Congress

Pam Bondi is set for another Hill grilling — but not the one some lawmakers hoped for

Published

1 month ago

May 29, 2026

Pam Bondi is set to speak with lawmakers on Capitol Hill Friday morning about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files — but not under the terms lawmakers had originally planned for her appearance.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March voted to subpoena Bondi, then the attorney general, as part of the panel’s Epstein investigation — a stunning rebuke of a Trump administration official by members of the president’s own party.

A subpoena would have required Bondi to sit for a formal deposition, meaning she would have to answer questions under oath and the entire event would be videorecorded. But about a month later, President Donald Trump fired Bondi as the head of the Department of Justice. And since that time, Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) made clear her deposition would be downgraded to a transcribed interview, which won’t require that the proceedings be recorded — nor will she have to be sworn in before speaking.

The reversal has frustrated Oversight Committee members who want more information about how DOJ has approached the federal government’s Epstein case, which has captivated Americans and spurred a wave of public fury and conspiracy theories. Members also want to know what steps the department has taken to hold accountable those who might have been complicit in Epstein’s decadeslong sex trafficking scheme, and they see Bondi as key to getting answers.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who brought up the motion to subpoena Bondi in committee, said earlier this month it was “highly disappointing” that Bondi would no longer be appearing for an official deposition.

“She deserves the same treatment as the Clintons and as everybody else,” said Mace. She was referring to Bill and Hillary Clinton, who nearly faced contempt charges for failing to appear for their scheduled depositions with the Oversight panel after months of negotiations over the terms and conditions. They eventually agreed to appear under oath for videotaped interviews.

“I’ll be there, though, with bells on,” Mace added of Bondi’s Friday transcribed interview, “and I’ll be asking her the tough questions.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), another member of the Oversight panel, said in an interview that “the lack of videotape … contributes to the feeling that Americans have that there’s been a cover-up here.”

Of Bondi, he said, “I think she recognizes that she doesn’t have good answers to the questions that we’re going to ask, and a videotape makes it more real and brings more attention to it.” He also speculated that releasing a videorecording would have allowed “the American people [to] see her struggling to answer questions.”

Also clamoring for Bondi’s testimony to be under oath and made public are many of Epstein’s victims, who also intend to be on Capitol Hill Friday morning, with plans to gather outside the room where Bondi will be meeting with committee members.

Comer defended his decision to loosen the testimony’s format last week, telling reporters it was necessary to help encourage witnesses to cooperate with the committee’s ongoing probe.

“Look, she’s coming in. If she says anything that’s not true, that’s a felony. She’ll be prosecuted,” said Comer, who also pointed to the prolonged, dramatic saga that forced both the Clintons to ultimately testify.

“We’ve got to have some incentive to get people in and not do like the Clintons did and delay it for several months,” Comer continued.

The anger at Bondi over her handling of the Epstein matter, in part, grew from a Fox News appearance last year, in which she said she had Epstein’s client list on her desk for review — only for the DOJ and FBI to put out a memo in July saying there was no client list and there were no plans to release further information.

The whiplash quickly drew the ire of Republicans and Democrats alike. Bondi’s then-deputy, Todd Blanche, took over handling some of the ensuing chaos, including interviewing Epstein’s only convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. He also was the administration official to announce in a press conference that the DOJ had completed its obligations under the law Congress passed last November to force the full release of Epstein-related materials and documents in the federal government’s possession.

Trump has since ousted Bondi, and Blanche has assumed the role of acting attorney general. And though Bondi is now a private citizen, the Oversight Committee still asked that she honor the demand that she speak to lawmakers following the subpoena vote.

The DOJ is also continuing to represent Bondi in her dealings with the Oversight panel regarding the Epstein matter. According to a DOJ spokesperson, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, along with others, will attend the Friday transcribed interview with Bondi to answer questions around the so-called Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Because former Attorney General Bondi oversaw the Department at the time the Act was enacted and carried out, DOJ’s presence is solely to ensure accurate representation of Department processes, facilitate any necessary clarifications, and support a complete factual record for the Committee,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

In a letter to Comer released Thursday by Oversight Democrats, DOJ clarified Dhillon and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Guynn would appear “as agency counsel, not as [Bondi’s] personal counsel.”

The letter also specified that “the agreed scope of the interview will be the Department of Justice’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and related matters involving the so-called Epstein files during the time Ms. Bondi was the Attorney General at the Department.”

Bondi’s interview Friday is taking place near the end of a weeklong congressional recess, making it unclear which members of the committee will return to Washington early to question her. In addition to Mace, who said she would be attending, Comer also will be there, according to his spokesperson.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the panel, intends to be on hand, as does Walkinshaw, according to a person granted anonymity to share Democrats’ plans — alongside Reps. Ro Khanna and Dave Min of California as well as Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, Maxwell Frost of Florida and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania.

