Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to face pointed questioning before the House Judiciary Committee this week as lawmakers from both parties signal frustration with the Justice Department’s actions under her leadership.

Bondi’s appearance comes at a time when the department is under scrutiny on several fronts, most notably its handling of the long-awaited release of investigative files connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The controversy surrounding those documents has become a defining issue of her tenure, drawing criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

The last time Bondi testified before Congress, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in October, she sparred with Democratic lawmakers for hours. Her approach at the time — deflecting questions and responding with prepared counterattacks — was backed by Republican allies who defended her against intense criticism. Observers say that strategy may be less effective in the House, where bipartisan skepticism appears to be growing.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-author of a bipartisan law requiring the release of Epstein-related files, has been openly critical of Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche. Massie has accused the Justice Department of dragging its feet or obstructing the disclosure of certain materials. In recent public comments, he questioned Bondi’s credibility on the matter and suggested she would face tough questions during the hearing.

Democrats are also expected to press Bondi on the Epstein files, but their concerns extend beyond that issue. Many plan to challenge her over what they characterize as the politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving perceived opponents of former President Donald Trump. The department’s decision to prosecute six Democratic lawmakers has drawn sharp criticism from party leaders who argue the moves are politically motivated.

Additionally, lawmakers are likely to question Bondi about the department’s response to the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens during protests over immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. Critics have suggested that the federal government’s handling of the aftermath has been inconsistent or insufficiently transparent.

The hearing is anticipated to be more contentious than Bondi’s previous appearance before the Senate panel, where Republican senators largely shielded her from Democratic attacks. This time, however, some Republicans appear willing to publicly challenge her decisions, particularly regarding Epstein-related disclosures.

Oversight hearings often carry a theatrical element, but Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have drawn attention for their distinctive approach. Rather than directly addressing uncomfortable lines of inquiry, they have frequently declined to engage in substantive responses and instead pivoted to broader political arguments or criticisms of Democratic lawmakers.

During her previous Senate testimony, Bondi was questioned about the Justice Department’s decision to end an investigation into a senior Trump administration official who had been recorded accepting cash during an undercover FBI operation. That exchange underscored concerns among Democrats about what they see as selective enforcement and uneven application of justice.

As Bondi prepares to testify again, the focus will be on whether she can defend her department’s actions amid mounting bipartisan pressure. With controversies continuing to unfold, the hearing could further shape public perception of her leadership and the Justice Department’s direction.