DOJ Blocks House Interview with Former AG Bondi on Epstein Files, Citing Her Firing

By Nolan D. McCaskill and Andrew Goudsward

WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Justice has moved to shield former Attorney General Pam Bondi from a congressional interview regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's files, notifying lawmakers that a subpoena for her testimony is no longer valid following her abrupt firing last week.

In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), a senior Justice Department official stated that the subpoena—issued last month to compel Bondi's testimony in her official capacity—is moot now that she is a private citizen. The official requested the committee formally withdraw the demand. Bondi's dismissal by former President Donald Trump was reportedly linked, in part, to internal dissatisfaction over her office's management of the sensitive Epstein document release.

The development escalates a tense standoff between the Republican-led House committee and the Justice Department over compliance with a bipartisan law enacted last November. That law mandated the near-complete public disclosure of the department's files on Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the DOJ for excessive redactions in the released documents and for failing to adequately protect victim identities.

"The Department's position is that the subpoena no longer obligates her to appear," wrote Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis, the DOJ's top congressional liaison, in the letter obtained by Reuters. "We kindly ask that you confirm that the subpoena is withdrawn."

A committee spokesperson indicated the panel would now contact Bondi's personal attorney to "discuss next steps" for securing her testimony. The DOJ, meanwhile, stated it "remains committed to working cooperatively" with the oversight effort but maintains the subpoena "no longer applies."

The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), condemned the move, accusing Bondi of evading her legal obligations. "Now that Pam Bondi has been fired, she's trying to get out of testifying before the Oversight Committee about the Epstein files and the White House cover-up," Garcia said in a statement, threatening to initiate contempt proceedings—a step that would require Republican support.

This confrontation is a key front in the committee's broader investigation into Epstein's network of powerful associates and the Justice Department's past investigations into Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Bondi and her then-deputy, now-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, had privately briefed the committee last month, a session Democrats abandoned, demanding sworn testimony.

Analysis & Reaction

The DOJ's legal maneuver highlights the procedural complexities that can arise when a subpoenaed official is removed from office. It effectively pauses, if not ends, the committee's direct line of questioning to the official who oversaw the controversial document release. This fuels existing concerns about transparency and accountability in one of the most scrutinized cases in recent memory.

Reactions from the public:

Michael R., Legal Analyst, Virginia: "This is a straightforward procedural issue. The subpoena was to the Attorney General, not Pam Bondi the private citizen. The committee needs to reissue it to her directly if they want her testimony. It's less a cover-up and more a lesson in precise legal drafting."

Sarah Chen, Advocacy Group Director, New York: "Every delay, every procedural block, feels like another betrayal to Epstein's survivors. The message it sends is that protecting the powerful is still the priority. The committee must use every tool available to get answers, not hide behind technicalities."

David P., Former Federal Prosecutor, D.C.: "The timing is deeply suspect. Firing Bondi right before her testimony and then wielding that firing as a shield creates an obvious perception of obstruction. It undermines public confidence in the entire process of uncovering the truth about the Epstein case."

Janet L., Political Science Professor, Ohio: "This episode is a classic example of institutional conflict. It's less about Epstein per se and more about the perpetual tug-of-war between congressional oversight authority and executive branch resistance, now playing out in the fraught arena of this particular investigation."

(Reporting by Nolan D. McCaskill and Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Matthew Lewis)