Former U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi faced more than three hours of sharp questioning from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Friday, May 29, 2026, revealing a series of striking admissions and notable refusals: she confirmed that President Trump’s name does appear in the Epstein files, disclosed that she attended a White House Situation Room meeting aimed at persuading Rep. Lauren Boebert to vote against the Epstein Files Transparency Act, acknowledged that the FBI’s New York field office initially withheld thousands of documents from the Department of Justice, and repeatedly declined to discuss any conversations she had — or did not have — with the President. Conducted under subpoena authority by the Committee investigating the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficking cases, the interview laid bare the tensions between DOJ’s claim of “unprecedented transparency” and Democrats’ pointed arguments that key witnesses were never interviewed, critical documents were momentarily pulled offline, and survivors’ names were needlessly exposed during the rushed, court-mandated release of roughly 3 million pages of material. Assistance from Claude AI.
Participants
Witness
Pamela J. Bondi — Former Attorney General of the United States (served February 2025–April 2026); previously Attorney General of Florida (2011–2019) and a prosecutor in Hillsborough County, Florida for 18 years. Bondi appeared under subpoena authority in her official former capacity.
Members of Congress Present
- Rep. James Comer (R-KY) — Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
- Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) — Ranking Member
- Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)
- Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM)
- Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL)
- Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) (noted as present but initially unannounced)
- Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA, 10th District)
- Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ, 3rd District)
- Rep. Dave Min (D-CA)
- Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA, 11th District)
Majority Committee Staff (Selected)
- Jack Emmer — Chief Counsel for Investigations (lead questioner)
- Billy Grant — Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations
- Ryan Giachetti — Chief Counsel for Chairman Comer
- Daniel Ashworth — General Counsel
- Jessica Collins — Communications Director
- Mark Marin — Staff Director
- Ellison Tolan, Emily Feyerabend, Brittany Brignac — Counsel
- Mallory Cogar — Chief Clerk and Deputy Director of Operations
- Stacy Baker — Director of Information Technology
Department of Justice Attendees (Accompanying Bondi)
- Harmeet Dhillon — Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (served as DOJ’s official representative; not Bondi’s personal attorney)
- Jonathan D. Guynn — Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
- Ernesto Sampera — Advisor to the Chief of Staff, Office of the Attorney General
- Rachel Jag — Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General
- Kisa Motiwala — Chief of Staff and Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs
Note: Minority staff names were redacted throughout the transcript for privacy purposes.
Background: Why This Hearing?
To understand this interview, it helps to know what came before it. Jeffrey Epstein, the financier convicted of sex crimes in Florida in 2008 and charged again in 2019, died in a federal jail cell in August 2019 in what officials ruled a suicide. His longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. For years, advocates and lawmakers from both parties demanded that the government release files from these prosecutions, arguing the public deserved to know whether powerful people had been shielded from accountability.
When President Trump returned to the White House and appointed Bondi as Attorney General in early 2025, his campaign had promised to release the so-called “Epstein files.” Congress subsequently passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), signed into law November 19, 2025, which gave DOJ 30 days to release all Epstein-related materials. The DOJ ultimately released approximately 3 million pages — but the process was messy: documents were taken offline and reposted, survivors’ names were exposed, and Democrats accused the administration of selectively withholding materials for political reasons.
This interview was the Committee’s effort to put Bondi on the record about all of it.
Topic 1: Bondi’s Opening Statement — Defending DOJ’s Record
Bondi opened with a prepared statement emphasizing what she characterized as an unprecedented commitment to transparency. She noted that DOJ released nearly 3 million pages of material, including thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images, covering investigations that stretched across four administrations — Bush, Obama, the first Trump term, and Biden.
“The only time Federal prosecutors were permitted to launch investigations against Epstein and Maxwell was when President Trump occupied the White House. Only under President Trump were 3 million Epstein-related documents released.”
She acknowledged that she delegated day-to-day supervision of the Epstein files process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and that she did not personally conduct document reviews or redactions. She said DOJ gave Congress access to unredacted duplicative materials in a Reading Room, that there were redaction errors but they were corrected in good faith, and that the FBI is still waiting to hear from victims with information about crimes.
