Epstein probe hones in on billionaire kryptonite: non-disclosure agreements
Members of Congress believe that, like Donald Trump, Leon Black may have used NDAs to try and conceal illegal activity committed during his 30-year friendship with Epstein.
Cam here 👋 bringing you your daily dose of what people are doing – good, bad, and otherwise – in the world of politics. We’re diving into the stories you won’t see anywhere else. And remember, you can also keep up with me over on TikTok and Bluesky.
Since day one of Trump’s political career, people have desperately attempted to normalize his absurd abuses of power and blatant corruption – and 10 years later, much of corporate media remains a victim of their own attempts to return to a sense of normalcy.
It’s time to stop sane-washing the insanity.
What Happened
In the latest sign of President Donald Trump’s waning influence over the legislative branch, his attempt to pressure Congress into tying his voter restriction law to the annual National Defense Authorization Act failed spectacularly and instead derailed both pieces of legislation.
Congress is currently in the process of approving the Trump administration’s request for a $1.5 trillion defense budget, roughly a half-a-trillion increase from our current budget, $860 billion more than during Trump’s first term, and $1 trillion more than when the US launched the war on terror.
“Even Dr. Strangelove would be impressed with that kind of figure. It’s pouring a bunch of money into weapons systems that I don’t think are necessary, and take away from other things that are really important.,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA). “I’m a big advocate for redefining what we mean by national security. It needs to be about more than bombs. National security includes whether or not you can afford food, whether you can afford housing, whether or not you can afford education or health care. People lose sleep at night wondering whether they’re going to be able to afford the basic necessities, they’re not worried about whether or not we can build another weapon system.”
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — the legislative vehicle for the Pentagon’s budget — typically sails through Congress with bipartisan support, despite the agency’s repeated audit failures and growing voter concern over the military’s ever-expanding budget.
That’s changed in recent years. Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), who has served on the House Armed Services Committee since 2010 and considers himself a strong supporter of the military, has played a big role in shaping previous NDAAs. This year, however, he voted against the defense bill in committee and again when it was to be brought to the House floor on Tuesday. It marked the second time Garamendi has voted against military funding since Trump’s return to office.
“There’s so much money here that it cannot be spent wisely,” said Garamendi. “And there are so many things that we ought not be spending money on — for example, the entire nuclear enterprise. We’re building new submarines or building new airplanes or building new rockets, and we’re maintaining the intercontinental ballistic missiles in the silos in the upper Midwest that dates back to the 1950s. We simply are headed down the wrong road on so many pieces of the military.”
And Garamendi wasn’t alone. More than a dozen Republicans joined Democrats to shut down a series of votes required to pass the NDAA, though for very different reasons. At Trump’s request, Speaker Mike Johnson attempted to attach a voter restriction package, known as the SAVE Act, as an amendment to the defense bill, but some Republicans felt it would be too easy to remove later. They preferred the two remain independent pieces of legislation and voted accordingly.
The end result stalled both the SAVE Act and the NDAA indefinitely, prompting Johnson to cancel the remainder of the week’s votes and send lawmakers home early for the July 4th recess. Earlier in Trump’s second term, Republicans largely rallied behind whatever cause the president laid before them — but now, four months before the midterm elections, legislators appear much less willing to appease the president unconditionally.
“The whole SAVE Act really is about Donald Trump’s fragile ego. He lost the presidential election in 2020, and his ego just can’t handle it. So he has to fantasize that he lost because the elections were rigged,” said McGovern. “Unfortunately, it would have real-life detrimental effects on regular people and make it more difficult for people to vote, make it more difficult for women to vote. You’d have to provide more identification. If you had a name change, it would be a nightmare trying to sort things out. Trump thinks that the fewer people that vote, the better for him, the better for Republicans. I think that’s anti-American.”
Without the full-throated support of Congress, Trump’s vision of a $1.5 trillion defense budget and codified voter suppression seems unlikely, and Democrats are hopeful the cracks in loyalty could provide an opening for compromise. There are glimpses of some already in this year’s NDAA: a small pay raise for servicemembers, restrictions on defense contractors’ stock buy-backs… and then there are the Trump things.
There’s a section to officially rename the Defense Department the Department of War, along with a 20-year, trillion-dollar commitment to develop a “Golden Dome” missile defense system. Then there’s funding for military actions, like the strike against Venezuela (which earned Trump a gently used Nobel Peace Prize) and the Iran War, which the US lost and conditionally agreed to pay at least $300 billion in reparations for.
But the most glaring provision in the Defense budget is also the most predictable: Trump has found a way to turn this massive amount of taxpayer dollars into his own personal piggy bank.
“Presumably, we know where the money is going to go,” Garamendi told COURIER. “Well, that’s a presumption, not based on fact and certainly not based on some of the intricate detail that’s in that bill that allows the Department of Defense and the president to take money from one program and move it to anywhere they want to move it, basically circumventing the authority of Congress to determine where the money is going to be spent.”
Epstein probe hones in on billionaire kryptonite: non-disclosure agreements
The top Republican overseeing the House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network issued a surprise subpoena on Friday after its recipient refused to answer questions about his use of non-disclosure agreements with women he had affairs with.
Leon Black was far from the first ultra-wealthy person of interest to willingly appear before the House Oversight Committee, only to be less than forthcoming about his association with Epstein. But while committee chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) could excuse former Victoria’s Secret mogul Les Wexner’s chronic gullibility and the Epstein-shaped hole in Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s memory, his patience ran out when Black refused to address whether or not Epstein helped negotiate NDA terms between Black and women he had sexual relationships with.
