WASHINGTON — Former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is scheduled to meet with the House Oversight Committee on Friday to discuss the Justice Department’s investigations into deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and its release of files related to that investigation.
But the circumstances surrounding her meeting with the committee raise questions about how much the committee will actually learn about either.
For one, the former attorney general will not be under oath in a sworn deposition but will provide a transcribed interview, which is voluntary. Bondi’s interview with the committee will happen behind closed doors with members of the committee and staff and will not be filmed. The committee says it plans to release a transcript soon after the hearing.
And Bondi will be represented at her interview by Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, which legal experts say raises the prospects that the Department of Justice could direct Bondi to not answer some questions posed by the committee.
Former Atty. Gen. William Barr, former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all gave sworn depositions.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, rejected the Clintons’ offer to provide a transcribed interview, rather than sit for a deposition, out of concern that someone giving a transcribed interview could “refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted.”
Comer’s spokesperson said Bondi was allowed to sit for a transcribed interview, rather than a deposition, because the former attorney general was “cooperative.”
“Unlike the Clintons who defied subpoenas for seven months, former Attorney General Pam Bondi voluntarily and quickly cooperated with the Committee to identify a mutually agreeable date,” spokesperson Austin Hacker said in a statement.
Bondi had, in fact, refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena while she was still in office, and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), filed a resolution on April 29 to hold Bondi in contempt for not complying with the committee’s subpoena a month earlier. Bondi’s agreement to provide a transcribed interview was announced the same day.
The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to learn more about the department’s long-running investigations into Epstein — the financier accused of abusing more than 1,000 women and girls and directing some of them to have sex with his high-powered friends — and the department’s release of files in response to the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated disclosure of the investigative records.
Asked whether Dhillon’s participation indicated that the department planned to invoke privilege and bar Bondi from sharing some information, the department said in a statement that Dhillon and other agency officials would attend Bondi’s interview “solely to ensure accurate representation of Department processes, facilitate any necessary clarifications, and support a complete factual record for the Committee.”
The department added that it “routinely provides staff” to assist with “congressional engagement involving past Department staff actions.”
But a former DOJ ethics official, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said that Dhillon’s participation in the proceedings was anything but routine.
Typically, this type of work would be handled by a less senior attorney at the department who had more direct involvement with the subject matter at hand, the former official said. Dhillon oversees the department’s civil rights division, while the investigations into Epstein were criminal matters.
“I don’t see where Harmeet Dhillon has the experience or the normal level of authority that this would be delegated to,” the official said. “Everything about this seems unusual.”
Bondi would also need to have submitted a formal request for representation from the department.
“It doesn’t just happen willy-nilly,” the former ethics official said.
The department didn’t say how Bondi came to be represented by the agency’s attorneys. Bondi, who said this week she is being treated for thyroid cancer, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The presence of Dhillon — a San Francisco attorney and Republican party insider who has been talked about as a potential pick for attorney general — could also present a conflict of interest, experts said.
“It’s unclear if she is representing the interests of Bondi, the department, or herself,” said Dave Rapallo, a former staff director of the House Oversight Committee.
He said that Dhillon would not have been able to represent Bondi if her testimony was provided in a deposition because the committee’s rules prevent agency lawyers from attending depositions.
Bondi was fired by President Trump on April 2. She was dogged by questions about her handling of the Epstein investigation throughout her time in office.
Trump campaigned on the promise of releasing information about the government’s investigation into Epstein in 2024 and in February 2025, Bondi told Fox News that she had on her desk a list of clients of Epstein — who died in federal custody in 2019.
But months later, as questions swirled about Trump’s relationship with Epstein, the Justice Department announced that it was closing its investigation into Epstein and said that, in fact, no such client list existed.
Soon after, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Trump initially opposed the legislation but ultimately signed it into law.
The department has released millions of pages of records in response to the law. While Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said in January that there are millions of additional pages of records that are not yet public, the department has indicated that it doesn’t plan to release these additional files.
The post Bondi is set to face questions about the Epstein files. It isn’t clear how much she will say appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
