Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss told a Michigan Republican congressman Monday that he had accepted a request from the lawmaker to brief a House committee on his handling of protests at Northwestern University nearly two years ago.

The inquiry, publicized in late January by Republican Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, the chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, was opened after what Walberg described as Biss’ role in advising the Evanston police not to arrest student protesters as a “failure to protect Jewish students.”

Biss has defended the city’s decision not to send police to arrest protesters, arguing that “doing so [would] unnecessarily endanger officers, improperly suppress constitutionally protected speech, and substitute political judgment for the expertise of public safety professionals,” accusing the Michigan Republican of levying a “dishonest political attack.”

Biss, though not in direct control of the Evanston police, said he had consulted with EPD Chief Schenita Stewart and City Manager Luke Stowe and determined the protest, which lasted days but ended peacefully, posed “no public safety threat” to the community.

On Jan. 29, Walberg requested Biss brief the committee on his handling of the protest.

Biss called the congressional inquiry a “frivolously political attack,” questioning the timing of the probe and alleging that a pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC, was behind rehashing the controversy over the protest nearly two years ago.

While there’s no direct evidence that AIPAC is involved in the inquiry, Biss’ campaign has pointed to AIPAC being Walberg’s “top political patron” as a reason to believe Walberg was doing the bidding of AIPAC in an effort to undermine his support ahead of the March 17 primary.

There is no set date for the briefing as of yet, though Biss, in a letter to Walberg Monday pushed back on Walberg’s accusation that Biss had been “publicizing [his] refusal to provide the campus with support,” writing, “The matter became public only after your committee released the transcript of its interview with former President Schill last year, and has gained further media interest since your letter last month.”

Also Monday, Biss’ congressional campaign sought to tie the inquiry to his top campaign opponent, State Sen. Laura Fine, pointing to the Fine campaign’s use of a quote released by the Republican lawmaker from NU trustee and megadonor, Michael Sacks, in red-boxing material on her campaign site, which is meant to signal to outside groups how to craft ads.

In messages revealed by the House Committee on Education and Workforce sent the night the protest began, Sacks had messaged the now former-NU President Michael Schill, writing, “I know Biss well. If the winds blow the wrong way he will throw you under the bus. No hesitation. Jan [Schakowsky] too.”

Biss’ campaign pointed to Walberg’s release of the documents as “very curiously timed,” arguing that by using the message as a line of attack, Fine had “parroted the Republican attacks in a desperate attempt to smear Biss” weeks before an election.

In response to the attack, Fine’s campaign shot back, telling Evanston Now in a statement that, “Daniel’s sad campaign for personal glory just gets sadder every day. The guy can’t even defend his own paper-thin record without funding some tortured way to attack Laura Fine, one of the most effective legislators in Illinois.”

“It’s sad but not surprising, since the only thing that matters to Daniel is running for the next office, even if that means ignoring everything in his own past,” a spokesperson wrote, adding that Biss had “[attacked] Laura Fine for donors he actively courted himself but failed to secure,” referring to AIPAC, a group now backing Fine, though neither AIPAC nor the campaign have publicly acknowledged it.

Biss submitted a policy position paper to AIPAC early in the campaign, something he acknowledged after Evanston Now reporting about it, but has maintained he was “not interested in their endorsement” and said he thought, “once they knew more about my views on the [Israel and Palestine] issue, they probably wouldn’t be interested in me, either.”

The group has become increasingly polarizing among Democrats for its views on U.S. military support for Israel, described by the New York Times as “an increasingly toxic brand” for Democrats.