What is the House Oversight Committee’s public record regarding subpoenas tied to Epstein’s lawyers and executors?

1. What the committee has announced about Indyke and Kahn

Public statements from committee members and the committee’s release indicate that Indyke and Kahn, identified as Epstein’s longtime lawyer and accountant and as co‑executors and beneficiaries of his estate, were among the figures for whom subpoenas were secured to sit for depositions before the panel ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The announcement frames those subpoenas as part of the committee’s fact‑finding to “follow the money” and to probe allegations from survivors that the executors knew about or facilitated Epstein’s abuses through their management of his legal and financial affairs ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. The procedural record: motions, rules, and next steps

Coverage and the committee’s own statements note that the subpoenas were authorized under clause 2(k) of House Rule 11 (sometimes cited as 2(k) in committee releases), an internal Rule that governs depositions and subpoenas, and that the motions to add Indyke and Kahn were adopted during a full committee meeting where members negotiated amendments ^{[1] [6]}. Multiple outlets caution that although the committee “secured” or approved subpoenas on Jan. 7, the subpoenas still needed to be formally drawn up with proposed deposition dates and signed by Chairman James Comer before being sent ^{[3] [7]}.

3. Compliance to date and the executors’ response

The public record includes a statement from representatives of the Epstein estate—and specifically references that Indyke and Kahn “complied with the previous subpoena to provide records” and expressed intent to continue cooperating with the committee’s investigation ^{[3] [7]}. Committee releases also show the panel has already received tens of thousands of pages of Epstein‑related records from the Department of Justice and from the Epstein estate under earlier subpoenas issued by Chairman Comer, establishing a record of document production separate from the newly approved deposition subpoenas ^{[8] [9]}.

4. Allegations, investigative purpose and political framing

Oversight Democrats publicly characterized the subpoenas for the executors as essential to “follow the money” and to identify anyone who may have enabled Epstein’s crimes, while Republicans on the committee have also used the document releases to allege potential government wrongdoing—demonstrating competing political narratives attached to the same subpoena record ^{[10] [9]}. Survivors’ allegations that Indyke and Kahn had knowledge of or facilitated Epstein’s abuses are cited in the committee’s rationale for depositions, but the public record so far records allegations and committee actions, not judicial findings of legal culpability for the executors ^{[1] [5]}.

5. What is not yet on the public record

The publicly available reporting and committee releases establish approval and intent to subpoena Indyke and Kahn and note prior document production, but do not, as of the published items, include the final subpoena paperwork, deposition dates, or transcripts of any testimony from the executors—details that would confirm whether deposition subpoenas were actually signed and served and whether any testimony has been taken ^{[3] [8]}. The record also does not resolve factual disputes over the extent of the executors’ knowledge or alleged facilitation; the committee’s public filings show allegations and investigative moves but not adjudicated conclusions ^{[1] [5]}.

Conclusion

The House Oversight Committee’s public record shows that it formally authorized subpoenas to depose Jeffrey Epstein’s co‑executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn—actions presented as part of a money‑trail and survivor‑driven inquiry—while also documenting prior compliance by the executors with record requests and leaving open procedural steps (drafting and chair signoff) before depositions could be scheduled and publicly recorded ^{[1] [3] [8]}.