Attorney General Pam Bondi’s first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee since taking office erupted into a spectacle of partisan acrimony, emotional testimony, and pointed questions about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The hearing, held on February 11, 2026, quickly devolved from oversight to open political warfare, with accusations of stonewalling, cover-ups, and even antisemitism echoing through the committee room.
The stakes were clear from the start, as at least 11 survivors of Epstein’s crimes sat in the audience wearing shirts that protested the extensive redactions in the recently released files. Their presence was a constant reminder of the hearing’s gravity, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle referenced them repeatedly. According to The Hill, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) asked the survivors to raise their hands if they had not yet met with the Department of Justice. Every survivor raised a hand, underscoring the sense of frustration and neglect many felt.
Attorney General Bondi, flanked by a hefty binder she referenced throughout the day, promised that her department would take any new accusations seriously. "The FBI is waiting to hear from you. I want you to know that any accusations of criminal wrongdoing will be taken seriously and investigated," she said, as reported by The Hill. Yet, this pledge did little to quell the anger of those who felt their voices were being drowned out by bureaucratic inertia and political posturing.
Democrats wasted no time framing the hearing as a referendum on Bondi’s leadership and priorities. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) accused the Attorney General of orchestrating a "cover-up" and a "betrayal of justice for all," focusing on the department’s handling of the Epstein files, the lack of engagement with survivors, and the opaque process behind the redactions. "The American people are rightfully worried that the Department of Justice is protecting the powerful and letting the vulnerable languish," Raskin declared, according to The Advocate.
Perhaps the most dramatic moment came when Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), herself Jewish, clashed with Bondi over accusations of antisemitism. After Balint criticized Bondi’s approach—calling her response "weak sauce"—Bondi shot back by suggesting Balint had voted against a resolution condemning antisemitism. Balint, visibly shaken, retorted, "Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust?" before storming out of the hearing room. The exchange, widely covered by The Advocate, highlighted the emotional toll the hearing took on both lawmakers and observers.
Balint later told The Advocate that Bondi’s attack was a breaking point, describing it as "weaponizing antisemitism" and drawing parallels to the tactics her own family had experienced in Europe during the Nazi era. "She is using the fascist authoritarian playbook in the same way that my family was on the receiving end of those same tactics and strategies during the Nazi-era," Balint said. She explained that she returned to the hearing room for the sake of the survivors, determined to see the proceedings through.
The hearing was punctuated by a series of fiery exchanges that bordered on the theatrical. After Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) joked about Bondi’s reliance on her binder—"I’d like to see you flip to the Jared Moskowitz section of the binder. I’m interested to see what staff provided on the oppo on me"—Bondi frequently responded to Democrats’ critiques with personal barbs. She called Rep. Jamie Raskin a "washed-up loser lawyer" and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) a "failed politician" with "Trump derangement syndrome." When Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) accused Bondi of dodging questions, she quipped, "Our witness who somehow is a lawyer but does not understand how [testifying] works."
Amid the heated rhetoric, substantive questions about the Epstein files persisted. Lawmakers from both parties pressed Bondi on why so many names remained redacted, and why victims’ names had sometimes been inadvertently revealed while the names of powerful associates were kept secret. Bondi acknowledged the challenges, explaining, "We were given 30 days to review and redact and unredact millions of pages of documents. Our error rate is very low." She pledged to correct any improper redactions brought to her attention.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) contrasted the department’s aggressive pursuit of Trump’s perceived enemies with its apparent reluctance to charge Epstein’s associates. "DOJ has failed to bring any of these perpetrators to justice. Instead, it has engaged in a relentless pursuit of Donald Trump’s perceived enemies," Nadler said. The committee’s Republican chair, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), meanwhile, focused on his own criminal referral for former CIA Director John Brennan, pressing Bondi on whether Brennan would be indicted for lying to Congress. Bondi responded, "I can’t confirm nor deny whether there is a pending investigation, but what I will say is no one is above the law."
The hearing also delved into the question of whether the Department of Justice had meaningfully scrutinized high-profile officials whose names surfaced in the unredacted Epstein files. Balint pressed Bondi on whether Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Navy Secretary John Phelan, or Deputy Defense Secretary Steven Feinberg had been questioned about their ties to Epstein. Documents show that Lutnick maintained contact with Epstein years after his 2008 conviction, including a 2012 visit to Epstein’s private island—a fact Lutnick only recently admitted, despite earlier claims to the contrary. Bondi declined to give clear answers, saying Lutnick had "addressed those ties himself" and bristling at further questions about Phelan and Feinberg.
Democrats also zeroed in on President Trump’s own connections to Epstein. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) presented footage of Trump and Epstein at a party, suggesting Bondi had misled the committee. Bondi dismissed the footage, saying, "There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime." Rep. Jared Moskowitz underscored the frequency of Trump’s name in the files, quipping, "Trump’s name appears more times in the Epstein files than God’s name appears in the book about God. By the way, this is the Trump Bible. Move over, King James."
Republicans, for their part, largely defended Bondi’s approach, with Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) noting that the administration had "led on that issue" while previous administrations remained silent. Still, even Roy expressed concern over the inadvertent release of victims’ names, underscoring the bipartisan anxiety over the Justice Department’s process.
As the hearing drew to a close, the survivors’ hopes for clarity and accountability remained largely unmet. Balint reflected that survivors had met with lawmakers before the hearing, "really hopeful that they would get some answers," only to be disappointed by what she described as Bondi’s "big binder full of insults." She lamented, "I think Americans deserve so much better than that."
The day’s events left no doubt about the deep divisions—both political and personal—surrounding the Epstein files. For the survivors, lawmakers, and the American public, the search for answers and accountability appears far from over.