Pam Bondi is facing the threat of bipartisan contempt from members of Congress after the Justice Department told the House Oversight Committee she will not appear for a scheduled April 14 deposition tied to the Epstein files.
Members of Congress told reporters and staff they could hold former Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt if she refuses to testify about her handling of materials tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The deposition had been scheduled as a sworn, closed-door meeting as part of the committee’s inquiry into how the Justice Department complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The Justice Department notified the Oversight Committee that Bondi will not appear on April 14, arguing the subpoena no longer applies because she was called to testify in her official capacity as attorney general. That explanation follows Bondi’s removal from the office, a change lawmakers say does not erase her obligation to answer questions about actions taken while she served.
Lawmakers on both sides pushed back, saying the subpoena named Bondi personally and therefore still binds her. The panel had already moved to compel testimony after a vote in which five Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats in advancing the motion. That bipartisan vote set the stage for the current standoff between the committee and the Justice Department over whether the subpoena remains enforceable.
The committee’s action to compel Bondi’s testimony was framed as part of its review of the department’s transparency around the release of documents related to Epstein. Committee members said the subpoena was intended to get sworn answers about how materials were handled, why certain items were released or withheld, and whether the law’s requirements were satisfied during the prior administration.
Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia has been one of the more vocal figures warning that contempt is on the table if Bondi stays away. He accused her of attempting to dodge a legal obligation that, in his view, does not vanish with a change in job status and said the committee may pursue enforcement tools to secure her testimony.
“Pam Bondi cannot escape accountability simply because she no longer holds the office of Attorney General,” Mace, R-S.C., said in a statement on Wednesday. “Our motion to subpoena Pam Bondi, which was passed by the Oversight Committee, was for Bondi by name, not by title. She will still have to appear before the Oversight Committee for a sworn deposition. The American people deserve answers, and we expect her to appear as soon as a new date is set.”
The subpoena process was driven in part by Rep. Nancy Mace, one of the Republicans who joined Democrats to force the vote to compel documents and testimony. Mace has also accused the Justice Department of moving material after initial publication, alleging that some documents made public earlier in the year were later removed or altered in ways that warrant further scrutiny.
Oversight members have criticized the Justice Department for missed deadlines during the document releases, for redactions they deem excessive, and for an apparent failure to protect victims’ identities consistently. Those complaints have animated the committee’s demand for sworn testimony that could clarify why the department handled the releases the way it did and whether any statutory obligations were overlooked.
Committee staffers say the contempt route is a formal option if negotiations and scheduling efforts fail to produce a new date for Bondi’s deposition. That process can include issuing a contempt citation, referring the matter to the full House, and potentially seeking enforcement through the courts if the committee decides to press the matter further.
Republican and Democratic members alike framed their push for testimony as a matter of accountability and transparency rather than partisan score-keeping. They pointed to ongoing public interest in the Epstein records and to the need for clear answers about document handling and the chain of custody for evidence and related materials.
At the moment, the committee is left to weigh its next steps while the Justice Department defends its position that the subpoena no longer applies. Lawmakers have signaled they will continue to press for sworn testimony and for clarity about the department’s release decisions until they either secure Bondi’s appearance or take formal enforcement action.