“I have spent my entire career fighting for victims, and I will continue to do so.”
Majority’s framing: The Committee majority used Bondi’s statement largely unchallenged, treating it as a foundation for substantive questioning about the process.
Minority’s framing: The minority immediately flagged that the interview was not being videotaped — something survivors themselves had requested in a May 20th letter to Chairman Comer. The minority introduced this letter as Minority Exhibit A and called the decision “another failure in transparency and accountability for the survivors.”
Topic 2: The Early Days — What Was DOJ Doing When Bondi Took Office?
One of the opening lines of questioning established a striking baseline: when Bondi was sworn in on February 5, 2025, nothing had been released from the Epstein and Maxwell files, and, to her knowledge, nothing had been requested. The case was considered closed.
Bondi said she directed an immediate review. Within weeks of assuming office, she contacted the FBI and asked them to turn over all documents in their possession. The FBI’s initial response produced approximately 200 pages of materials — far fewer than anyone expected.
The FBI’s New York field office withholding documents was one of the first major revelations of her tenure. Bondi sent FBI Director Kash Patel a letter on February 27, 2025, after a career prosecutor in her office flagged that there were likely far more documents in the New York field office. Bondi described the letter’s demand in blunt terms:
“By 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained. There will be no withholdings or limitations to my or your access.”
She said she asked Director Patel to investigate why the field office had not previously disclosed these documents. She does not know the results of that investigation.
The “sitting on my desk” controversy: On February 21, 2025, Bondi told an interviewer that a purported list of Epstein’s clients was “sitting on my desk right now.” She clarified to the Committee that she was referring to the file generally — not a specific client list — and that she had not yet reviewed it at the time of that statement. She maintained that, to her knowledge, no client list of the kind the public imagined ever existed in DOJ’s possession.
Topic 3: The Phase 1 “White Binders” Release (February 27, 2025)
A memorable early moment in the Epstein saga came when a group of individuals left the White House carrying white binders bearing the DOJ seal and labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1.” Bondi confirmed she was involved in this release.
The binders contained approximately 200 pages — documents the FBI had initially provided — including flight logs and related materials. The label “Phase 1” reflected Bondi’s own expectation that far more documents existed and would follow.
Who got the binders? Bondi said the recipients were people who happened to be at the White House that day. The documents were also released to the general public at the same time.
Were these documents already public? The minority suggested that much of what was in Phase 1 was already publicly available. Bondi said she did not recall knowing that at the time. The minority also noted that the documents were stamped “declassified” — but, as they pointed out, none of the materials were classified in the legal sense. Bondi said she didn’t recall the specifics of that stamp.
Topic 4: The Ghislaine Maxwell Interview (July 24–25, 2025)
A major event during Bondi’s tenure was then-Deputy AG Todd Blanche’s two-day interview of Ghislaine Maxwell, conducted July 24–25, 2025. Bondi said Blanche was the lead on this decision because, with Epstein dead, Maxwell was the only living person with direct knowledge of potential co-conspirators and additional crimes.
“There was someone, still living, in prison, who had potential information about other co-conspirators and crimes.”
Maxwell’s attorneys subsequently stated publicly that she had provided the names of 100 different people connected to Epstein over the course of her interview. The DOJ released the transcript the following month. Bondi said she believed the FBI used Maxwell’s cooperation to look into all of the individuals she named, though she deferred specifics to Blanche and FBI Director Patel.
Who was redacted from the Maxwell transcript? Bondi said Blanche made those determinations based on applicable law and privilege. She does not recall the specific categories of names redacted.
Did Maxwell’s interview lead to any subsequent action? Bondi said she does not believe so.
Should Maxwell receive a pardon? Bondi was unambiguous: “No. She was a monster, just like Jeffrey Epstein. I believe she should die in prison. She recruited these young women to a life of prostitution and abuse.”
Topic 5: Maxwell’s Prison Transfer (August 1, 2025)
After her interview with Blanche, Maxwell was transferred from one federal facility to a lower-security federal prison camp in Texas. This transfer became a flashpoint in the hearing.
