Federal Judge Rebukes Attorney General Pam Bondi, Escalating Clash Over Epstein Files and Congressional Oversight

Washington — Lawmakers from both parties pressed the Justice Department this week over its handling of long-sought Jeffrey Epstein files, as a sweeping federal court ruling sharply criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi’s leadership and intensified calls for accountability on Capitol Hill.

The twin developments — a contentious series of hearings over the Epstein records and a blistering opinion by a federal judge ordering the Justice Department to release subpoenaed documents — have converged into a defining moment for Ms. Bondi, whose tenure as attorney general is now under mounting scrutiny.

At issue are two overlapping controversies: whether the department has been fully transparent in releasing investigative materials tied to Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal custody in 2019; and whether Ms. Bondi’s Justice Department improperly withheld documents from Congress by invoking executive privilege and other legal protections.

The political temperature rose dramatically after Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a detailed ruling rejecting the department’s claims that certain subpoenaed materials were protected from disclosure. In unusually pointed language, Judge Jackson wrote that the department’s conduct had “destroyed the presumption of government honesty” typically afforded to federal agencies.

The opinion followed an in-camera review — a private judicial examination — of the contested documents. After comparing the records with the department’s legal assertions, Judge Jackson concluded that many of the privilege claims were unsupported and that some materials characterized as sensitive internal deliberations were, in fact, routine communications that should have been turned over months ago.

The judge ordered the immediate release of the documents, with no further delay.

While the case before Judge Jackson did not center directly on the Epstein investigation, it has become intertwined with broader accusations that the Justice Department has been slow-walking or selectively disclosing records related to Epstein’s associates and past investigations. Lawmakers have seized on the ruling as evidence that the department’s transparency problems may be systemic.

“The court has made clear that these privilege claims were not legitimate,” said one senior Democratic lawmaker who has been involved in oversight of the department. “If the Department of Justice cannot be trusted to accurately represent facts to federal judges, that is a crisis of confidence.”

Republicans have offered a more divided response. Some have defended Ms. Bondi, arguing that disputes over executive privilege are common in clashes between Congress and the executive branch. Others have privately expressed concern that the court’s language could undermine the department’s standing in future litigation.

The controversy comes as lawmakers continue to demand clarity about the scope and completeness of the Epstein file releases. Earlier this year, the administration announced that it had released more than three million pages of documents connected to Epstein. President Trump characterized the move as evidence of unprecedented transparency, saying he had signed legislation mandating the disclosure.

Yet members of Congress from both parties have questioned whether the production is complete and whether victims’ privacy was adequately protected. Some lawmakers have complained that personal information about victims appeared in released materials while the names of certain associates were redacted.

The scrutiny intensified after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testified before a Senate committee regarding his past contacts with Epstein. Records show that Mr. Lutnick met with Epstein at least twice after Epstein’s 2008 conviction on prostitution-related charges. Mr. Lutnick acknowledged having lunch with Epstein on his private island for about an hour but sought to minimize the significance of the interactions.

“I had lunch on the island,” Mr. Lutnick said during the hearing. “It lasted about an hour.” He added that he did not maintain a close relationship with Epstein and was unaware of any ongoing criminal conduct.

The testimony came a day after renewed attention to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate, who was convicted in 2021 on federal sex trafficking charges. Maxwell has continued to challenge aspects of her prosecution, and references to her communications have surfaced in ongoing document reviews.

In heated exchanges on Capitol Hill, lawmakers clashed with Ms. Bondi over the department’s handling of both the Epstein materials and unrelated investigations. At one House hearing, members interrupted one another as they argued about past impeachment proceedings, the scope of executive authority and the Justice Department’s obligations to Congress.

Ms. Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, has defended her record vigorously. In testimony, she accused critics of political theater and pointed to the volume of documents already released.

“This administration released over three million pages of documents,” she said. “None of you asked Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein.”

Her remarks drew sharp rebuttals from some Democrats, who argued that the scale of document production does not address concerns about selective disclosure or misleading representations to courts.

Judge Jackson’s ruling may have implications beyond the immediate document dispute. Legal experts note that when a court concludes an agency has undermined the presumption of honesty, it can influence how other judges assess that agency’s future claims.

“Federal courts generally operate on the assumption that government lawyers are acting in good faith,” said Peter Shane, a legal scholar specializing in executive branch authority. “When a judge explicitly says that presumption has been eroded, that is significant. It means future assertions may face heightened skepticism.”

The opinion also provides potential ammunition for congressional investigators. Some Democratic lawmakers have suggested that the findings could support an inquiry into whether Ms. Bondi’s conduct warrants censure or impeachment. Such a move would face steep political obstacles, particularly in a divided Congress, but the rhetoric has grown sharper in recent days.

For the White House, the episode presents a delicate political calculus. Ms. Bondi has been regarded as a loyal ally of President Trump, particularly during periods of legal and political turbulence. Yet sustained judicial criticism could complicate the administration’s broader legal strategy, especially as it heads toward a contentious midterm election cycle.

The Justice Department has indicated it is reviewing Judge Jackson’s decision and considering next steps, which could include an appeal. A department spokesperson said in a statement that it “strongly disagrees with the characterization of its privilege determinations” and remains committed to protecting sensitive executive branch communications.

The larger battle over the Epstein files is unlikely to subside soon. Survivors’ advocates have continued to press for transparency, while civil libertarians warn that blanket disclosures can risk exposing private information of victims and third parties not charged with wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, the interplay between judicial oversight and congressional authority has revived long-standing constitutional tensions. Disputes over executive privilege have marked administrations of both parties, often culminating in negotiated settlements rather than definitive court rulings. Judge Jackson’s decision stands out, however, for the breadth of its critique.

As hearings continue and additional documents are released, Ms. Bondi’s leadership will remain under close watch. The convergence of courtroom rebuke and congressional scrutiny has placed the attorney general in a precarious position — one in which legal credibility, political loyalty and institutional trust are all at stake.

Whether the episode proves to be a temporary setback or a turning point for the Justice Department may depend on how quickly the administration can restore confidence — not only among lawmakers, but also in the federal courts where its arguments must ultimately prevail.