Attorney General Pam Bondi faced a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, largely avoiding direct answers regarding the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Instead, she responded to Democratic lawmakers’ questions with personal attacks and accusations of political motivation.
Bondi Deflected Questions About Apology to Epstein Survivors
Watch the clip in the player above.
Survivors of Epstein’s abuse released a letter prior to the hearing criticizing the Justice Department’s latest release of files, calling the redactions “reckless and dangerous” and stating it placed survivors in jeopardy. Bondi stated in her opening remarks that she was “deeply sorry for what any victim” had been through “especially as a result of that monster.”
Democrats, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, twice asked Bondi to apologize for the DOJ’s handling of the case and for “outing” survivors in the document releases. Bondi did not offer an apology, and exchanges devolved into crosstalk, prompting the committee chair, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, to intervene.
A Republican Rebuke Emerged
Watch the clip in the player above.
While most Republicans defended Bondi and blamed previous administrations, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a vocal Trump critic, questioned Bondi about the DOJ’s handling of the document releases. Massie noted the agency missed its deadline by over a month and that victims’ names were not shielded in some releases, calling it a “massive failure” to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Trump in November. The names of co-conspirators, such as businessman Leslie Wexner, have been blacked out in the documents.
Bondi responded by labeling Massie as suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome” and a “hypocrite.” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas also questioned why survivors’ names were not properly redacted, to which Bondi responded the DOJ “did the best we could,” given the “tight” time frame. Roy followed up on a question from Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, asking if anyone else would be indicted, but Bondi only stated there were pending investigations.
Trump Officials’ Ties to Epstein Face Scrutiny
Watch the clip in the player above.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland stated Trump’s name appears “all over the place” in the unredacted Epstein files. While there is no direct evidence of criminal activity, his inclusion has raised questions about his awareness of Epstein’s activities. Other high-level administration officials, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have also appeared in the released documents, with Lutnick having previously downplayed his relationship with Epstein in a separate Senate hearing.
Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont asked Bondi if the DOJ had investigated Epstein’s ties to Lutnick and other senior Trump officials—Secretary of the Navy John Phelan and Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg—whose names are in the documents. Bondi stated Lutnick “has addressed those ties himself” and then expressed surprise that Balint was focusing on Epstein instead of a U.S. Border Patrol agent killed in 2025. The exchange quickly deteriorated.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was Pam Bondi’s response to questions about apologizing to Epstein survivors?
Bondi did not offer an apology to Epstein survivors, despite being asked twice by Democratic lawmakers. Her responses devolved into crosstalk, and the committee chair intervened.
Did any Republicans challenge Bondi during the hearing?
Yes, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky questioned Bondi about the DOJ’s handling of the document releases, specifically regarding the failure to shield the names of victims and the missed deadline for full release.
What role did President Trump’s name play in the hearing?
Rep. Jamie Raskin stated Trump’s name appears frequently in the unredacted Epstein files, raising questions about his awareness of Epstein’s activities, though no direct evidence of wrongdoing has emerged.
As the Justice Department continues to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, what further scrutiny might be directed toward individuals connected to the case?