Warren and Krishnamoorthi press Goldman over Ruemmler's adviser role

Goldman Sachs is facing a governance test, not just a political one, after Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi challenged David Solomon’s decision to keep Kathryn Ruemmler connected to the firm as an adviser after her resignation as general counsel. Their June 9 letter, made public by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and Krishnamoorthi’s office, gave Goldman until June 26 to explain itself.

The lawmakers said the arrangement raises questions about Solomon’s judgment and about the standards Goldman applies when reputational risk collides with leadership loyalty. Their letter said the Justice Department had released more than 10,000 documents mentioning Ruemmler, and asked Goldman what it knew about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before hiring her, why the firm defended her after the documents became public, and why Solomon reportedly wanted her to remain at the bank.

That pressure lands after Bloomberg reported on June 5 that Solomon had privately pressed Ruemmler to stay on as an adviser even after she resigned in February 2026. Bloomberg also reported in February that Ruemmler stepped down amid scrutiny over her relationship with Epstein. The latest letter follows an earlier House Oversight Committee request on April 21 for a transcribed interview with Ruemmler, part of a broader Epstein-related inquiry that began with a March 3 request citing public reporting, Justice Department documents and committee material.

For Goldman employees, the issue reaches beyond one former top lawyer. In a firm that sells trust to clients and recruits talent on the strength of its brand, the way Solomon handled Ruemmler goes straight to the question of how decisions are made when the stakes are high. Legal, compliance, HR and front-office staff all have a stake in whether the firm treats a senior appointment as a narrow personnel call or as a signal about accountability and tone from the top.

The episode also shows how quickly internal judgment can become a public governance issue. At Goldman, where careers depend on sponsorship, access and confidence from senior leaders, a controversy like this can shape how employees read the firm’s decision-making norms long after the headlines fade.