House Oversight chairman backs Melania Trump's push for Epstein victim hearings before Congress

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Friday he plans to hold congressional hearings with Jeffrey Epstein's victims, endorsing a public call from First Lady Melania Trump one day earlier demanding that survivors get their chance to testify under oath on Capitol Hill.

Comer made the announcement on Fox News's "America's Reports," telling viewers the hearings were already in the works and that the first lady's statement only reinforced the committee's direction. The Kentucky Republican told the network:

"There are some victims who are willing to come in. Most victims aren't, and I completely understand that. But we've always planned on having a hearing with Epstein victims once the depositions have been completed. So we have still got some more high-profile men that are coming in. Then I agree with the First Lady. We will have hearings."

The chairman's remarks came after Melania Trump issued a pointed statement Thursday distancing herself from Epstein and his sex trafficking network, and turning the spotlight squarely onto the institutions that have, for years, failed to deliver full accountability.

Melania Trump's statement: denial, distance, and a demand

The first lady's Thursday statement was blunt. She denied any involvement with Epstein, any knowledge of his crimes, and any presence on his plane or private island. As the New York Post reported, she declared:

"I am not Epstein's victim. I have never had any knowledge of Epstein's abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity, I was not a participant, was never on Epstein's plane, and never visited his private island."

But the denial was only the opening. What followed was a direct challenge to Congress, and to every institution that has slow-walked disclosure in this case.

"Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress, with the power of sworn testimony. Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the Congressional Record."

Her senior adviser, Marc Beckman, told the Post that Melania Trump was simply "tired of the lies." That phrase captures something broader than one woman's frustration. For years, the Epstein case has been wrapped in half-measures, sealed documents, and institutional foot-dragging, a pattern that has left survivors waiting and the public guessing.

Congress has been building pressure, slowly

Comer's committee has not been idle, though the pace has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. The Oversight Committee has conducted closed-door depositions and continued interviewing high-profile figures connected to Epstein's network. Comer indicated Friday that more depositions remain before public hearings begin, and that additional "high-profile men" are still expected to appear.

The committee's investigative reach has expanded significantly. Earlier this year, Comer formally subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify about the Justice Department's handling of Epstein-related files and investigations. Bondi was directed to appear for a deposition on April 14, 2026, with the committee stating it was reviewing "possible mismanagement of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death."

That subpoena letter spelled out the stakes plainly: "The Committee may use the results of this investigation to inform legislative solutions to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations."

The reference to non-prosecution agreements is no accident. Some victims remain deeply suspicious of prosecutors after Epstein secured what many have called a sweetheart deal in Florida in 2018, an arrangement that allowed a billionaire accused of serial sex trafficking to avoid the kind of reckoning his crimes demanded. That deal remains one of the most glaring failures of prosecutorial accountability in modern memory, and it hangs over every new development in this case.

Congressional tensions over Trump administration priorities are nothing new. Recent clashes between House Republicans and the White House over tariff policy have shown that even allies can push back when they believe more action is needed.

34,000 pages, and still not enough

The committee has also pushed hard on document disclosure. Last year, Comer released 34,000 pages of Epstein-related documents after the Justice Department provided them under a congressional subpoena. The trove included court records, videos, the previously sealed 2019 grand jury indictment, jail footage, and newly disclosed flight logs. An initial review found that the released material referenced only Epstein and a handful of his employees, with many pages significantly redacted.

"We are moving as quickly as we can," Comer said at the time. "We are going to follow the money."

Following the money has meant going directly to Epstein's estate. Comer asked the estate for unredacted cash ledgers, message logs, flight logs, and calendars. The committee pledged to redact victims' identities and any child sexual abuse material before any public release. In a letter to the estate, Comer wrote: "While the Committee appreciates the ability to review these documents in camera, it is necessary for the Estate to produce full, unredacted copies." National Review reported that the committee also released testimony from former Attorney General Bill Barr, who said he saw no evidence that President Trump committed criminal acts in connection with his friendship with Epstein.

