Former AG Pam Bondi Skips House Subpoena in Epstein Probe, Citing Ouster from Office
WASHINGTON — A scheduled congressional deposition into the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation hit a roadblock Wednesday as former Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the House Oversight Committee she will not appear next week.
The committee stated the Justice Department communicated that Bondi, who was ousted from her post last week, would not comply with a subpoena for a closed-door deposition on April 14. A committee spokeswoman said the DOJ's position is that the subpoena, issued to Bondi in her official capacity as Attorney General, is no longer binding now that she has left the role.
"The Committee will contact Pam Bondi's personal counsel to discuss next steps regarding scheduling her deposition," the spokeswoman added, signaling a potential legal and political standoff.
The subpoena was authorized by the full committee in a bipartisan vote on March 4 and formally issued last month by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.). It sought Bondi's testimony on the DOJ's review and release of millions of pages related to the federal probe into Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The release was mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress last year.
Ranking Member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) blasted the move as an evasion tactic. "Now that Pam Bondi has been removed, she's attempting to sidestep her legal obligation to testify about the Epstein files," Garcia said in a statement. "This subpoena is to Pam Bondi, the individual. Her testimony is crucial, and defiance will prompt us to initiate contempt proceedings. The survivors of Epstein's crimes are watching."
Epstein survivors Maria and Annie Farmer issued a statement urging immediate action. "Further delay weakens our confidence in the government's willingness to hold enablers accountable," they said.
The Justice Department's document release under Bondi's tenure has been mired in controversy. While approximately 3 million pages were made public, another 3 million were withheld, citing reasons ranging from protecting survivor privacy to safeguarding ongoing investigations. Critics, including some Republicans, have lambasted the process for inconsistent redactions that at times shielded powerful figures while accidentally exposing victims' identities.
In a letter to Chairman Comer on Wednesday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argued Bondi's departure increases the need for her testimony. "It makes her sworn testimony even more important, especially with respect to actions she took as Attorney General," they wrote, raising "serious questions" about the DOJ's compliance with the transparency law.
The committee now faces a critical decision: whether to pursue Bondi in her personal capacity, potentially leading to a contempt of Congress vote, or to accept the DOJ's interpretation of the subpoena's limits.
Reaction & Analysis
David Chen, Political Analyst, Georgetown University: "This isn't just a procedural spat. It tests the reach of congressional oversight power over former executive branch officials. If the committee backs down, it sets a precedent that could shield future officials from accountability after they leave office."
Sarah Miller, Victims' Rights Advocate: "It's a slap in the face to every survivor who was promised transparency. The message seems to be: delay, obfuscate, and run out the clock until you're out of the job. It's a devastating blow to trust in the process."
Mark Reynolds, Former Federal Prosecutor: "The DOJ's legal argument has some merit—subpoenas to sitting officials often lapse upon their departure. However, Congress clearly has the authority to re-issue a subpoena to her as a private citizen. This is likely a political calculation, not just a legal one."
Lisa Gould, Political Commentator (Sharp Tone): "This is an absolute farce and a transparent cover-up. Bondi oversaw a botched, redaction-happy document dump that protected the powerful, and now she gets to just walk away? Comer and the committee look weak. They should have secured her testimony the moment her firing was rumored. Incompetence or complicity—pick one."