Contentious oversight hearing
Bondi was testifying during a scheduled oversight session focused on Justice Department operations. Tensions escalated after the attorney general’s brief exchange with Jayapal, who asked survivors of Epstein’s abuse in the audience to stand if they had been unable to meet with DOJ officials. Several women rose and raised their hands. Jayapal then pressed Bondi to apologize for what she described as the department’s failure to fully redact names in recently released files.
Bondi declined, responding, “I’m not gonna get in the gutter for her theatrics.” The heated moment underscored broader frustrations among lawmakers over the pace and transparency of the department’s ongoing review of the Epstein investigation.
Allegations of surveillance
Jayapal later told cable outlet MS Now that she believes the department may have opened the database to members two days before the hearing specifically to track what documents lawmakers examined. “Is this the whole reason they opened [the files] up to us two days early? So they could essentially surveil members to see what we were gonna ask her about?” she said in the interview.
The Justice Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment on whether search logs are routinely collected or why Bondi would have possessed such information at the hearing. A spokesperson also declined to confirm whether other members’ search histories were compiled.
Reaction from House leadership
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, addressed the issue briefly when asked by reporters. “I’m not going to comment on an allegation that is unsubstantiated. I don’t know anything about it,” he said. Johnson added that possession of a lawmaker’s private search data “would be inappropriate if it happened.”
The speaker’s office offered no additional statement as of Wednesday night, and no Republican committee members raised the matter publicly during the hearing.
Access to Epstein files
Under arrangements negotiated earlier this month, members of the Judiciary Committee were granted limited, on-site access to a secure Justice Department database containing thousands of pages of Epstein-related material. The bulk of the records remain sealed from the public and include emails, investigative memoranda and correspondence with victims. Lawmakers are required to review the documents inside a controlled room, may not photograph or remove originals, and must log out before departing.
Whether that process includes automatic retention of user activity is unclear. Federal agencies often record audit trails for classified or sensitive systems as a standard security practice. However, House aides said members were not informed that individual queries would be shared with department leadership.
Civil-liberties advocates argue that supplying such data to a political appointee who will testify before Congress could chill legislative oversight. “If the executive branch monitors what legislators are reading in order to anticipate or undermine questioning, that poses a serious separation-of-powers concern,” said a scholar at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice in a separate interview published by The New York Times.
Broader scrutiny of DOJ handling
The Justice Department has faced sustained examination of its handling of victim information within the Epstein case. In January, a tranche of documents was released with partial redactions, yet several survivors later reported that identifying details remained visible. Jayapal highlighted that lapse during Wednesday’s proceeding, contending that inadequate redaction had exposed victims to renewed attention.
Bondi, in her prepared remarks, defended the department’s approach, stating that staff had “worked diligently to balance transparency with privacy concerns.” She acknowledged that some data “should have been withheld” and said internal processes were being refined.
Committee members from both parties have requested a full accounting of the redaction review, the criteria used to determine public disclosure and any disciplinary steps taken after the error was discovered.
Next steps
Jayapal signaled she will pursue formal avenues to determine whether her database activity was collected and why it appeared in Bondi’s binder. Options include a letter of inquiry to the department’s inspector general, a subpoena for internal correspondence or a bipartisan request for a classified briefing.
Legal experts note that if the Justice Department intentionally monitored congressional searches for strategic advantage, it could prompt ethics complaints or litigation. The Supreme Court has historically guarded legislative independence, most prominently through the Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers from executive interference in their official duties.
For now, the episode adds to the friction between committee Democrats and the department over the release and handling of the Epstein archive. Republican members have largely focused on procedural questions about the investigation’s original plea negotiations and subsequent federal case, while Democrats have emphasized victim outreach and privacy safeguards.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to hold follow-up hearings once an internal DOJ audit of the Epstein file release is completed. Bondi, appointed attorney general in 2025, has committed to providing an interim report but has not specified a timetable.
Crédito da imagem: Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images
