Bill Gates sat for a closed-door deposition with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, answering questions about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Members of both parties told the Daily Caller News Foundation they believed the testimony should have been open to the public, raising a bipartisan question that the committee's Republican majority has yet to answer convincingly.
The deposition marked the committee's 15th interview in its ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. But unlike the public testimony that Epstein's alleged victims gave before the same committee on May 13, the billionaire's session was shielded from cameras, reporters, and the American public.
Why? That is the question the Daily Caller News Foundation put to lawmakers outside the hearing room. The answers ranged from bureaucratic boilerplate to frank admissions that the process fell short.
Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee did not hold back. Asked why Gates got the closed-door treatment, he said:
"I don't know, ma'am, that is above my pay grade."
Burchett went further, saying he favored full transparency. He noted that the arrangement mirrored what happened with the Clintons, a reference he did not elaborate on, and suggested that powerful figures sometimes operate by different rules.
"I'm about transparency, I always say let it be wide open. It seems to be something both parties agree on and that's the way we go. We did that with the Clinton's as well, I think the Clinton's said they weren't gonna come in unless we did that, which I don't know how you get passed a subpoena, I'm not really sure how that works, but I guess you're a big deal [if] you can do more than the rest of us."
That last line lands hard. Gates was set to face House Oversight investigators after months of public pressure. Yet when the moment arrived, the public was locked out.
From the Democratic side, Oversight ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia of California echoed Burchett's frustration, a rare moment of cross-aisle agreement on a committee that rarely produces one.
"Let's be really clear, we want public hearings, we want these video taped, we want them under oath, we want these released to the American public."
Garcia placed the blame squarely on the majority, saying the format was Chairman James Comer's call.
"But that's a decision that Chairman [James] Comer and the majority get to make by being in the majority, and we think it's very unfortunate. We should be opening these to the American public."
An Oversight Committee spokesperson offered a procedural explanation. Depositions and transcribed interviews, the spokesperson said, give the committee "more in depth, sustained questioning in order to gather the facts." The spokesperson added that the committee releases full transcripts to the public after every interview.
That defense has some merit on paper. Closed depositions can prevent witnesses from grandstanding and allow questioners to pin down specifics without the theater of a public hearing. Fifteen interviews deep into the investigation, the committee can point to a track record of eventual transcript releases.
But "eventual" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Transcripts released weeks or months later do not carry the same weight as live testimony broadcast to the nation. And the contrast with the May 13 hearing, where Epstein's alleged victims sat before cameras and told their stories publicly, raises an uncomfortable question about who gets protection and who does not.
Victims testified in the open. The billionaire testified behind a closed door.
The Department of Justice has released more than 3 million files related to the Epstein case. Those files disclosed Gates' previous friendship with Epstein, including references to two scheduled meetings between the men.
Among the most damaging documents: an email draft dated July 18, 2013, in which Epstein claimed he helped Gates "get drugs" to "deal with consequences of sex with [R]ussian girls." In the same draft, Epstein wrote that he urged Gates to delete emails about an alleged sexually transmitted disease and claimed he sought antibiotics to secretly give to Gates' then-wife, Melinda.
A separate email draft in the release appeared to show Epstein announcing his resignation from the Gates Foundation, a detail that raises its own questions about the depth of the relationship between the two men.
Gates has pushed back on the most explosive allegations. In February, he told 9 News Australia that he never went to Epstein's island and never met with any women. He acknowledged meeting Epstein in 2011 and maintaining a relationship for three years, a period that began after Epstein had already served time in jail for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
"It's factually true that I was only at dinners. I never went to the island, I never met any women and the more that comes out, the more clear it'll be that although the time was a mistake, it had nothing to do with that kind of behavior."
Those are Gates' claims. The committee's job is to test them. But the public cannot evaluate the testing if it happens out of sight.
Gates did not walk into the deposition unprepared. The New York Times reported that Gates hired Jake Greenberg to help him get ready for the testimony. Greenberg, notably, had until December been spearheading the committee's own Epstein inquiry, meaning the same investigation that House Republicans have pressed the DOJ to act on was now, in effect, being navigated by someone who had recently helped run it from the inside.
That arrangement may be perfectly legal. Washington's revolving door spins constantly. But it does not inspire confidence in a process that already suffers from a transparency deficit.
Burchett, for his part, told reporters that Epstein "reeled" Gates in because Epstein liked having important people around him. Burchett also said Gates appeared "very worn down and stressed" during questioning.
The Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation has produced real results. Interviews with alleged victims have yielded new names of accused abusers. Former Epstein personal assistant Sarah Kellen testified in a closed-door deposition on May 22. The committee says it has conducted 15 interviews and releases transcripts after each one.
But the investigation's credibility depends on the public's ability to see that powerful people are treated with the same rigor as everyone else. When victims testify on camera and billionaires testify behind closed doors, the optics cut against that credibility, regardless of the procedural justification.
The committee's broader track record on oversight matters. Recent Oversight reports on other investigations have shown the committee is willing to dig into uncomfortable findings. That willingness should extend to how it handles its highest-profile witnesses.
Several questions remain unanswered. Was Gates under oath? Was he subpoenaed or did he appear voluntarily? What specific topics did the committee press him on? When will the transcript be released? None of these details have been made public.
Garcia and Burchett agree on very little in the normal course of congressional business. The fact that both wanted this testimony in the open tells you something about how the closed-door decision looks from inside the building.
Conservatives have rightly demanded full accountability in the Epstein case. The DOJ file release, the committee investigation, and the public victim testimony are all steps in the right direction. Congressional action on high-profile matters draws public attention precisely because voters expect their representatives to follow through.
But accountability loses its meaning when it bends around wealth and influence. If the committee believes closed depositions produce better fact-finding, then explain why victims testified publicly while Gates did not. If the answer is that Gates' team negotiated the terms, say so, and explain why the committee agreed.
The American public has waited years for answers about who enabled Jeffrey Epstein and who looked the other way. They deserve to see those answers extracted in real time, not summarized in a transcript released on a Friday afternoon weeks from now.
Transparency is not a reward for the powerless. It is supposed to be the price of power.
