues that Black was required to comply, was using litigation to avoid answering and left the committee no choice. He advocates the contempt action itself, which is a defense of it rather than a dispute over how it 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