Bondi Dodges Epstein Testimony After Trump Fires Her -- House Threatens Contempt Charges

Pam Bondi thought getting fired would get her out of testifying about Jeffrey Epstein. She was wrong.

The former Attorney General, whom President Trump removed from office last week amid bipartisan fury over her handling of the Epstein files, is now claiming she doesn't have to honor her April 14 subpoena before the House Oversight Committee. The Department of Justice backed her play in a letter to the committee, arguing that because Bondi was subpoenaed "in her official capacity as Attorney General" and no longer holds that office, she's off the hook.

That argument isn't sitting well with members of Congress who actually want answers about what happened to the Epstein investigation under Bondi's watch.

"Pam Bondi cannot escape accountability simply because she no longer holds the office of Attorney General," Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., fired back in a statement. Mace, who forced the committee vote to subpoena Bondi in the first place, pointed out that the subpoena requested Bondi's testimony "by name, not by title."

The subpoena itself, obtained by MS NOW, is addressed to "Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General of the United States" -- which the DOJ is seizing on as proof it only applies to her official role. But Mace and others argue that's a distinction without a difference when the committee wants to question Bondi about decisions she personally made while in office.

Democrats on the committee are going further. Ranking member Robert Garcia, D-Calif., isn't just insisting Bondi show up -- he's threatening to pursue contempt of Congress charges if she doesn't. "Our bipartisan subpoena is to Pam Bondi, whether she is the Attorney General or not," Garcia wrote. "She must come in to testify immediately, and if she defies the subpoena, we will begin contempt charges in the Congress."

This isn't a partisan witch hunt. The committee vote to subpoena Bondi in early March was bipartisan, with five Republicans joining Democrats to force her testimony. Those Republicans -- Mace, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, and Michael Cloud of Texas -- clearly weren't satisfied with Bondi's explanations about how the Justice Department handled the Epstein files.

On Wednesday, Mace and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., doubled down with a letter to committee chairman James Comer, R-Ky., asking him to "publicly reaffirm" that Bondi must appear on April 14 or face "appropriate enforcement" if she doesn't comply.

The DOJ's position, laid out in a letter from Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis, is that the subpoena "no longer obligates her to appear on April 14" and politely asks the committee to confirm the subpoena is withdrawn. The department did not respond to requests for comment about what happens if the committee refuses to withdraw it.

Committee spokeswoman Jessica Collins confirmed the DOJ's stance but made clear the committee isn't backing down. "The Committee will contact Pam Bondi's personal counsel to discuss next steps regarding scheduling her deposition," she said.

Translation: Bondi can run, but she can't hide. The question is whether she'll show up voluntarily or force Congress to hold her in contempt.

This showdown matters because the House Oversight Committee is investigating what happened to the Jeffrey Epstein files -- specifically, why so much information about his trafficking network and powerful enablers remains hidden from the public. Bondi oversaw the Justice Department during a critical period when decisions were made about what to release and what to keep sealed.

Trump fired Bondi last week after bipartisan criticism of her department's handling of those files. Now she's trying to use that firing as a get-out-of-testimony-free card. But members of Congress from both parties are making clear that accountability doesn't end when you lose your job title.

If Bondi doesn't appear for her deposition, she could become the latest Trump administration official to face contempt of Congress charges. And unlike executive privilege claims that can drag through the courts for years, there's no obvious legal shield for a private citizen refusing to answer questions about decisions they made in public office.

The American people deserve to know what Bondi knew about the Epstein files, what she did with that information, and why so much remains hidden. Getting fired doesn't erase those questions -- it just makes them more urgent.