Congress Moves to Impeach Pam Bondi After Epstein Files Deadline Missed

The United States Congress has launched formal impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi after her Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to comply with a legally binding deadline to release key records related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. In a rare and escalating confrontation between the legislative and executive branches, lawmakers from both parties argue that Bondi's refusal to meet the transparency deadline violates federal law and undermines public trust in government accountability.

The DOJ published a partial release of the 'Epstein files', a trove of documents connected to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, but acknowledged that it had not fulfilled the mandate of the Epstein Files Transparency Act to disclose all unclassified records by the statutory deadline. Critics in Congress said the partial release, heavily redacted and incomplete, constituted a breach of the law and possibly contempt of Congress.

Statutory Deadline Ignored, Transparency Act Violated

The controversy centres on the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), a law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by Trump on Nov. 19, 2025. The act required the Department of Justice to publish all unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein, including investigative files, emails, flight manifests, photographs and other materials, within 30 days of enactment.

Congressional proponents of the legislation argued that decades of partial disclosure and government secrecy had prevented the public, victims and scholars from fully understanding the scope of Epstein's criminal network and connections. The law's supporters included Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), who championed the bill's passage through a rare bipartisan coalition.

Despite the clear statutory language, and the Dec. 19 deadline, the DOJ's release included only a portion of the promised material, with hundreds of thousands of pages scheduled for later publication. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the staggered rollout, citing the volume of documents and the need to protect victim identities as justification for delayed disclosures.

Lawmakers were not persuaded. The law does not provide for phased releases beyond the deadline, and senior members of both parties criticised the department's approach as illegal. Ambassador Khanna publicly warned that any official who 'obstructs justice through document redaction, tampering, or concealment' could face legal consequences, including potential imprisonment.

Bipartisan Outrage and the Path to Impeachment

The impeachment threat crystallised in mid-December, when Democratic Representative Ro Khanna and colleagues signalled that failure to meet the deadline could constitute impeachable conduct. They emphasised that the law forbids redactions that serve political or reputational interests, even as it allows withholding material that would identify survivors or jeopardise ongoing investigations.

The impeachment resolution cites multiple grievances: alleged obstruction of a congressional mandate, failure to cooperate with oversight requests and misleading public statements about the status and content of the files. Lawmakers argue Bondi's actions flout the separation of powers by effectively nullifying a law passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president.

According to an official House Oversight Committee subpoena letter to Bondi dated Nov. 21, 2025, Congress had repeatedly asked the DOJ to outline its compliance strategy before the deadline. That correspondence underscored lawmakers' concerns that the department was not acting in good faith to ensure full compliance.

Republicans have joined Democrats in condemning the DOJ's partial release. Representative Thomas Massie has publicly stressed that failure to meet the statutory deadline, irrespective of political affiliation, is inherently unlawful. Massie's earlier efforts, including a discharge petition forcing a vote on the Transparency Act, highlighted deep frustration within parts of the GOP over the DOJ's handling of the Epstein records.

DOJ Defence and Public Controversy

Attorney General Bondi's office has defended its actions by asserting that the volume of material, reportedly hundreds of thousands of pages, and the extensive redactions necessary to protect victims and sensitive information made a single comprehensive release by Dec. 19 impracticable.

In a press conference on Nov. 19, 2025, Bondi repeatedly emphasised the department's commitment to transparency while avoiding specific details about the scope or content of withheld material. Video footage from that event shows Bondi deflecting direct questions about potential legal consequences of missing the statutory deadline.

The partial release itself has fuelled intense public and political debate. Reporters and analysts noted that many of the first batch of documents were heavily redacted, with some pages effectively blanked out, and others offering little substantive new information on high-profile individuals allegedly connected to Epstein. Critics called the release a 'half measure' that failed to satisfy either the law's intent or public expectations.

Bondi's critics also argue that the department's July 2025 memorandum, released earlier in the year and signed jointly by the FBI and DOJ, undermined confidence in the DOJ's intentions. That internal memo claimed the agency had found no comprehensive 'client list' in Epstein's records and suggested no further disclosures would be forthcoming.