Congress Must Push Bondi to Release the Remaining Epstein Files

When Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 11, members of Congress should insist that she reverse her appalling decision to conceal a trove of internal documents about the Department of Justice’s sex trafficking investigation of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful connections.

Her actions, based on various unauthorized “privileges,” violate a law passed by Congress as well as a House subpoena. If she refuses, members should hold her in contempt, as they just did with the Clintons.

One of Congress’ core objectives in this investigation is to understand the DOJ’s internal decision-making processes. Epstein received extraordinary treatment: A secret deal spared him from serious charges and let his co-conspirators go free. Why did prosecutors, lawyers, and other DOJ officials drop leads, ignore victims, and allow targets to evade scrutiny? Those questions have never been answered satisfactorily.

When Bondi produced what she termed her final batch of Epstein-related documents in January, she touted the release of three million pages. But she withheld 200,000 pages that reflect the DOJ’s internal charging decisions and investigative judgments.

Those are exactly the documents Congress needs and precisely the evidence Bondi is concealing: internal memos, emails, and analyses discussing how to handle the case; how much risk to take; and what other wealthy and well-connected figures were implicated.

Record Release Efforts

A bipartisan group of rank-and-file lawmakers has been spearheading the effort to pry these records free. They banded together last summer to overturn Bondi’s previous decision to stop producing documents. Since then, they’ve honored Epstein’s victims with dogged persistence, sometimes in defiance of their own party leaders.

Thanks to their resolve, they’ve established powerful precedents. Last summer, they pushed a sweeping subpoena through the House Oversight Committee ordering Bondi to produce these records. In November 2025, they used a little-known procedure called a discharge petition to force votes on the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And in January, they agreed to support contempt resolutions to push for subpoenaed depositions of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Bondi’s latest effort to conceal internal DOJ records violates both the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the Oversight Committee’s subpoena.

Bondi is invoking privileges that Congress has already rejected on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, including so-called deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product privileges.

Congress included no such exemptions in the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It authorizes Bondi to redact victim information, for example, but not to conceal deliberations, work product, or communications among DOJ lawyers and other officials.

These so-called “common law” privileges aren’t based in the Constitution. Congress can pass laws to restrict their scope, as it did in this case. President Donald Trump could have vetoed the legislation and insisted that Congress insert these exceptions, but he signed the bill without them.

Bondi is also violating the Oversight Committee’s subpoena, which rejects the very privileges she’s asserting. It clearly warns that the House doesn’t recognize “the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product protections.”

Congressional Authority

Bondi may claim that previous administrations have made similar assertions, but as I’ve detailed elsewhere, Congress zealously safeguards its own authority to determine whether to honor them.

The House has a bipartisan record of overcoming these privileges when necessary, including in investigations spanning decades. In addition, the Senate voted in 1995 to overrule these same privileges when President Clinton asserted them during the Senate Whitewater investigation. The White House ultimately produced those records, including privileged notes from the president’s lawyers.

Even taking Bondi’s assertions at face value, these privileges aren’t absolute. When balancing the needs of Congress against those of DOJ, the scales tip overwhelmingly in favor of Congress and its investigation of how a cabal of pedophiles was allowed to continue operating with impunity.

Although Bondi is allowing members to come to DOJ to review what’s behind certain redactions, there are no indications she’s allowing them to see what’s hidden in these 200,000 pages, despite the fact that she’s required by law to produce them to Congress.

Bondi can voluntarily withdraw these discretionary privileges at any time and, as Speaker Mike Johnson says, “put everything out there.” If she refuses, she should be held in contempt. And if House leaders throw up more roadblocks, the same group of rank-and-file lawmakers could introduce another discharge petition to force a House vote.

When Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) subpoenaed both Bondi and the Clintons on Aug. 5, 2025, he wrote that “it is imperative that Congress conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.”

Although he declined to support an earlier contempt resolution to give Bondi more time to comply, Bondi says she’s completed her review and will produce no more documents.

Members of Congress just exercised their formidable contempt power on a bipartisan basis against the Clintons, rejecting their privilege assertions and insisting on nothing less than full compliance. They should apply the same standard to Bondi now. A sitting attorney general obstructing Congress shouldn’t be held to a lower standard than a former president.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Dave Rapallo is an associate professor of law at Georgetown University and a former staff director of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines