More than five hours into Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, the spotlight remained fixed on Attorney General Pam Bondi as lawmakers from both parties pressed her over a string of controversies confronting the Justice Department.
The session unfolded in Washington amid heightened political tension. Committee members questioned Bondi about the department’s handling of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, allegations of political targeting involving critics of President Donald Trump, and recent fatal encounters in Minnesota involving immigration authorities and two U.S. citizens.
As the exchanges grew sharper, it was often Bondi’s tone that drew attention as much as her testimony. During one particularly heated back-and-forth, she referred to Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, as a “washed-up loser lawyer,” prompting audible reactions inside the hearing room. Democratic members repeatedly sought direct answers about the department’s response to the Epstein materials, though several said they were unable to obtain clear explanations.
Bondi also acknowledged survivors of Epstein’s abuse who were seated in attendance, telling them she was sorry for the pain they had endured. Rep. Pramila Jayapal later asked those survivors to indicate whether they had met with Justice Department officials about their cases. According to Jayapal, those present signaled that they had not.
While much of the hearing was defined by confrontation, the committee briefly pivoted to broader concerns, including threats against elected officials and the safety of lawmakers. One exchange between Bondi and Rep. Thomas Massie stood out as comparatively substantive, with both sides engaging more directly on policy matters.
By the hearing’s close, reactions were mixed. Some Republicans defended Bondi’s aggressive posture, while several Democrats argued her responses reflected deeper concerns about transparency within the department. As investigations and political tensions continue to unfold, the contentious session underscored that scrutiny of the Justice Department’s recent actions is likely to persist.
