House Oversight panel subpoenas Pam Bondi over Epstein files

descriptions off, selected

captions settings, opens captions settings dialog

Subtitles (en), selected

This is a modal window.

Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

End of dialog window.

The Hill's Headlines — March 4, 2026

The Hill's Headlines — March 4, 2026

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday took the remarkable step of issuing a subpoena to Attorney General Pam Bondi, compelling her to appear to answer questions about the Epstein files.

The resolution to subpoena Bondi was introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and passed in a bipartisan 24-19 vote.

All Democrats present for the committee hearing voted in favor, with Mace and GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Michael Cloud (Texas) and Scott Perry (Pa.) joining their colleagues from across the aisle. 

The subpoena of Bondi would bring the highest-level sitting official before the House panel in its review of the files related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

“There’s over 65,000 documents missing, and we know there are more than 2,000 videos that are out there. They’re not giving Congress all the information or all the documents, and they’re obfuscating. And I’d like to ask questions about that in our deposition,” Mace told reporters shortly after the vote. “I have some very pointed questions for her, and I don’t want to talk about the Dow,” Mace said, referring to a prior congressional appearance from Bondi in which she praised the economy.  Mace introduced the resolution in committee to subpoena the attorney general earlier Wednesday, after she questioned Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) about social services fraud in his state. She wrote on the social platform X after introducing the resolution, “We want to know why the DOJ is more focused on shielding the powerful than delivering justice.” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) spoke up in support of Mace’s motion prior to the committee vote.  “Look, the American public has significant questions about the DOJ and the process for releasing of the files. … I think it’s important that [Bondi] is in front of our committee, she can directly answer questions about the release of the files, about transparency, about ensuring that victims and survivors are protected,” he said.

“There’s over 65,000 documents missing, and we know there are more than 2,000 videos that are out there. They’re not giving Congress all the information or all the documents, and they’re obfuscating. And I’d like to ask questions about that in our deposition,” Mace told reporters shortly after the vote.

“I have some very pointed questions for her, and I don’t want to talk about the Dow,” Mace said, referring to a prior congressional appearance from Bondi in which she praised the economy. 

Mace introduced the resolution in committee to subpoena the attorney general earlier Wednesday, after she questioned Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) about social services fraud in his state. She wrote on the social platform X after introducing the resolution, “We want to know why the DOJ is more focused on shielding the powerful than delivering justice.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) spoke up in support of Mace’s motion prior to the committee vote. 

“Look, the American public has significant questions about the DOJ and the process for releasing of the files. … I think it’s important that [Bondi] is in front of our committee, she can directly answer questions about the release of the files, about transparency, about ensuring that victims and survivors are protected,” he said.

Bondi has faced steady criticism over her handling of the files throughout her tenure as attorney general, cries that have only grown louder as the Justice Department has been accused of failing to release all the files and faces questions about how it has handled redactions.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to request for comment.

In recent weeks, DOJ has been accused of failing to fully publish all files related to President Trump, something the department initially denied before saying it would launch a review and restore any missing files. And lawmakers on both sides of the aisle also fumed over the apparent tracking of their review of the Epstein files after members were invited to a DOJ office to view the unredacted version of the documents. Bondi was spotted in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee with summaries of what lawmakers searched, prompting accusations of spying. The subpoena puts Bondi in an interesting position. She has already faced questions related to the files under oath in committee hearings, though she has yet to appear before House Oversight Committee. A closed door deposition would also mean hours of questions devoted to the topic. However, should Bondi for whatever reason push back on the appearance, any defiance and effort to hold her in contempt would land at the Justice Department. Other high level figures subpoenaed by the committee have appeared, including former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also said recently he would appear before the panel, with Mace saying she had otherwise planned to push to subpoena him.

In recent weeks, DOJ has been accused of failing to fully publish all files related to President Trump, something the department initially denied before saying it would launch a review and restore any missing files.

And lawmakers on both sides of the aisle also fumed over the apparent tracking of their review of the Epstein files after members were invited to a DOJ office to view the unredacted version of the documents. Bondi was spotted in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee with summaries of what lawmakers searched, prompting accusations of spying.

The subpoena puts Bondi in an interesting position. She has already faced questions related to the files under oath in committee hearings, though she has yet to appear before House Oversight Committee. A closed door deposition would also mean hours of questions devoted to the topic.

However, should Bondi for whatever reason push back on the appearance, any defiance and effort to hold her in contempt would land at the Justice Department.

Other high level figures subpoenaed by the committee have appeared, including former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also said recently he would appear before the panel, with Mace saying she had otherwise planned to push to subpoena him.

In the same meeting, the panel blocked a Democratic-led effort to subpoena Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Updated at 4:27 p.m. Emily Brooks contributed.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Noem defends living on base in Coast Guard housing 

Ted Cruz, Tim Scott asking Treasury to approve $200B tax cut without ...

Canadian PM Carney says US and Israel’s strikes on Iran mark ‘failure of ...

Noem’s spending review has held up more than 1,000 FEMA contracts, grants and ...

House Oversight panel subpoenas Pam Bondi over Epstein files

RFK Jr. puts Dunkin’ on notice; Massachusetts governor says ‘come and take ...

Live updates: Leavitt gives testy briefing amid Iran strikes; Trump to endorse ...

Leavitt, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins spar over coverage of US deaths in Iran

Kelly: Iran operation 'not going well' for Trump administration

House tees up final vote on Department of Homeland Security funding bill

Hegseth, Caine preview major gravity-bombing campaign on Iran

Trump asks Texas Senate candidate he does not endorse to drop out of race

Crockett concedes to Talarico, says Texas ‘primed to turn blue’

Live results: Crockett, Talarico seek Democratic nod in Texas Senate race

Watch live: Walz, Ellison testify before House on Minnesota fraud

Talarico triumphs, Cornyn-Paxton face off: 5 questions after Texas Senate ...

Johnson: ‘Everybody in America better watch’ how lawmakers vote on DHS ...

The new SNAP food restrictions aren’t just confusing — they’re illegal

© The Hill