Bondi’s account: She said she learned about the transfer by reading about it online after it happened. She said she had no involvement and deferred to the Bureau of Prisons. When she informally asked BOP officials at an event whether Maxwell had been moved to a comparable security level, they told her yes.
The record disputed this. Rep. Garcia introduced an exhibit showing that Maxwell was moved to a lower-security facility, based on Bureau of Prisons classification levels. Garcia pressed Bondi on whether she would acknowledge this; Bondi said she had no independent knowledge confirming the security-level downgrade.
Did it relate to the Maxwell interview? Bondi: “I have no knowledge of that.” She speculated that prisoner transfers for security reasons are common, particularly after a high-profile interview, but declined to speculate further.
Was President Trump informed before the transfer? Bondi declined to answer, citing her blanket policy of not discussing any conversations she had or did not have with the President.
Maxwell’s perks at the new facility: The minority raised reporting that Maxwell has received special privileges at the new prison — including private meals, special meeting access, and a puppy. Bondi said she was not aware of this until the day before the interview. She directed the question to Bureau of Prisons.
Topic 6: The Epstein Files Transparency Act — Passage and Implementation
The Situation Room meeting with Rep. Boebert was one of the most newsworthy disclosures of the hearing. Bondi confirmed she was present at a White House Situation Room meeting in the week before the EFTA passed in Congress. The meeting included her, Deputy AG Blanche, Kash Patel (possibly), and legislative affairs officials James Blair and James Braid.
Public reporting had characterized the meeting as an effort to convince Boebert to vote against the bill. Bondi pushed back on that characterization — she said her recollection was that the discussion centered on concerns about protecting victims’ identities if the bill passed.
“I recall the discussion with her was the concern about passing the bill would jeopardize the identity of victims. Which is exactly what ended up happening after the bill was passed; victims’ names were inadvertently released.”
She also flatly stated that President Trump was not present at that meeting. The minority asked whether other members had been similarly pressured; Bondi said she was not aware of any such meetings.
President Trump signed EFTA on November 19, 2025, requiring DOJ to release all Epstein-related documents within 30 days in a searchable, publicly available format.
Meeting the 30-day deadline was impossible, by Bondi’s own account. DOJ had received approximately 6 million pages of potentially responsive documents — material flowing in from multiple districts including SDNY, SDFL, and others. Around 500 attorneys — drawn from the National Security Division, SDNY, the Northern District of Florida, and other jurisdictions — worked around the clock, including over Christmas and New Year’s, sometimes until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m., to review and redact documents.
“I do recall very vividly that these lawyers were working over Christmas, New Year’s, holidays to get that done, some late into the night — I mean, 1:00, 2:00 a.m.”
DOJ did not meet the 30-day statutory deadline. Releases were staggered:
- December 19, 2025 — Approximately 4,000 files (first EFTA production)
- December 22, 2025 — Approximately 11,000 documents (third production; some redaction bypass vulnerabilities found)
- December 23, 2025 — Approximately 30,000 pages, including materials containing allegations against Trump; DOJ issued a statement calling those allegations “untrue,” “sensationalist,” and “unfounded”
- December 24, 2025 — DOJ announced that SDNY and the FBI had discovered approximately 1 million additional documents, complicating compliance
- January 30, 2026 — The largest release: approximately 3.5 million pages, which DOJ said fulfilled its obligations under the Act
Prior to EFTA, DOJ had also produced approximately 33,000 documents in August 2025 in response to the Committee’s subpoena. Bondi said that release was managed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.
Topic 7: The 3 Million vs. 6 Million Document Discrepancy
This was a central line of questioning for the minority. DOJ identified approximately 6 million pages as potentially responsive — but only released approximately 3 million. Why?
Bondi explained the three categories of withheld documents:
Duplicative materials. Because documents came from multiple districts — particularly SDFL and SDNY — the same document sometimes appeared twice. These were not released as duplicates, though Bondi noted they remained available to Members of Congress in the Reading Room.
