This is the most transparent Justice Department in the history of the United States and maybe all of human existence. Just ask them.

When pressed in November 2025 about DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to “follow the law with maximum transparency.” In a December 2025 letter, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche kvelled, “Never in American history has a president or the Department of Justice been this transparent with the American people about such a sensitive law-enforcement matter.” Bondi gushed last month about serving under Trump, “the most transparent president in the nation’s history!” DOJ’s current leadership loves little more than to congratulate itself on its world-historic, crystal-clear, nothing-to-hide transparency.

Let’s give it the benefit of the doubt. Let’s ignore the fact that the Justice Department complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act over a month late with millions of pages improperly withheld, with victim identities inexcusably revealed, and with the names of various apparent wrongdoers improperly redacted. Let’s take as true (for the sake of argument) Bondi’s claim that she wants nothing more than for the American public to see behind the curtain.

What, then, would we expect of this Most Transparent DOJ Ever when the AG receives a subpoena issued with bipartisan support from a Republican-led congressional committee? Maybe something like: “The attorney general, who prizes transparency above all, looks forward to the opportunity to testify to Congress and the American people.”

Instead, within moments of the subpoena’s issuance, DOJ’s actual response: “Completely unnecessary.”

In that initial statement, the Justice Department offered a glimpse of its strategic game plan: “The Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress. She continues to have calls and meetings with members of Congress on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which is why the Department offered to brief the committee tomorrow.” Of course, none of that answers the question of whether she’ll show up to testify. That’s not an accident.

Let’s pause here to draw a vital distinction. On one hand, there’s Bondi’s formal testimony, required by a House Oversight Committee subpoena, scheduled for April 14. That testimony would be given under oath. It would be visible to the American public, recorded verbatim by video and stenographer. And it would proceed according to a set of established rules allowing committee members to question the AG directly. Bondi doesn’t exactly shine in these settings, of course. Recall her disastrous testimony last month — the hackish personal insults, the bizarre non sequiturs about the Dow being over 50,000 (it’s not anymore), the overall tone of shouty defensiveness — which made her the subject of a series of derisive memes.

On the other hand, there’s the informal “briefing” Bondi offered (together with her human heat shield, Blanche) last week, the day after the subpoena’s issuance. Predictably, it became a pointless free-for-all. Bondi was not under oath, there were no specific procedural rules, and there was no video recording or transcription — leaving it to partisan lawmakers to offer their after-the-fact, often contradictory (and self-serving) recollections of what happened behind closed doors. Democrats objected, all heck broke loose, and everyone stormed out unsatisfied.

The Justice Department plainly hoped that, by sliding in for a quick, informal chat with the committee, they could obviate the need for Bondi’s formal testimony on April 14. A couple of Republicans on the committee seemed to be trying to help them cling to that position. Lauren Boebert, who had voted for the Bondi subpoena, announced after the chaotic debriefing that she was reconsidering her support for it because it “is absolutely shameful to have her come in there willingly to answer anything that we want to ask, and to be treated that way. It just shows what’s to come.” Republican representative Tim Burchett, who had also supported the Bondi subpoena, said after the briefing, “She was there, they had an opportunity, and they blew it.”

Committee Democrats weren’t having it. Ranking member Robert Garcia called out the ruse, saying, “We’re not going to participate in fake hearings and briefings like the one that they tried to set up yesterday to get out of sworn, under-oath testimony.”

Bondi’s own remarks on the question have been as noncommittal and slippery as the public statement by the DOJ. On her way out of the briefing, when asked by a reporter if she would still testify on April 14, the AG proclaimed she had “made it crystal clear I will follow the law” — which means absolutely nothing. Bondi may mean “Of course, I will testify in compliance with a lawful congressional subpoena.” Or (more likely) she could mean “I think the subpoena is unlawful, so I will defy it.”

If Bondi in fact refuses to testify on April 14, the next move will belong to the committee, which holds the power to recommend a formal contempt resolution. The Oversight Committee includes 25 Republicans and 21 Democrats, so the votes of all Democrats plus three Republicans would constitute a majority. Five Republicans voted for the Bondi subpoena, including Boebert and Burchett (who probably shouldn’t be counted as solid votes going forward). If the committee votes for contempt, the matter goes to the full House — 217 Republicans, 214 Democrats, and one Independent (plus three vacancies). Again, Democrats can hold a majority if they all vote in favor of contempt and peel away three other votes.

Here’s where it all comes full circle. If the House votes for contempt, then the matter gets sent for potential prosecution to … the United States Department of Justice, which is currently helmed by … Attorney General Pam Bondi. I’ll go out on a limb here and predict the odds of Bondi approving an indictment captioned “United States v. Pamela Jo Bondi” are slim.

We’ve seen recently that attorneys general, as a rule, aren’t exactly eager to indict themselves. We somehow managed to go 230-plus years as a nation without holding any attorney general in contempt. But lately, it has become a ritual. In 2012, the Republican-controlled House (with some Democratic support) held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to provide documents relating to the “Fast and Furious” firearms sting operation. In 2019, the Democratic-controlled House held AG Bill Barr in contempt when he declined to provide documents relating to the administration’s plan to add a citizenship question to the census. And in 2024, the Republican-controlled House held AG Merrick Garland in contempt for his refusal to release audio of an interview between special counsel Robert Hur and then-President Joe Biden. In all three cases, the AGs shocked precisely nobody by declining to charge themselves with criminal contempt.

Still, beyond the privileged world of attorneys general, contempt-of-Congress charges can have teeth. Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were held in contempt for defying subpoenas from the January 6th Committee. Both were indicted in 2022, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for four months each. More recently, the House Oversight Committee (with bipartisan support) approved a contempt resolution against Bill and Hillary Clinton after they defied subpoenas relating to the Epstein investigation; after the vote, the Clintons decided to testify rather than risk prosecution.

While Bondi surely has no fear of an indictment, it’s tough to square a formal finding of contempt — especially one that would require bipartisan support — with her constant self-congratulatory claims of unprecedented transparency. But that bit of overt hypocrisy may be a small price to pay for Bondi to avoid another round of humiliating testimony like she gave last month on Capitol Hill. Circle April 14 on your calendar, but only in pencil.

Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

© Daily Intelligencer