Oversight Panel Expands Epstein Probe but Omits Alex Acosta from Witness List

A House Oversight subcommittee broadened its inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein’s case today but did not include former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta on the list of potential witnesses. The move comes amid heated debate over Acosta’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement with the late financier.

The panel’s decision underscores tensions over accountability in the Epstein investigation, with lawmakers and the public focused on uncovering who authorized key prosecutorial decisions. By leaving Acosta off the roster, Republicans drew criticism from advocates and Democrats insisting the former U.S. attorney must answer for what they call a “sweetheart deal.”

Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) defended the omission, saying hearings will first target Justice Department and FBI officials responsible for document handling and unsealing court records. Comer argued that those testimonies must precede any questioning of Acosta to establish a full procedural timeline.

Democratic members condemned the approach. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) accused Republicans of sidestepping the former Cabinet secretary, asserting, “Acosta was at the center of every legal misstep in this case.” Raskin vowed to press for a separate subpoena if the majority refuses to reconsider.

  • Witness List Details
  • DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility head slated for October 2 interview
  • FBI records custodian to appear on October 9
  • Epstein victim-advocate scheduled for October 16

Despite his absence today, Acosta remains under legal and political pressure. FBI Director Kash Patel, during Senate testimony earlier this week, labeled Acosta’s 2006 handling of search warrants in South Florida the “original sin” that hampered later federal efforts. Patel’s comments have intensified calls for Acosta to testify before Congress.

Acosta has not publicly responded to his omission. His scheduled appearance before the full House Oversight Committee on September 19 technically remains on the calendar, but without formal designation as a witness in the expanded subcommittee hearings, next steps are unclear. Republicans insist procedural order, not politics, drove their choice-while Democrats see it as protection for a former Trump administration official.