Privileged materials. Bondi cited prosecution memos as an example of privileged documents that could not be publicly released. She said Todd Blanche made all privilege determinations. Approximately 200,000 pages were reportedly redacted or withheld for privilege reasons, based on a Blanche letter to Congress.
Unrelated materials. DOJ’s search was intentionally overbroad, meaning some captured materials had nothing to do with Epstein. Blanche’s example: there was an entire case file for a different person named Epstein in South Florida.
The minority pushed back. Rep. Stansbury invoked the text of the EFTA itself, noting the law specifically required disclosure of “internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates” — and said the law explicitly stated that ordinary executive privilege assertions could not be used to withhold those materials. She argued that if redactions were made because of pending investigations, those were the only permitted basis, and demanded to know whether the named individuals were under active investigation.
Bondi declined to confirm or deny any pending investigations, invoking what she called “privileged and protected information.” Stansbury called this a potential violation of the law’s requirements.
Topic 8: Redaction Errors — Both Underinclusive and Overinclusive
Redaction mistakes cut in both directions, Bondi acknowledged. Some victims’ names that should have been redacted were published. Some materials that should have been public were over-redacted.
Todd Blanche’s own estimate: approximately a 1 percent error rate across the production.
How errors happened: Bondi described one example: a reviewer working very long hours failed to properly save redactions after completing them. Bondi did not know whether that specific case applied to any particular document discussed in the hearing.
Victims’ nude photos published: Rep. Min raised the fact that nude photographs of survivors — including images of minors — were included in the public release. Bondi acknowledged this was “human error” and said everyone involved in the process cared deeply about victim protection. She pushed back on characterizations of negligence by arguing that the 30-day deadline made mistakes nearly inevitable with 3+ million documents and hundreds of attorneys working simultaneously.
“We absolutely owe an apology to any victim’s name any time it’s inadvertently released.”
Were any attorneys disciplined? When asked whether any attorneys faced disciplinary proceedings for allowing victims’ information or nude photographs to be released, Bondi did not confirm any such proceedings and again deferred to the process Blanche oversaw.
Apology but not personal responsibility: Rep. Stansbury asked directly whether Bondi felt personally responsible for the exposure of survivors’ identities. Bondi said she believed “everyone involved in the process would” feel horrible — and then turned the question around, arguing that Congress had pressed DOJ to release 3 million documents in 30 days:
“I believe you should, too, because you were pressing us to get 3 million pages out in 30 days, and that was virtually impossible.”
Topic 9: Documents Taken Down and Reposted
Several documents released under EFTA were briefly removed from DOJ’s online system and then reposted. The minority examined three specific examples.
The Howard Lutnick photograph (Minority Exhibit D). A photograph from Epstein’s U.S. Virgin Islands property appeared to show Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and other individuals with Epstein. It was included in the January 30th production, then taken down, then reposted. Bondi said DOJ — she believed it was Blanche’s staff — initially thought the image was AI-generated and not real. Once it was confirmed to be authentic, it was reposted. She denied knowing of any political motive for the removal.
The Trump photograph exhibit (Minority Exhibit E). A photograph found at one of Epstein’s homes — included in the December 19th production — contained images including what appeared to be a publicly known photograph of Donald Trump (prior to the presidency) and Ghislaine Maxwell. It followed the same pattern: taken down, then reposted. Bondi said she had no knowledge of why it was taken down.
FBI interview summaries about a woman who accused Trump (unnamed in transcript). The January 30th production included one FBI interview summary from a woman who accused Epstein and Trump of sexual misconduct — but not three other interview summaries from the same woman, which contained more detailed allegations against Trump. DOJ subsequently released those other three summaries on March 5th, explaining they had been “incorrectly coded as duplicative” because they had been referenced in a summary. Bondi cited Blanche’s explanation: that such an error could happen when a document appears to already be captured in a summary, causing software to flag it as a duplicate. She denied any political motivation in the initial withholding.
