Lutnick’s Epstein Trouble Continues

Speaking with the House Oversight Committee, the Commerce Secretary refused to answer if he spoke to Trump about his testimony.

Source: EFTA01230639, U.S. Department of Justice

This article is part four of a series called The Epstein Administration, in which we break through the noise of the Epstein files, report the truth, and demand transparency and accountability. We previously covered Pam Bondi’s exit from DOJ, Bondi’s dodging of her subpoena, and King Charles’s royal visit after former Prince Andrew’s arrest.

Back in February, we wrote that Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick should show himself the door after documents released by DOJ contradicted his past statements about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

He did not take our advice. But on Wednesday, Lutnick spoke with the House Oversight Committee about his Epstein ties. He appeared voluntarily, but only after House Democrats and some Republicans indicated that they would move to subpoena him.

The interview was also not videotaped, but a transcript is expected to be released.

For now, the public is yet again dependent on competing perspectives from partisan interests for information about the interview. We shouldn’t have to parse and read between the lines of the public comments different Committee members made to different outlets following the interview. The Committee owes more transparency to the American public—the fact that the members don’t seem to agree is an indictment of how they view their role.

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) said of the Committee’s meeting with Lutnick: “Earlier today, Chairman Comer said that he hadn’t seen any evidence of wrongdoing by Secretary Lutnick. And that’s actually the problem with the Trump administration, this Republican majority in Congress, because lying to the American people is wrongdoing. And Howard Lutnick lied to the American people.”

Walkinshaw is referring to Lutnick’s appearance on a podcast in October 2025 in which he claims he never interacted with Epstein after the two men’s initial meeting in 2005. DOJ subsequently released files evidencing that Lutnick visited Epstein’s island in 2011, and the men were in contact until 2018.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was probably trying to say that he had not seen any evidence that Lutnick was involved in Epstein’s alleged crimes. Comer, though, seems completely willing to take him at his word. Before the interview, Comer tepidly acknowledged that Lutnick “wasn’t 100 percent truthful” in past statements about his relationship with Epstein. Afterwards, he said that Lutnick was “very forthcoming” with the three interactions Lutnick has acknowledged he had with Epstein.

So, Lutnick has jumped from not “100 percent truthful” to “very forthcoming” on Epstein matters in just a few months? We don’t buy it.

Lutnick’s evasiveness about his relationship with Epstein exists within the broader context of a fumbling congressional investigation with nebulous objectives. The Committee’s lack of discernible goals—and the American public’s lack of clarity about those goals or what the Committee has uncovered—undermines its credibility.

Walkinshaw told reporters that Lutnick was asked by “a number of” Committee members “if he spoke to President Trump about today’s hearing, and he refused to answer that question.”

Based on what we know so far of Lutnick’s testimony, this refusal is more significant than any answers Lutnick actually gave. Why wouldn’t Lutnick answer the question? Isn’t his refusal to answer an answer in itself? If he hadn’t spoken to Trump, that would be an easy “no,” right?

If Trump is interfering with or influencing a Congressional investigation, the public should know.

Former AG Pam Bondi will appear before the Committee on May 29. The Committee should ask her, as it asked Lutnick, if she spoke with Trump in preparation for her testimony.

As the Committee speaks with people who work closer and closer to the president himself, Trump’s absence from the investigation becomes harder to ignore. His testimony is undeniably relevant to the period of Epstein’s life that the Committee is investigating, as well as the DOJ’s release of its investigative files. If Trump will not appear for questioning voluntarily, he should be subpoenaed. If the Committee does not subpoena him, it should provide a clear explanation of this decision to the American public.

Home of the Brave exists to show Americans the real-world consequences of this administration’s policies, and to highlight what bravery looks like in defense of American democracy.