Bondi testimony sparks fresh outrage as lawmakers accuse DOJ leadership of damage control

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee has triggered a new round of political fallout, with lawmakers accusing the Justice Department’s leadership of running “damage control” rather than providing transparent answers about the handling of Epstein-related materials and the department’s internal processes.

The hearing — billed as Justice Department oversight — devolved into repeated clashes, according to contemporaneous coverage and post-hearing reporting, as lawmakers demanded specifics on decisions about disclosure, redactions and access protocols.

One of the most explosive developments came from allegations that the department tracked members of Congress as they reviewed unredacted Epstein-related files. Axios reported that senior House Democrats sent Bondi a letter demanding the Justice Department stop what they described as covert monitoring of lawmakers, saying the issue came to light after Bondi appeared during the hearing with notes that Democrats say reflected a member’s search activity. CBS News similarly reported Jayapal’s accusation that Bondi had a list of her search history.

Bondi’s handling of questions about the Epstein files has also drawn scrutiny from across the political spectrum, including conservative voices who argue the department has not been forthcoming. Axios reported far-right commentators renewed demands for answers after the hearing, reflecting how the controversy is now cutting through multiple political factions.

Democrats, meanwhile, have emphasized claims that survivors were harmed by disclosures, arguing the department’s approach has protected powerful figures while exposing victims. Coverage of the hearing noted repeated Democratic demands for clear explanations and accountability around the department’s decisions.

The Justice Department has not publicly provided a full accounting of how it has managed the Epstein-related review process for members of Congress, and the dispute has turned into a secondary oversight battle over who controls access and how.

Bondi’s supporters have framed the uproar as political theater, while critics have argued that the department’s posture — and what they characterize as evasiveness during testimony — is fueling distrust. PBS NewsHour’s recap highlighted moments of sustained questioning and conflict as lawmakers tried to pin down the department’s approach.

The fallout is likely to continue as lawmakers seek additional documentation, and as the department faces renewed calls to clarify standards for protecting survivors while responding to demands for transparency in one of the most politically combustible cases in recent years.