Congress Must Act: The Attorney General Has Disqualified Herself

Oversight is not theater. It is a constitutional duty. And when that duty reveals conduct incompatible with high office, Congress has an obligation to act. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee demonstrated that she is unwilling—or unable—to uphold the standards required of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Thirteen months into this administration, this was her first House oversight hearing. When members asked direct questions about the Department of Justice’s handling of the Epstein files, she responded with insults, deflections, and non-responsive answers. She told Congress that “Robert Mueller found no evidence, none, of foreign interference in 2016.” That statement directly contradicts the Special Counsel’s report, which concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election through coordinated social media and hacking operations. Multiple indictments and convictions resulted from that investigation. This is documented fact. When asked why additional Epstein co-conspirators have not been indicted, she replied: “The Dow is over 50,000.” Stock market statistics are not a lawful response to questions about sex trafficking accountability. Most troubling was her treatment of survivors. When asked to acknowledge Epstein victims present in the hearing room—individuals who indicated they had repeatedly requested meetings with DOJ and been denied—she refused to turn toward them. She declined to apologize for redaction failures that exposed victims’ personal information in millions of released documents. She suggested that victims should contact DOJ to correct errors that the Department had a legal obligation to prevent. The burden of protecting victims rests with the Department of Justice—not with the victims themselves. At multiple points during the hearing, the Attorney General pivoted from answering questions to praising President Donald Trump and defending him against criticism unrelated to the questions posed. The Attorney General is not the President’s personal counsel. The office requires independence from political loyalty, not performance of it. When the nation’s chief law enforcement officer appears to advocate for one individual rather than respond to Congress on behalf of the Department, the line between public duty and personal allegiance becomes dangerously blurred. At the same time, the Department has pursued unprecedented intrusions into state election administration, including demands for unredacted voter rolls and federal actions premised on debunked election claims. The Attorney General’s role is to defend the Constitution and the rule of law—not to serve as a partisan surrogate. When the Attorney General misstates established findings, evades lawful oversight, disregards victims, and erodes public confidence in institutional independence, Congress cannot treat the matter as routine political conflict. The Constitution provides a clear remedy when executive officers fail in their duty. Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to investigate whether the Attorney General has violated her oath of office. If the evidence confirms a pattern of misconduct, Congress should proceed with appropriate constitutional measures, including articles of impeachment. Failure to respond would signal that truthfulness under oath, respect for victims, and fidelity to the rule of law are optional for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. They are not. The Department of Justice must remain larger than any individual. It is Congress’s duty to ensure that it does.