US Attorney General Pam Bondi subpoenaed for congressional Epstein probe

Bondi will face questions about the Trump administration’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act in April.A subcommittee in the United States Congress has subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi, compelling her to testify in a closed-door hearing as part of a probe into convicted former sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.The subpoena was released on Tuesday, after the US House Oversight Committee voted in favour of issuing it earlier this month.Recommended Stories list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3Pam Bondi Epstein hearing: Key takeawayslist 2 of 3US judge nixes two subpoenas against Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powelllist 3 of 3US gov’t committee subpoenas Attorney General Pam Bondi over Epstein filesend of listIn Tuesday’s letter, committee chair James Comer explained that Bondi would be required to give a sworn deposition on April 14.“The Committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Comer wrote.“As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department’s collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts.”The news outlet Reuters reported that the Department of Justice, which Bondi oversees, has yet to comment on the latest request.Bondi separately testified before the House Judiciary Committee in February, with lawmakers grilling her over the handling of the Epstein files by the administration of US President Donald Trump.Since Trump took office for a second term in 2025, Bondi has faced repeated criticism for her handling of Epstein-related files.In an interview in February 2025, for instance, she told Fox News that Epstein’s “client list” was “sitting on my desk right now”. By July of that year, however, she had walked back those remarks, saying no such list existed.