Topic 10: Trump’s Name in the Files — The Explosive Clarification
One of the most consequential moments of the hearing came not during formal questioning but in a post-break clarification that Bondi volunteered. After Rep. Subramanyam had asked whether there was any effort to search the files for President Trump’s name, and Bondi had given guarded non-answers, she returned from recess with a more forthcoming statement:
“I believe now — I don’t know the timeframe, though — but I remember being aware, of course, that his name was in it, along with hundreds — countless — countless other individuals… So I am aware that his name was searched, but that was among many names that the Department searched. And, in fact, that list was ultimately released.”
This was significant because it directly confirmed that Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files and that DOJ searched for it as part of its review. Bondi was careful to say she did not personally direct anyone to search for Trump’s name, and that many high-profile individuals’ names were searched in the same way.
The Wall Street Journal reporting. The minority noted a Wall Street Journal report that Bondi had told Trump in May 2025 that his name appeared multiple times in the Epstein files. Bondi refused to discuss that meeting, citing her blanket policy on presidential conversations.
Trump’s reported comment to Marjorie Taylor Greene. The minority also raised reporting that Trump told Rep. Greene that, if she tried to expose Epstein abusers, “My friends will get hurt.” Bondi said she was not present for and had no knowledge of that comment.
The Elon Musk tweet. The minority asked about Musk’s June 2025 tweet claiming Trump was in the Epstein files and that this was why the files had not been made public. Bondi confirmed she had “of course” discussed that tweet internally at DOJ — she described it as “quite a post” — but denied it had any influence on the July 2025 memo declaring no further disclosures were warranted.
Topic 11: The July 2025 “No Further Disclosures” Memo
On July 7, 2025, DOJ and the FBI issued a joint statement concluding that there was no evidence of a client list that Epstein used for blackmail, and — critically — that neither DOJ nor the FBI uncovered evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
Bondi acknowledged she was briefed on the findings that informed the memo before its release but says she does not recall specifically what she was told beyond what is in the document. She attributed the memo’s conclusions to Blanche and the FBI.
A key limitation the minority exposed: Bondi confirmed that at the time the July memo was written, DOJ was likely not yet aware of the full 3 million pages of documents that would eventually be released. The memo’s sweeping conclusion — “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted” — was therefore made based on a fraction of the eventual documentary record.
“Well, clearly, they did not know there were 3 million-plus — approximately 3 million pages of documents at that time.”
The Jay Clayton investigation. One notable disclosure was that Bondi said she had directed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton in the Southern District of New York to open an investigation into crimes related to Epstein and other individuals. She responded to a Truth Social post by Trump calling on DOJ to investigate Epstein’s relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, and JPMorgan Chase. She said she doesn’t know the current status of that investigation and doesn’t know who the “many other people and institutions” Trump referenced in that post were. When asked why the list included only Democrats, she said she did not know.
Topic 12: Why Were Key Epstein Associates Never Interviewed?
Rep. Walkinshaw pressed Bondi on one of the more damning gaps in the record: several individuals who were reportedly in Epstein’s inner circle — his lawyers, his accountant, financier Les Wexner (whose money reportedly financed much of Epstein’s trafficking operation), and others — were never interviewed by the FBI, across multiple administrations.
“In your professional opinion as a former prosecutor, do you find it strange that the FBI never interviewed some of those figures very close to Jeffrey Epstein?”
Bondi deflected repeatedly to the Obama and Biden administrations, saying the same question should be directed at them. Walkinshaw pressed: but you were the Attorney General. Why didn’t you direct the FBI to interview them?
Bondi said that the Maxwell interview was specifically designed to get at this question — to find whether there was evidence of additional crimes — and that if evidence existed, prosecution would follow. Walkinshaw was unsatisfied, calling the exchange one where Bondi repeatedly declined to give a substantive answer.
Topic 13: The Reading Room and Monitoring Congressional Searches
Beginning February 9, 2026, DOJ allowed Members of Congress to visit a Reading Room and review unredacted versions of Epstein files. Bondi confirmed that the Reading Room contained the full set of documents, including duplicative materials, in unredacted form.
DOJ tracked Member search histories in the Reading Room. This became a flashpoint when Rep. Frost referenced reporting that, during Bondi’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, she had printouts of Members’ search activity — essentially records of which files lawmakers had looked at.
