Massie Torches Bondi Over Epstein Files: “I Don’t Think Pam Bondi Has Confidence in Pam Bondi”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) escalated his criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi on Sunday, saying he has no confidence in her leadership following a combative House Judiciary Committee hearing over the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files. Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Massie did not soften his words.
“I don’t think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn’t confident enough to engage in anything but name-calling in a hearing. And so no, I don’t have confidence in her.”
The clash marks one of the sharpest intra-party rebukes of Bondi to date, and it centers on a question that continues to hover over Washington: who, exactly, was protected in the Epstein case and why?
The Transparency Act at the Center of the Fight
Massie, alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), co-led the bipartisan push behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation passed last year requiring the Department of Justice to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. The law mandates disclosure of redactions, the legal justification for each redaction, and internal DOJ communications about prosecutorial decisions. Massie argues Bondi failed to comply fully. During Wednesday’s hearing, Bondi declined to answer several pointed questions about redactions in the publicly released files. When pressed, she accused Massie of being a “failed politician” suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.”
Massie says that response underscored a larger issue.
“The problem with that is the bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate,” Massie said Sunday. “It’s important they follow that, because then we could find why they didn’t prosecute Leslie Wexner. What was the decision tree there?”
The Wexner Question
The name drawing renewed scrutiny is Leslie Wexner, the billionaire retail executive and former Epstein client whose name appears hundreds of times in the files. Massie and Khanna revealed earlier this week that Wexner was among six “wealthy, powerful men” initially redacted in the documents. The DOJ later unredacted Wexner’s name on a 2019 FBI document listing potential “co-conspirators,” which also included Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year federal sentence for sex trafficking. Wexner has long maintained he severed ties with Epstein decades ago after discovering financial misconduct.
A legal representative for Wexner recently stated:
“The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was being viewed as a source of information about Epstein and was not a target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.”
Massie’s position is not that Wexner is guilty, it is that the public deserves to see the internal prosecutorial reasoning.
Deliberative-Process Privilege vs. Congressional Mandate
Bondi submitted a legally required report to Congress over the weekend, citing “deliberative-process privilege” to justify withholding certain internal DOJ communications. That doctrine allows federal agencies to shield internal discussions from disclosure. Massie argues the Transparency Act overrides that protection in this context. If internal memos remain sealed, lawmakers may never see the internal debates surrounding decisions not to pursue additional prosecutions, including those related to Epstein’s controversial 2008 plea deal in Florida, which allowed him to avoid serious federal charges. For critics of the original Epstein agreement, that deal remains a symbol of elite protection.
The Victims and the Optics
Perhaps the most politically damaging moment of the hearing involved survivors of Epstein’s abuse who attended the session. When Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) asked Bondi to turn and acknowledge the victims, Bondi refused, saying:
“I’m not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics.”
Jayapal then asked the victims whether they had been given the opportunity to meet with DOJ officials. Each reportedly raised a hand to indicate they had not. Massie called Bondi’s response “cold.”
“I think she was afraid to. These survivors would love to have a meeting. It’s not about Bill Clinton, and it’s not about Donald Trump. This Epstein Files Transparency Act was about getting these survivors justice.”
The Bigger Political Risk
The Epstein case continues to straddle partisan lines in unusual ways. While Democrats have long pressed for accountability over Epstein’s elite connections, some Republicans including Massie now argue the Biden-era DOJ is selectively releasing documents while protecting institutional decisions. Bondi’s handling of the file release is no longer just about compliance. It’s about credibility. If lawmakers can demonstrate the DOJ ignored statutory disclosure requirements, oversight hearings are likely to intensify. If internal memos reveal political calculations or hesitation around prosecuting powerful figures, the fallout could be far-reaching. For now, the central tension remains unresolved: whether the Justice Department complied fully with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, or whether redactions and privilege claims are shielding decisions the public has a right to examine.
Massie has made his position clear. He doesn’t trust the answers. And increasingly, he says he doesn’t trust the attorney general either.
