During testimony, Bondi labeled Massie as suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome,” echoing a phrase often employed by former President Donald Trump against his critics. Democrats also pressed Bondi on the department’s engagement with victims. Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked a group of survivors seated behind the witness table to raise their hands if they had been unable to meet with DOJ officials. All of the survivors present raised their hands. Bondi did not turn to acknowledge them, later dismissing the moment as “theatrics.” Massie later called her refusal to face the group “cold” and said he believed Bondi was “afraid” to do so.
Dispute Over a 20-Name Photo Lineup
Criticism intensified when Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna were permitted to examine less-redacted versions of certain documents in a secure DOJ facility. The two legislators highlighted an undated record portraying 20 headshots with corresponding names. In the public version, only Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell were identifiable; the remaining 18 images were blanked out. Massie contended that many of the redactions were unwarranted and, within 40 minutes of his complaint, the department restored 16 additional names.
Khanna later read four of those names on the House floor. The next day, multiple outlets reported that the DOJ said the individuals had merely served as “photo lineup” subjects for investigative purposes and had “no apparent connection” to Epstein’s crimes. In a social-media post, Khanna argued that earlier transparency would have prevented confusion and protected both survivors and uninvolved parties.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche subsequently stated on X that Massie and Khanna had “forced the unmasking of completely random people” selected by the FBI for the lineup. Massie countered that he had publicly suggested the photos might belong to a lineup hours before the department lifted the redactions, asserting that the DOJ omitted that context when it re-released the file.
Six-Page Report Offers Partial Explanation
On Feb. 14, Bondi and Blanche sent a six-page memorandum to House and Senate Judiciary leaders detailing criteria used to decide what to withhold. The report said names appear “in a wide variety of contexts,” ranging from direct email contact with Epstein to brief mentions in media accounts unrelated to criminal activity. The document included a roster of “government officials and politically exposed persons,” among them President Trump, former presidents, musicians, legislators and members of the British royal family.
The summary, however, did not clarify why some names were redacted in one document yet visible in hundreds of others. Massie said the explanation fell short, noting that certain records were removed from the public repository before lawmakers could inspect unredacted versions. “Their work is not done here yet,” he said.
Broader Fallout From the File Release
The rollback of redactions has generated ripples outside Capitol Hill. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, chief executive of global logistics firm DP World, resigned “effective immediately” after communications with Epstein surfaced in the newly disclosed trove. A spokesperson for the company declined further comment. Meanwhile, a representative for retail magnate Leslie Wexner said the billionaire was assured in 2019 that he was “neither a co-conspirator nor target” and had fully cooperated with federal prosecutors.
Imagem: Internet
In the United States, neither Sulayem nor Wexner faces criminal accusations stemming from the files. Nonetheless, the revelations have intensified demands for transparency and forced several prominent figures to address past associations with Epstein.
Comparisons With Previous Attorneys General
Massie, who frequently votes in alignment with Trump’s legislative agenda, contrasted Bondi’s appearance with that of former Attorney General Merrick Garland, who testified before the same committee during the Biden administration. Garland, Massie said, “performed better in terms of optics,” though he offered no assessment of Garland’s policy decisions.
Bondi took office in 2025 after serving as Florida’s attorney general and as a member of Trump’s impeachment defense team during his first term. Her confirmation hearings featured questions about potential conflicts arising from her past political ties to the former president.
Next Steps for Congressional Oversight
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has not announced additional hearings but indicated that further document requests are under consideration. Several lawmakers have proposed legislation that would establish uniform standards for redactions in future high-profile disclosures. Advocates for victims want the department to create an independent panel charged with vetting material for privacy concerns before any public release.
The DOJ maintains that it balanced transparency with privacy and investigative integrity when deciding what to shield. A DOJ spokesperson said the agency is “committed to ongoing dialogue with Congress” and that officials will review any formal requests for supplemental disclosures. Detailed guidance on the department’s policy governing public records is available on the DOJ website, which outlines statutory exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (justice.gov).
For now, Massie remains unconvinced. “I don’t have confidence in her,” he reiterated Sunday, referring to Bondi. “There’s no accountability at the DOJ.” Whether the committee pursues contempt proceedings or new subpoenas will depend on the department’s next moves and the extent to which lawmakers agree that unanswered questions remain.
Crédito da imagem: Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
