OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Leon Black Sues House Oversight Committee Over Epstein Probe Subpoena

11 sources · updated 2026-09-05
Left 100% Center 0% Right 0%
3 left · 0 center · 0 right

What happened

On Thursday, Leon Black, the billionaire former CEO of Apollo Global Management who paid Jeffrey Epstein $158 million for tax and estate-planning advice from 2012 through 2017, did not appear for a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee deposition about that relationship and instead sued the committee in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to stop enforcement of two subpoenas. The subpoenas, issued June 26 after Black left a transcribed interview rather than answer questions about nondisclosure agreements, demanded all NDAs to which he is a party and a return for a sworn, videotaped deposition; Chairman James Comer has said he wanted to know whether Epstein was involved in those negotiations, and committee-released emails showed Epstein advising Black in 2015 on a dispute with a former Russian model. Black’s lawsuit argues the subpoenas are “invalid to the extent they exceed” the committee’s “delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to [its] legislative purpose” and would expose women “who have no known or public connection to Epstein, who bargained for confidentiality and have refused to release it.” Comer held a closed-door session with an empty chair and said he would speak with members about next steps; ranking Democrat Robert Garcia said Black was “now defying two congressional subpoenas” and called for him to be held in contempt immediately. Black’s lawyers said he had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s 2019 arrest, “never abused a woman,” “never was with an underage woman,” “never engaged in sex trafficking,” “never paid Epstein for access to women,” and “was never blackmailed by Epstein.”
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage omits the lawsuit's claim that producing the NDAs would expose women with no public Epstein connection who bargained for confidentiality and cannot protect themselves. Left-leaning coverage, including the Guardian, reprints the complaint's language about women with "no known or public connection to Epstein." Right-leaning coverage in the New York Post stops at Black calling the subpoena invalid for want of a legislative purpose. Both sides carried the chairman's accusation that Black is hiding behind litigation. The omitted claim is what makes the suit a privacy fight, not only a refusal to talk about Epstein. Right-leaning coverage casts the suit as a "desperate bid to avoid testifying." Left-leaning coverage instead quotes the lawyers calling the inquiry a "fishing expedition." The hole in every account is the same. Are any of the subpoenaed NDAs actually connected to Epstein?
Bottom line

Left-leaning coverage is simply more complete on what Black's lawsuit actually says. The New York Post never mentions his claim, which the Guardian quoted from the complaint, that the subpoenas would expose women with no public Epstein connection.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The lawsuit argues the subpoenas would expose women with no known or public connection to Epstein who bargained for confidentiality and refused to release it. official statementin Guardian, CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Black left a June transcribed interview after refusing to answer questions about NDAs, after which the committee issued the two subpoenas. contextin Guardian, CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Rep. Robert Garcia said Black funded Epstein's abuse and trafficking of women. official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Garcia said Black paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid Epstein-related claims. numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Chairman Comer said he believes Black is trying to run out the clock on the congressional session ending January 3, 2027. official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Over a dozen Epstein abuse survivors urged Black to comply and said Congress should use every tool to enforce the subpoenas. official statementin Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning sources framed the refusal as defiance of Congress and an effort to keep secret NDAs that, in their telling, protected Black and people in Epstein’s orbit. The Guardian stressed “outrage” after Comer said Black is “hiding behind litigation rather than provide answers to the American people,” and reported that more than a dozen Epstein-abuse survivors had urged compliance, writing that his NDAs “underscore why Congress must scrutinize the agreements in his possession” and that if he withholds records, Congress should “use every tool available to enforce its subpoenas.” Garcia said Black’s “connections to Epstein and his unwillingness to cooperate are unacceptable” and “we must hold him in contempt immediately,” and alleged that Black “made women sign strict non-disclosure agreements … to keep them quiet,” paid millions to women he had sexual relationships with “some of whom were also connected to Epstein,” paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands “to avoid Epstein-related claims,” is mentioned hundreds of times in the Epstein files, “funded Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of women,” and that “multiple women have also accused Black of sexual assault.” Those outlets presented his lawyers’ claim of a “fishing expedition” that is “about trying to destroy Mr Black” as recasting oversight as persecution.
The Right View
The New York Post described the filing as a “desperate bid to avoid testifying” by one of America’s richest men (Forbes: 78th-richest, net worth $13.8 billion) about his connection to Epstein. It foregrounded Black’s claim that the subpoena is “invalid” because the inquiry “bears no legitimate connection to [a] legislative purpose,” and Comer’s charge that Black is “hiding behind litigation” while his testimony remains “crucial” as a fee-paying Epstein client with several NDAs. Uniquely among the provided coverage, the Post reported Comer’s belief that Black is trying to run out the clock on the current congressional session ending January 3, 2027, after which the subpoena would have to be reissued if he does not appear. It tied the fight to Apollo’s independent review of the $158 million in payments and to Black’s 2021 departure from the firm.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is enforcement: after the June walkout, a skipped deposition plus a lawsuit, together with survivors’ plea to “use every tool available” and Garcia’s specific claims (the $62.5 million U.S. Virgin Islands payment, NDAs involving women some tied to Epstein, hundreds of file mentions, and assault accusations), are offered as reasons the NDAs may be material to how Epstein operated among the powerful rather than unrelated private contracts. The right-leaning coverage’s strongest argument is narrower and procedural: a billionaire is using a lawsuit as a “desperate bid” to delay until this Congress expires in January 2027, while Comer’s insistence that the NDAs and testimony remain “crucial” still rests on the documented fee relationship and the 2015 Epstein NDA advice, not on Garcia’s trafficking and assault charges. The central unresolved tension is whether a demand for all of Black’s NDAs has a “legitimate connection” to a legislative investigation of Epstein’s influence and of government failure to protect survivors, or is, as the complaint puts it, a “fishing expedition” that would expose women with “no known or public connection to Epstein” who “bargained for confidentiality” and cannot protect their privacy before the committee.

11 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.