Bondi Tries to Dodge Epstein Files Testimony After Getting Fired -- Mace Says Not So Fast

The Dodge

Pam Bondi thought she found her escape hatch. After getting fired as attorney general, she's now claiming she doesn't have to testify about the Department of Justice's stonewalling on the Epstein Files Transparency Act because she no longer holds the office.

The DOJ backed her play in a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, arguing that because Bondi "no longer can testify in her official capacity as Attorney General," the subpoena compelling her April 14 deposition is void.

It's a convenient argument. Too convenient.

The Problem With That Theory

Rep. Nancy Mace, who filed the motion to subpoena Bondi on March 14, isn't having it. Her office made clear what should have been obvious from the start: the subpoena was issued for Pam Bondi by name, not for whoever happens to occupy the attorney general's chair.

"Pam Bondi cannot escape accountability simply because she no longer holds the office of Attorney General," a spokesperson for Mace's office said. "She will still have to appear before the Oversight Committee for a sworn deposition."

The motion to subpoena Bondi passed the Oversight Committee with bipartisan support -- 26 Republicans and 21 Democrats voting together to demand answers about why the DOJ dragged its feet on releasing Epstein files and why no new prosecutions have emerged from one of the most high-profile sex trafficking cases in American history.

What Bondi Needs to Answer For

The Epstein Files Transparency Act became law with the explicit purpose of forcing transparency around Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and the powerful people who enabled him. During Bondi's tenure as attorney general, questions mounted about whether the DOJ was actually complying with that law or slow-walking it into oblivion.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who co-signed Mace's letter to Comer this week, pointed out the obvious: "Even though she was fired, she needs to show up and answer for why the remaining files haven't been released and why there haven't been new prosecutions. She should be able to speak even more freely now. The survivors and the public need answers."

That last part cuts to the heart of it. If Bondi has nothing to hide, if the DOJ under her watch did everything by the book, then testifying should be straightforward. The fact that she's looking for procedural exits suggests otherwise.

The Precedent Exists

This isn't uncharted territory. As Mace and Khanna noted in their letter, the Oversight Committee subpoenaed six former attorneys general from multiple administrations and both parties in 2025. Those officials testified. The idea that leaving office grants immunity from congressional oversight would gut the committee's investigative power and create a roadmap for every future official looking to dodge accountability.

Blanche's Spin

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to smooth this over on Fox News Friday, claiming Trump's decision to replace Bondi had nothing to do with the Epstein case. He insisted the DOJ has made documents available to members of Congress and that the Epstein files "should not be a part of anything going forward."

That framing is telling. The DOJ wants to move on. Survivors of Epstein's trafficking network and the public don't have that luxury. Neither does accountability.

What Happens Next

Mace's office says they expect Bondi to appear "as soon as a new date is set." Whether Bondi actually shows up or tries to lawyer her way out of it will be a test of whether congressional subpoenas still mean anything.

If former officials can simply resign and claim they're no longer obligated to testify about what happened on their watch, oversight becomes a joke. Bondi promised she would comply with the subpoena. April 14 was supposed to be her chance to prove it.

Now we'll see if that promise meant anything at all.