Bondi explained that the DOJ’s document review system automatically logs anyone who accesses files because the system contains millions of pages of unredacted material, including victims’ names and faces not available to the public. This logging was built into the system as a security measure, not a political surveillance tool.
“That system downloads anyone who looks at that, because there are millions of pages of unredacted victims’ names on there — faces, names, information that’s not public. That’s built into the program.”
She also said staff were physically present in the Reading Room to prevent anyone from removing unredacted victim information. She added that DOJ had, in fact, caught someone attempting to do exactly that.
Regarding the Judiciary Committee printout: Bondi said a lower-level staffer gave her those records. She said she had intended to show them to Rep. Pramila Jayapal in the context of a disputed graphic, and that she subsequently met with Jayapal for about 90 minutes after the hearing. She denied any intent to use the records to intimidate or spy on lawmakers.
Topic 14: Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) in the Files
Rep. Subramanyam raised one of the most serious aspects of the withheld materials: that DOJ holds a significant volume of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) within the Epstein files.
Bondi confirmed this, explaining that when DOJ received the videos from Epstein’s materials, attorneys and likely FBI agents reviewed them all to ensure no victims were inadvertently identified. Much of the video content, she said, turned out to be CSAM that Epstein had downloaded — not footage of Epstein or others engaging in sex acts.
This directly addressed — and partially contradicted — a statement by Acting AG Blanche on a podcast, in which he reportedly said “the FBI did not collect any video of Mr. Epstein or others participating in sex acts.” Bondi said she did not have direct knowledge about that specific claim but offered the CSAM explanation as context.
Topic 15: Bondi’s Blanket Refusal on Trump Conversations
Throughout the hearing, Bondi repeated a consistent formulation whenever questions touched on the President: “I’m not going to discuss any conversations that I have had or did not have with the President of the United States.” This applied whether the question concerned whether Trump directed any official action related to Epstein, what Trump said when informed his name was in the files, whether Trump told her not to disclose certain information, and whether Trump knew about Maxwell’s prison transfer.
The minority — particularly the lead minority questioner — spent considerable time trying to establish whether this was a formal assertion of executive privilege or simply a personal choice. The exchange grew pointed:
When asked directly whether this was “just a choice not to answer,” Bondi confirmed: “Yes.” Harmeet Dhillon, representing DOJ’s interests, argued the interview was voluntary and privilege assertions were not legally required. The minority objected that they had never agreed to these ground rules.
Bondi also declined to discuss:
– Any conversations with Trump during the 2024 campaign
– Whether Trump directed any action related to Epstein or Maxwell
– Whether any search of files for Trump’s name was directed by anyone in the administration
– Whether Trump had any role in the July 2025 memo’s drafting
Topic 16: Survivors’ 302 Witness Statements Not Released
One significant gap in the document releases that emerged during the minority round: FBI 302 forms — the standard written summaries of FBI witness interviews — appear not to have been produced to the public in many cases. Survivors have publicly requested access to their own 302 statements, the records created when they were originally interviewed about their abuse.
Rep. Subramanyam confirmed that survivors had made this request in a public letter. Bondi said she would direct that question to Acting AG Blanche. When asked whether she personally would have been willing to fulfill the request, she said DOJ had repeatedly invited victims and their attorneys to meet with the Department, and that sharing their own interview records with them would have been appropriate.
Rep. Min raised a broader concern: that there appeared to be a systematic policy of withholding documents related to prosecution decisions — “the documents or evidence collected by the FBI and DOJ that went into a decision to prosecute or not prosecute” — and that this was inconsistent with what the EFTA required. Bondi disputed the characterization of systematic withholding, saying DOJ acted in good faith within the law.
Topic 17: The Democrats’ March Briefing Walkout
A recurring theme from Bondi and the majority was that Democrats on the Committee had already been briefed on many of these issues — and walked out.
Bondi said that she and then-Deputy AG Blanche appeared before the Committee in March for a roughly 90-minute briefing and offered to answer questions. She said that some Democratic members yelled about the absence of C-SPAN coverage and then left, and that no Democratic members subsequently took her up on a personal invitation to meet at DOJ.
