Billionaire investor Leon Black filed a defamation lawsuit Wednesday against Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, accusing the congressman of lying about the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The suit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, roughly two months before Democrats are set to take control of the House in January and Garcia is positioned to become chairman of the panel that has spearheaded a congressional Epstein investigation.
According to NBC News, the complaint alleges that Garcia “has knowingly and willfully lied about Leon Black and defamed him.” A spokesperson for Garcia did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
The remarks at the heart of the defamation lawsuit
The suit centers on public statements in which Garcia said Black was “at the center” of and “directly involved” with Epstein’s crimes.
Garcia had already addressed Black’s conduct in blunt terms earlier this year. In a September statement responding to a separate lawsuit Black filed against the Oversight Committee, Garcia said Black had “funded Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of women,” adding: “Multiple women have also accused Black of sexual assault. His connections to Epstein and his unwillingness to cooperate are unacceptable.”
Black’s camp rejects all of it. In a statement about the lawsuit on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Black wrote that “he has never abused a woman; he has never been with an underage woman; he has never been involved with sex trafficking; and, he never paid Epstein for women.”
Accounts differ on how much Leon Black is seeking
Reporting on the size of the claim is not consistent. A summary of coverage compiled by Ground News describes a $7.5 million defamation lawsuit, while Politico’s account of the filing says Black is seeking $7 million in damages in federal court in New York. The same compilation says Black claims he spent more than $775,000 on security after receiving death threats. The Guardian also reported on the filing, framing it as Black again taking his Epstein fight to court — this time against a senior House Democrat rather than the committee itself.
Readers should treat the dollar figure as unsettled until the docket is clear; the two published numbers come from different outlets describing the same complaint.
From the Apollo exit to a contempt vote
Black, a former Wall Street private equity investor who had a business relationship with Epstein, stepped down in 2021 from Apollo Global Management, the firm he co-founded, after an independent review of his ties to Epstein. NBC News reports that the review found Black was not involved in Epstein’s criminal activities. Black has consistently denied wrongdoing connected to Epstein.
His dealings with Congress have been far rockier. Black sat for a voluntary closed-door transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee over the summer but left before it was finished. Lawmakers then issued subpoenas to compel him to answer questions they said he had not addressed. Black did not appear for a later deposition.
Instead, he sued the committee to block the subpoenas for his appearance and for nondisclosure agreements tied to Epstein. That case is still being litigated. In September, the Republican-led committee voted unanimously to hold him in contempt over his refusal to comply, and the House subsequently voted to hold Black in contempt of Congress.
Justice Department weighed a referral in September
Reuters reported that the Justice Department said on Sept. 16 that the “US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia will review the referral of Mr. Black carefully and will not hesitate to pursue additional cases where the evidence supports.”
No charges have been filed against Black. The contempt referral and the criminal review are separate from the new defamation lawsuit, which is a civil action brought by Black against a sitting member of Congress rather than a government case against him.
A committee about to change hands
The timing is the most consequential element of the filing. The Oversight Committee that subpoenaed Black and voted to hold him in contempt has been run by Republicans. With Democrats set to take the House majority in January, Garcia — currently the panel’s ranking Democrat — is poised to inherit the gavel and, with it, the subpoena power that Black has spent months resisting in court.
That means the man Black is now suing for defamation is also the lawmaker most likely to decide how aggressively the committee pursues him next year. Nothing in the available reporting indicates that the lawsuit would limit the committee’s authority; Black’s earlier challenge to the subpoenas remains pending before a court.
What the record currently establishes
Stripped to the documented facts, the picture is narrow. A federal defamation lawsuit has been filed. Garcia made the statements the suit quotes, and his office has not yet responded publicly to the complaint. Apollo’s independent review concluded Black was not involved in Epstein’s criminal activities. The House has held Black in contempt of Congress, prosecutors said in September they would review the referral, and no charges have followed.
Defamation suits brought by public figures are difficult to win, and statements by members of Congress raise additional legal questions that the filing itself does not resolve. Those issues will now be argued in the Southern District of New York. For readers tracking other contested courtroom fights, a federal judge recently ruled that McDonald’s must face a consumer lawsuit over the McRib, and markets have been absorbing a separate wave of litigation and scrutiny aimed at major technology stocks.
Leon Black has not been charged with a crime. Garcia has not retracted his statements. Both propositions are true at the same time, and the gap between them is exactly what the court has been asked to measure.
