Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden over their foreign business dealings, but hours later most members of the panel admitted they hadn't even opened the letter.
Curtis released the letter on September 22, calling on the committee to investigate whether presidential family members leveraged White House connections for private financial gain. He named both Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden by name and asked for sworn testimony from each, a move that drew immediate support from Democrats on the panel and conspicuous silence from most of his fellow Republicans.
The request landed on Capitol Hill with a thud. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that its reporters contacted every member of the Judiciary Committee. Only the offices of Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking Democrat from Illinois, and Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, replied. The rest, Republicans and Democrats alike, stayed quiet.
The letter itself laid out a broad case. Curtis cited Donald Trump Jr.'s promotion of his family's cryptocurrency ventures, his pursuit of international real estate deals, direct meetings with foreign heads of state, and reported investments in defense contracting. He also referenced a reported lavish wedding afterparty gifted to Trump Jr. by a Russian oligarch connected to the Kremlin.
On Hunter Biden, Curtis pointed to the millions the younger Biden earned from business ventures in Ukraine, China, Romania, and Kazakhstan while his father served as vice president, a well-documented trail that Republicans spent years investigating during the last Congress.
Curtis posted on X the same day, drawing a sharp line between ordinary favors and what he described as something far more serious. "A toaster is a wedding gift," Curtis wrote. "A private-island party paid for by a Putin-connected oligarch is something else."
He went further, invoking his own party's recent history:
"Republicans nearly wore out the subpoena machine investigating Hunter Biden's foreign relationships. We should not unplug it now. 'Trust us' was not enough then, and it..."
The post appeared to be truncated in the version captured by the Daily Caller. But the message was clear enough: Curtis was daring his colleagues to apply the same standard they spent years demanding for Hunter Biden.
In his formal letter to the committee, Curtis spelled out the request without ambiguity:
"I therefore respectfully request that the Senate Judiciary Committee launch an investigation into the use of presidential family relationships for private financial benefit, preferential treatment, or access by domestic and foreign interests."
He urged the committee to subpoena both Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden "to testify regarding their past business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts, or other benefits they have received, and any instances in which their relationship to the President was invoked or understood to private value."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who controls the panel's agenda and subpoena power, told reporters he could not comment, because he hadn't looked at the letter yet.
"I can't answer that question for you, or him, or anybody else because I just told a journalist downstairs I wasn't going to answer the question until I read the letter."
When asked why he hadn't read it, Grassley offered a two-word explanation: "I just got to town."
Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy gave a similar answer. "I'm gonna read his letter, which I haven't done," Kennedy told the Daily Caller.
Retiring North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis acknowledged he hadn't seen the letter either. "I haven't," Tillis said. "I hear it's about an investigation. It's up to the chair, I would oppose it." The Daily Caller's own narrative summary described Tillis as saying he would not oppose an investigation, which directly contradicts his quoted words. The discrepancy was not resolved in the reporting.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he did not know enough about the allegations against Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden and would defer to Grassley, a posture that keeps the decision squarely in the chairman's hands and nowhere near a floor vote.
The response from Democrats on the committee was faster and more enthusiastic, though not always evenhanded. Durbin praised the letter immediately. "It was a great letter, I support it," he told the Daily Caller. He added: "I think we ought to have an investigation into Donald Trump Jr."
Durbin also said Hunter Biden had already agreed to cooperate with any investigation into his business dealings, a claim that has not been independently confirmed by Biden or his representatives.
Coons posted his own statement on X, framing the moment as a break in Republican ranks. "No one is above the law," Coons wrote. "I'm glad to see Republican colleagues like John increasingly refusing to turn a blind eye to corruption from this administration and the Trump family. The American people want an equal standard."
Notice what Coons did not mention: Hunter Biden. Curtis' letter named both men. Coons' response focused entirely on Trump Jr. and "the Trump family." That gap between the letter's bipartisan framing and the Democrats' selective enthusiasm tells its own story about who actually wants an equal standard and who wants a political weapon.
Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal took a similar approach, backing the call for an investigation without having read the letter that prompted it. "I haven't seen his letter, but there should definitely be an investigation," Blumenthal said.
New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker told the Daily Caller he had not read the letter. He offered no substantive comment beyond that.
Curtis' letter did not arrive in a vacuum. The case against Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings has been built over years of congressional investigation and sworn testimony. In 2023, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, testified before the House Oversight Committee about the extent of the Biden family's foreign connections.
Archer told the committee that then-Vice President Joe Biden attended a 2015 dinner with Hunter Biden's business partners from Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, at Cafe Milano in Washington, D.C. He also testified that Biden attended a 2014 lunch with Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina.
Perhaps most striking, Archer testified that Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone around 20 times during dinners and meetings with business partners. The implication, that the vice presidency was being used as a calling card for Hunter's deals, was the centerpiece of Republican oversight efforts for months.
President Trump addressed the Trump Jr. side of the equation last Friday, telling reporters that his son "paid" the oligarch back for the wedding celebration. The full context of that statement was not reproduced in available reporting, and the identity of the oligarch was not named. Trump Jr.'s financial relationship with the Russian businessman who funded the celebration has drawn separate scrutiny.
The Daily Caller reached out to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only two offices, Durbin's and Coons', replied. The rest, Republican and Democrat, said nothing.
That pattern is familiar on Capitol Hill. When a request is popular, offices race to comment. When it is inconvenient, they go dark. Curtis' letter put Republicans in a bind: support an investigation that could embarrass the president's son, or ignore a request that applies the same oversight standard they championed during the Biden years.
Congressional oversight has been a recurring flashpoint in recent months. Senate testimony from FBI Director Kash Patel and multiple House committee investigations have tested how far lawmakers will push accountability when the targets shift.
No investigation has been launched. No subpoenas have been issued. Grassley, who holds the gavel, has not committed to reading the letter on any particular timeline, let alone acting on it. The committee's next steps, if there are any, rest entirely with him.
Legislative probes into political figures have a way of stalling when the party in power finds the subject uncomfortable. Recent House committee investigations have shown how quickly oversight momentum can build, or evaporate, depending on who is in the crosshairs.
Republicans spent years arguing that no family member should profit from proximity to the Oval Office. Curtis is now asking whether that principle has an expiration date, or a party affiliation. The committee's answer, so far, is silence.