Three Republican members — Reps. Boebert, Cloud, and Perry (and possibly Burchett) — did come to DOJ. Bondi met separately with Rep. Jayapal, who is not on the committee.
Topic 18: Did Democrats Ask for Files During the Biden Administration?
Bondi made a pointed observation when asked why the Biden administration had not released Epstein files: she said she had no knowledge of whether any Members of Congress had demanded such releases during that period. She suggested that, to her knowledge, none of them did — with a possible exception for Rep. Khanna.
Notable Exchanges and Flashpoints
The subpoena dispute. Rep. Frost pressed Bondi on whether she considered her appearance to be compliance with the Committee’s subpoena. Bondi said she viewed herself as appearing voluntarily in her former official capacity; the subpoena had been directed at her as Attorney General and she was no longer AG. DOJ counsel Guynn stepped in to say the interview was DOJ’s agreed-upon method of fulfilling its obligations under the subpoena — creating an awkward three-way disagreement about what, exactly, was happening in the room.
Stansbury’s confrontation on responsibility. One of the hearing’s most direct exchanges came when Rep. Stansbury asked Bondi whether she felt “personally responsible” for the release of survivors’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, and photographs — including images of minors. Bondi said she felt horrible, then pivoted to argue that Congress had created the impossible 30-day deadline. Stansbury pushed back: she didn’t work at DOJ; Bondi did, and Bondi was the named official in the law.
Walkinshaw on the Maxwell interview vs. other witnesses. Rep. Walkinshaw drew a sharp contrast: Blanche personally interviewed Maxwell over two days, but figures like Epstein’s lawyer, his accountant, and Les Wexner — people with direct knowledge of Epstein’s financial and operational network — were never questioned by the FBI across any administration. He accused Bondi of repeatedly dodging a direct answer about why she, as a former career prosecutor, did not direct the FBI to interview those individuals. Bondi said the Maxwell interview was specifically designed to surface exactly that kind of information.
Dhillon’s objections. DOJ representative Harmeet Dhillon repeatedly objected to questions she characterized as outside the scope of Bondi’s official capacity — particularly questions about events in 2019, questions about the 2024 campaign, and questions about Trump conversations. The minority challenged those objections throughout, noting they had never agreed to those parameters and that the objections did not reflect any formal legal assertion. Dhillon acknowledged they were voluntary limitations.
Bondi’s defense of Todd Blanche. In a dramatic moment after the majority’s final questions, Bondi addressed reporting that she had “blamed” Blanche during the hearing — reportedly coming from Rep. Garcia’s public remarks outside the room. Bondi was emphatic:
“That is 100 percent incorrect. Todd Blanche is one of the most highly ethical individuals I know, and I think he is making an incredible Acting Attorney General.”
Unresolved Questions Flagged During the Interview
The following questions were either declined or deferred to other officials by Bondi:
- Whether DOJ investigated Prince Andrew, Leon Black, Glenn Dubin, Jes Staley, Les Wexner, Alan Dershowitz, Paolo Zampolli, or Donald Trump in connection with Epstein crimes (deferred to Jay Clayton/Todd Blanche)
- The full status of the Jay Clayton SDNY investigation at the time Bondi left office (she said she does not recall)
- Whether a whistleblower’s claim — that reviewers were instructed to flag mentions of Trump — has any basis (Bondi denied knowledge; whistleblower cited by Sen. Dick Durbin in a letter)
- Whether DOJ or the White House had any role in drafting the July 2025 “no further disclosures” memo (Bondi did not recall)
- Whether Epstein worked for a domestic or foreign intelligence service (Bondi deferred to the FBI’s investigation)
- Whether Epstein’s death was a suicide (Bondi said she relies on the FBI’s investigation)
- What Trump meant by “my friends will get hurt” in his reported comment to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
MLA Citation
Bondi, Pamela J. “Transcribed Interview of Pamela J. Bondi.” Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 29 May 2026, Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Interview conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, commencing 9:05 a.m.