Tempers flared and accusations flew on Capitol Hill this week as Attorney General Pam Bondi faced a barrage of questions from lawmakers over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The hearing, held by the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2026, was anything but routine, with Bondi clashing openly with both Democrats and Republicans over the release and redaction of more than three million pages of investigative files tied to the late financier’s criminal activities.
According to multiple reports, including coverage by AFP and Axios, the hearing was prompted by renewed criticism of the Department of Justice after the release of the so-called "Epstein files." These documents, which were made public following a bill co-authored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and signed by President Trump in November 2025, have become a lightning rod for controversy. Lawmakers, victims, and the public alike have been poring over the files, searching for answers—and, in many cases, finding more questions instead.
One of the most contentious points revolved around the Department’s decision to redact the names of certain individuals allegedly connected to Epstein’s criminal network, while, at the same time, failing to protect the identities of some victims. Democrats and at least one Republican on the panel accused Bondi and her department of mishandling the sensitive information. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, was especially vocal, challenging Bondi directly: “You’re not showing a lot of interest in the victims,” he said, accusing the attorney general of siding with perpetrators over those harmed by Epstein’s actions. Raskin further pressed Bondi on the apparent prioritization of protecting the powerful over the vulnerable.
Bondi, for her part, did not hold back. In a heated exchange, she lashed out at Raskin, calling him a “washed-up, loser lawyer—not even a lawyer,” as reported by AFP. She went on to accuse Democrats of caring about the Epstein case only because Donald Trump is currently in the White House. “None of them asked [former Attorney General] Merrick Garland, over the last four years, one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump,” Bondi declared, turning the spotlight on what she characterized as partisan hypocrisy.
The tension was palpable as members of the Judiciary Committee, including Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, grilled Bondi about the redactions and the overall transparency of the DOJ’s process. Massie, who helped spearhead the legislation that led to the files’ release, accused Bondi of failing to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and of protecting potential co-conspirators while exposing some victims. “Literally the worst thing you could do to the survivors, you did,” Massie stated during the hearing. Bondi responded that the Department would correct any mistakes: “If any man’s name was redacted that should not have been, we will of course unredact it. If a victim’s name was unredacted, please bring it to us, and we will redact it.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) underscored the victims’ frustration by asking those present in the hearing room to stand if they had not been able to meet with the Department of Justice. Bondi, unmoved, retorted, “Why didn’t she ask Merrick Garland this twice when he sat in my chair? I’m not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics.” The exchange illustrated the deep distrust between the DOJ and some lawmakers, as well as the victims’ ongoing struggle for recognition and justice.
The controversy over redactions was further fueled by revelations from Rep. Jamie Raskin, who told Axios that when he searched for President Trump’s name in the unredacted Epstein files, it appeared “more than a million times.” Raskin cited a 2009 email exchange between Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, in which Epstein recounted a phone call with Trump. According to Raskin, “Trump is paraphrased and quoted as saying, ‘No, Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, and no, we never asked him to leave.’” This directly contradicts Trump’s longstanding public claim that he had expelled Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for inappropriate behavior.
Trump, for his part, has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein, maintaining that he had nothing to do with Epstein’s criminal activities and that he banned him from his club after learning of his conduct. The former Palm Beach chief of police reportedly told the FBI in 2019 that Trump claimed to have thrown Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, and Trump also allegedly described Maxwell as “evil” and urged authorities to focus on her.
The Justice Department has pushed back on allegations of a cover-up. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche took to social media to counter Rep. Massie’s claims, stating that while names like Les Wexner were redacted in some portions, they “already appear in the files thousands of times.” Blanche insisted, “DOJ is hiding nothing. Be honest, and stop grandstanding.”
Still, lawmakers from both parties remain unsatisfied with the Department’s approach. Access to the unredacted files has been limited to members of Congress, who can review them on terminals at DOJ headquarters during business hours. Raskin, Massie, Khanna, and Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) were among those who viewed the files earlier in the week. Raskin criticized the arrangement, calling the database tool “confusing, unreliable, and clunky.” He argued that the limited access is “just part of the coverup,” and called for the public release of all documents. “The administration says that these are duplicative. Well go ahead and release them then! If they’re duplicative, what’s the problem? We’ll be the judge of that,” Raskin told Axios.
The hearing was not without its lighter moments, as late-night comedians seized on Raskin’s claim that Trump’s name appeared more than a million times in the files. “A million times? There’s not even that many references to Hamlet in the play ‘Hamlet,’” joked Jimmy Kimmel, while Jordan Klepper quipped, “Just think about the effort it took Trump’s Justice Department to redact his name that many times. It’s like trying to remove the pee from the water park.” The jokes underscored the public’s bewilderment and cynicism about the scale and opacity of the investigation.
Beneath the political theater and media spectacle lies a serious question: Has the Justice Department truly done enough to bring transparency and accountability to the Epstein case? Bondi’s supporters argue she has done more than her predecessors to bring the truth to light, while critics insist that the powerful are still being shielded at the expense of the victims. The answer, for now, remains elusive, as lawmakers continue to sift through the millions of documents and the country waits for clarity and justice.