By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Pam Bondi will face questions from lawmakers Wednesday over the Justice Department’s handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein that have exposed sensitive private information about victims despite redaction efforts.
Bondi is confronting a new wave of criticism stemming from the political saga that has dogged her term after the release of millions of additional Epstein disclosures that victims have slammed as sloppy and incomplete.
It will be the first time the attorney general appears before Congress since a tumultuous hearing in October in which she repeatedly deflected questions and countered Democrats’ criticism of her actions with her own political attacks.
Beyond the Epstein case, Bondi’s appearance also follows a day after a federal grand jury declined to indict elected Democrats investigated by the Justice Department after they produced a video urging military service members not to follow illegal orders.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are expected to grill Bondi on how the Justice Department decided what should and should not be made public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed by Congress after the department abruptly announced in July that no more files would be released even though it had raised the hopes of conservative influencers and conspiracy theorists.
Bondi has continuously struggled to move past the backlash over her handling of the Epstein files since distributing binders to a group of social media influencers at the White House last February. The binders included no new revelations about Epstein, leading to even more calls from President Donald Trump’s base for the files to be released.
The hearing comes days after some lawmakers visited a Justice Department office to look through unredacted versions of the files. As part of an arrangement with the Justice Department, lawmakers were given access to the over 3 million released files in a reading room with four computers and were allowed to take handwritten notes.
Democrats have accused the Justice Department of redacting information that should have been made public, including information that could lead to scrutiny of Epstein’s associates. Meanwhile, victims have slammed the department for inconsistent or nonexistent redactions that allowed for the inadvertent release of nude photos and other private information about victims.
The department has defended the latest rollout of more than 3 million pages of documents along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. The Associated Press and other media organizations are still reviewing millions of pages of documents, many of them previously confidential.
An AP review of records shows that while investigators collected ample proof that Epstein sexually abused underage girls, they found scant evidence the well-connected financier led a sex trafficking ring serving powerful men. Videos and photos seized from Epstein’s homes in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands didn’t depict victims being abused or implicate anyone else in his crimes, a prosecutor wrote in one 2025 memo.
The case involving lawmakers’ video to military service members could provide additional fodder for Democrats to hammer Bondi and question how the Justice Department is using its investigative authority.
The video, featuring Democrats who are veterans or have experience in the intelligence community, angered the administration, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in particular.
The Justice Department opened an investigation into the video in which Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with four other Democrats, urged U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.
A grand jury in Washington on Tuesday declined to issue any indictments. It wasn’t immediately clear whether prosecutors had sought indictments against all six lawmakers or what charge or charges prosecutors attempted to bring. But it marked the latest instance of a grand jury rebuffing the Justice Department in cases involving critics of the Trump administration.