“They didn’t have non-disclosure agreements, and this guy does, which means he’s paid women for — whatever reason,” Comer told COURIER. “According to some of the survivors, Epstein negotiated some of these NDAs. He negotiated the terms. Now, Mr. Black said in the transcribed interview — which if he’s lying to Congress, that’s a felony — he said that Epstein didn’t have anything to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if that’s factual or not, and a lot of people in the committee want to know for sure whether that’s true or not. So now I have subpoenaed the NDAs.”
The confidential nature and legal force of non-disclosure agreements has been abused for decades by people in positions of power to hide predatory and illegal behavior. Disgraced figures such as Harvey Weinstein and Larry Nassar coerced their victims into silence by tricking them into believing NDAs barred them from reporting crimes to law enforcement or speaking publicly about the abuse they endured.
Possibly the most prolific NDA manipulator is none other than President Donald Trump, who has used them excessively in both public and private life. Since returning to the White House, Trump has forced confidentiality agreements on federal workers, a mandate seen as an attempt to dissuade public servants from reporting illegal activity. In 2023, Trump settled a class-action lawsuit accusing his campaign of illegally using NDAs to silence allegations of sexual discrimination and workplace toxicity. And in 2024, Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, including a $130,000 hush money payout to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in exchange for an NDA regarding her sexual encounters with Trump.
Like Trump, Black was a longtime friend and associate of Epstein’s who used NDAs to guarantee silence from women he cheated on his wife with. Congressional investigators believe Epstein introduced Black to the practice and allegedly negotiated an $18 million NDA between the Wall Street billionaire and Russian model Guzel Ganieva. Ranking committee member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who was in the room when Black was subpoenaed, believes compelling his testimony is crucial to uncovering other accomplices and co-conspirators in Epstein’s criminal enterprise.
“We asked a bunch of questions about disclosure agreements — about women, about accusations, about some extramarital affairs that he has been open about —and he refused to answer those,” Garcia said. “When we pushed, that’s when he shut down and walked out — and he walked out because he doesn’t want to answer questions or be held accountable. He is at the center of this Epstein investigation. There’s credible evidence that points to abuse, and now he’ll have to come back under oath and answer our questions.”
As first reported by Business Insider, a recent court filing by Epstein’s convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, revealed just how widely NDAs were used by clients of Epstein’s underage sex trafficking business. Maxwell claimed in December 2025 that she was not informed about NDAs some of Epstein’s victims signed at the behest of his clients — men Maxwell says she would have called in to testify as witnesses.
Maxwell learned about the existence of these NDAs from a podcast featuring Brad Edwards, a lawyer who represents her and Epstein’s victims. During the interview, Edwards said Epstein “lent out” 50 of his victims to at least 30 different men. Many of those women never spoke publicly about the abuse — and still haven’t — due to fear of repercussions from violating NDAs they had signed.
The subpoena Comer issued to Black could be the first crack in the NDA armor that has protected those implicated in Epstein’s criminal network. Black is now required to turn over every NDA he’s executed before sitting for his under-oath deposition on July 16. In addition to connecting Black’s secret relationships to Epstein, the subpoena could bring to light other confidentiality agreements he facilitated or embolden survivors to provide their own NDA agreements to Congress.
Should this provide the Oversight Committee with useful information, committee member Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) said she hopes it will put an end to Comer’s reliance on voluntary interviews with potential Epstein accomplices and conspirators in what she believes constitutes an ongoing government cover-up led by the Trump administration. Administration officials Howard Lutnick and Pam Bondi have both spoken to the committee, but were not subpoenaed or under oath — approaches Black’s behavior seems to validate as necessary to obtaining a forthcoming testimony.
“I’m grateful that Chairman Comer decided to actually issue a real subpoena so that Leon Black has to come and testify in front of the American public,” said Ansari. “Every single one of these interviews should be a public hearing, should be in front of the American people so that everyone is able to see and hear the answers for themselves. This needs to be the new standard, and I hope Chairman Comer makes it as such.”
It’s easy for individual members of Congress to get overlooked by national outlets as they quietly skate to reelection again, and again, and again. The following is an overview of different congressional representatives you may not have heard of, with fun facts about their origin stories they’ve tried to keep out of the public narrative.
US Rep. Ken Calvert, California’s 41st Congressional District
Since taking office in 1993, Rep. Calvert has:
Seen his net worth increase from $3 million to nearly $23 million
Sponsored 285 bills, 12 of which have been signed into law
Received more money from the defense industry during the 2022 midterms than almost any other congressional candidate
Staffed his congressional office with dozens of former lobbyists, including representatives for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the National Potato Council
Received a $265,000 campaign boost from Elon Musk during the 2024 election
Allegedly used his position to score lucrative land deals for himself and his realtor friends
Promised to only serve six terms, but is now serving his 16th
Fun Facts
Throughout his 3+ decades in Congress, Rep. Calvert has made it a priority to bring his real estate expertise to Washington — particularly when it scores him a nice payoff. He’s shown an acute ability to use earmarks — guarantees in the federal budget that certain amounts of money can only be used for certain projects — to make previously worthless land spike in value. Maps of earmarked transportation projects he’s signed off on are often lined with properties tied to Calvert. Such deals were found to violate state laws in 2007 and made him the subject of an FBI investigation in 2009. As recently as 2024, Calvert faced renewed criticism after securing millions in federal funds to improve the areas around 10 rental properties he owns in Riverside.
But it hasn’t all been business: during his first term, Calvert was caught in what he described as “an extremely embarrassing situation” with someone police described as a “known prostitute.” The incident happened during Calvert’s prime mid-life crisis years, shortly after his wife left him, and ultimately resulted in neither criminal nor political consequences.
Support our journalism at COURIER
Democracy dies behind a paywall, which is why our journalism is — and always will be — free.
But to keep our commitment to the free access to information, we need support from those who have the means, believe in our mission, and support our unique model.