1. United States
2. Iowa
3. Letter

I am writing to formally object to the glaring double standard Congress is applying in its handling of testimony related to the Jeffrey Epstein files. According to publicly released Epstein-related court filings, former President Bill Clinton is mentioned just over 50 times in specific document sets. Despite this limited number of references, the Clintons have been repeatedly singled out for public scrutiny and pressured to testify. At the same time, former President Donald Trump is mentioned more than 1,500 times across the Epstein files released to date. This is not a marginal difference; it is an order-of-magnitude disparity. Yet President Trump has not been asked to testify, has not been compelled to explain these references, and appears to be receiving complete deference from Congress. This is not oversight. It is political favoritism. If mention count, documented association, or proximity to Epstein are being used as justification for testimony demands, then Congress’s current posture is indefensible. Demanding testimony from individuals mentioned dozens of times while refusing to question an individual mentioned thousands of times exposes the process as partisan theater rather than a legitimate inquiry. Such selective enforcement corrodes public trust and confirms the widespread belief that Congress operates under two separate standards of accountability—one applied aggressively to political adversaries, and another that shields political allies regardless of the documentary record. Congress does not get to claim neutrality while practicing exemption. Either the same standards apply to all former presidents, or Congress should stop pretending that this process is about truth, justice, or the victims of Epstein’s crimes. I demand to know: Why President Trump has not been asked or compelled to testify despite appearing more than 1,500 times in the Epstein files. What objective criteria justify pursuing testimony from the Clintons while excusing Trump. Whether Congress intends to correct this imbalance or continue undermining its own credibility. Failure to apply equal scrutiny is not an oversight error—it is a conscious choice. The public is watching, and history will record whether Congress chose accountability or cowardice. I expect a direct and substantive response.