A federal law signed by President Trump, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, requires the Justice Department to release all files in the case. Officials are currently redacting victims' names and personal information. A large cache was made public in January, but not all documents have been released.

The broader question of how Congress uses its oversight powers has been a recurring theme this session. Senate Republicans recently shut down an attempt by Democrats to exploit war powers procedures for political advantage, a reminder that procedural fights in Washington often reveal more about motives than about substance.

Survivors push back, but not all in the same direction

Melania Trump's call drew praise from some quarters and skepticism from others. Rep. Nancy Mace, the South Carolina Republican who has previously criticized the pace of disclosure, endorsed the first lady's stance in personal terms.

"As a survivor, this isn't political, it's personal and when the First Lady of the United States stands up and demands justice for Epstein's victims, it is truly momentous. These women deserve to be heard. Today, they were."

Mace had earlier pushed the president himself to move faster on releasing information in the case, a sign that pressure on this issue cuts across easy partisan lines.

But a group of survivors issued a more cautious statement, arguing that the first lady's call shifted the burden onto victims rather than onto the powerful institutions that have stonewalled for years. "First Lady Melania Trump is now shifting the burden onto survivors under politicized conditions that protect those with power: the Department of Justice, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the Trump Administration, which has still not fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act," the group said.

Their statement concluded: "Survivors have done their part. Now it's time for those in power to do theirs."

That complaint deserves a fair hearing. If the DOJ has not fully complied with a transparency law the president himself signed, that is a legitimate failure, and one that Congress should press harder to correct. The House Freedom Caucus has shown no reluctance to call out its own party's leadership when it believes promises are not being kept. The same standard should apply here.

Epstein survivor Marina Lacerda was more bluntly dismissive, posting on Instagram: "It sounds like you're just trying to shift attention from something to something else."

The Wolff factor

Author Michael Wolff, who exchanged numerous emails with Epstein and is currently in a legal battle with Melania Trump, offered his own theory, without evidence to support it. Wolff claimed the first lady "hates" her husband and suggested she might even want Congress to investigate the president. He speculated about whether "new accusations or a big bombshell" might be on the horizon.

"The other perhaps obvious point might just be that she hates her husband. He's the one who got her into this Epstein mess."

Wolff's speculation, presented without proof and from a man with his own legal exposure in this matter, says more about his incentives than about Melania Trump's. A federal judge is currently considering a motion to dismiss the lawsuit between Wolff and the first lady.

Democrats, meanwhile, tried to redirect the conversation. Rep. Ro Khanna of California said Melania Trump "must testify as to what she knows about other who men raped or abused the survivors." It is a demand that conveniently ignores the first lady's explicit denial of any knowledge, and the fact that no evidence in the public record contradicts her.

President Trump was friends with Epstein in the early 2000s, when he was dating Melania, but the two ended their friendship. Epstein did not attend the Trumps' wedding at Mar-a-Lago. The president has denied wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein's crimes, and former AG Barr's testimony to the committee found no evidence to the contrary.

Trump has publicly expressed concern that Democrats may use the midterms to pursue a third impeachment, a political dynamic that hangs over every Epstein-related proceeding on Capitol Hill. His push for Senate Republicans to deliver on legislative priorities reflects an awareness that the clock is ticking.

What comes next

Comer has laid out a clear sequence: finish the depositions, bring in the remaining high-profile witnesses, then open public hearings where willing victims can testify. The committee has pledged to protect survivors' identities in any public proceedings. The question is whether the Justice Department will match Congress's pace, or continue dragging its feet on a transparency law that already carries the president's signature.

The Epstein case has tested every institution it has touched, prosecutors, courts, federal law enforcement, and now Congress. Survivors have waited years. The documents are still coming out in pieces. And the powerful men whose names fill those flight logs and message books have, with few exceptions, faced no public reckoning at all.

Melania Trump asked for hearings. Comer says they are coming. The victims deserve nothing less, and the public deserves to finally see who has been hiding behind the redactions.