Democrats say they want to know more about the inconsistent, and some have argued sloppy, redactions in the Epstein files released by DOJ, which in some cases were excessive and in others inadvertently revealed private information about Epstein’s victims.

They also are likely to press Bondi on what she knows about Trump’s own relationship with Epstein. The DOJ has been accused of using the redaction process to cover up portions of the Epstein files linking the two men, though Trump has maintained that he broke off his relationship with Epstein before revelations of misconduct. The president has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crimes in relation to the late, disgraced financier.

Frost said he wanted to ask Bondi what specific directives she may have received from Trump or others when it came to her handling of the Epstein case. Walkinshaw said he would inquire about conversations between Bondi and Trump, or between the ex-attorney general and the White House, with regards to redactions in the files.

“I spoke with some of the survivors in Florida,” said Subramanyam in an interview. “They were curious why [Bondi has] been hiding so much and what she has to hide herself. Why wouldn’t she be more forthcoming about the files? … Who got to her? What do they have on her? Those are the kinds of questions that the survivors are curious about.”

“So am I, and so are the American people,” he added.

It’s not clear whether Bondi will answer their questions. She could invoke a privilege claim in declining to discuss private DOJ deliberations, or she could argue any query is out of her purview given her recent ousting from the attorney general job. Alternatively, she could filibuster and punt the question back to the Democrats, as she has done during previous House or Senate hearings.

House Democrats walked out of a closed-door briefing Bondi held with the Oversight Committee in March, claiming that she would not commit to testifying before them as part of their Epstein investigation under the terms of the subpoena that had already been issued. Bondi insisted she would “follow the law.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), one of the Republicans who voted to subpoena Bondi, said in an interview her appearance was simply “water under the bridge at this point, unfortunately,” adding he would at this point rather hear from Blanche.

“She’s out of office, it doesn’t matter,” Buchett said. “It’s just everybody’s over here playing politics, that’s all.”

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

4 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

6 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Trump officials face bipartisan questions in first all-member Iran briefings

Published

7 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers of both parties questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff Monday in the first broad congressional briefings on President Donald Trump’s Iran deal.

While Democrats asked some of the sharpest questions, participants in an afternoon conference call with House members said, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at one point pressed the administration officials on the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

According to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks, Witkoff and Rubio repeated assurances the administration has privately made to select lawmakers in prior briefings — that the goal is to negotiate a final deal that would prohibit Iran from keeping its highly enriched uranium.

The memorandum of understanding Trump signed earlier this month, they said, was meant to launch those negotiations. Witkoff, the people said, added that the technical team involved in that part of the talks was traveling from Switzerland to Qatar, where talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to happen Tuesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed the administration for more details on what financial benefits Iran could reap under the memorandum — including proceeds from previously sanctioned oil sales.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) went back and forth with Rubio and Witkoff over the lifting of the oil sanctions, two other people granted anonymity on the House call said. The officials eventually cut off the conversation and ended the call.

At another point, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) raised concerns about Witkoff’s business interests in the Middle East as he’s negotiating with Iran, prompting a sharp defense from Rubio, those people said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Rubio and Witkoff about the oil sanctions during a separate all-senators call Monday, saying in a statement afterward that they “confirmed to me that Iran will reap billions in oil revenue while retaining dangerous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.”

“If this is the administration’s defense behind closed doors, Secretary Rubio should make it under oath, in public, before the Foreign Relations Committee,” Schumer added, calling the briefing “delayed, deficient, and devoid of details.”

An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly countered on Schumer’s characterization, noting that he had previously gotten a briefing of the deal as part of a group of top leaders engaged on national security matters. Schumer, the official said, had the opportunity to ask multiple follow-up questions on the Senate call.

A separate group of White House officials briefed top congressional leaders and key committee chairs in a classified briefing in the Capitol later Monday.

The administration has faced bipartisan skepticism over multiple provisions of the memorandum of understanding — particularly the lifting of oil sanctions and a $300 billion reconstruction fund that many Senate Republicans fear will help fuel Iran’s military and regional proxies.

Rubio and Witkoff sought to ease concerns about the slow reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical trade route whose closure has sparked higher fuel and fertilizer costs. Both officials said more mine removal is required, and Witkoff indicated that Iran broke the terms of the Trump-signed deal by launching a drone attack on a passing ship over the weekend.

They also sought to assure lawmakers that Iran has received no money under the memorandum — especially not directly from American sources. Administration officials have previously pledged in smaller briefings that the reconstruction fund won’t include U.S. funds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) called the Senate briefing a “productive conversation” but said “much of what I heard today is similar to what I heard last week” during a dinner at Vice President JD Vance’s residence.