“Oversight of the Department of Justice”

The committee will come to order. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Gavel sounds.] [Pledge of Allegiance.]

We begin with opening statements. The chair is now recognized. 18 cities, 11 states, excuse me, three counties, and the District of Columbia are sanctuary jurisdictions, accounting for 31 percent of the population in this country. 31 percent of the American people, almost one-third of the American people, live in a city, county, or state where the left-wing leadership tells local law enforcement not to work with federal law enforcement. Now, what does that mean in practice? Let's look at Abraham Gonzalez, who on September 20, 2023, was arrested by Border Patrol for illegally entering the United States. And of course, the Biden administration released him into the country. Five months later, February 26, 2024, Mr. Gonzalez is charged with assault. Two weeks later, March 11, 2024, he is charged with felony motor vehicle theft. Stole a car. And on March 20, 2024, nine days later, he is arrested by the Denver police and placed in the Denver Justice Center. Six days later, March 22, 2024, ICE sends a detainer notice to the Denver Justice Center saying this: "If you're going to release Mr. Gonzalez, can you give us a heads-up? Can you let us know maybe 48 hours before you're going to release this guy so we can come apprehend him there at the jail?" And remember, a detainer is a final order of removal from a court where this individual, or this individual's committed some removable offense. But on February 28, 2025, Abraham Gonzalez is released to the streets. In fact, we can put that up. I think you can see this. Released. We got the form from the Denver Justice Center. What kind of inmate was Mr. Gonzalez for those 345 days that he was in the Denver Justice Center? We have that too. Violent to the staff. Keep separate. So this guy was so bad, you had to keep him away from other inmates. He'd already assaulted some staff member. But Denver released this guy to the streets instead of turning him over to ICE agents who would have come to the jail and arrested him there. And of course, we all know what happens. When the officers did apprehend Mr. Gonzalez out on the street, he assaulted one of the officers. This is what happens when you have a sanctuary jurisdiction. Right now in Minnesota, there are 1,360 detainer notices for violent offenders. Governor Walz and others have released 470 criminal illegal aliens back to the streets. In New York State, it's 7,000. Nationwide, it's over 17,000 that we know of where a detainer was filed. Since President Trump's been in office, over 17,000 times a detainer was filed and those individuals were released to the streets instead of turned over to federal law enforcement. 17,864 times. Illegals who have been charged with a crime have been released, released to the streets and thereby jeopardizing the safety of the public, the safety of law enforcement, and of course, the migrant themselves. And frankly, helping create the environment that results in the tragic deaths like we saw with Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti. A few years ago, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders said this in response to the State of the Union address. She said the divide in America today is normal versus crazy. And it's true. Because it's crazy not to have a border, which is what we had under the previous administration. It's crazy to abolish ICE. And it's crazy to release bad guys who are here illegally to the streets when with one phone call, federal law enforcement will come to the jail and pick them up. The mindset that says it's okay to release these guys is the same left-wing mindset that thinks it's okay to weaponize government against your political opponents. And that is exactly what we had in the previous Justice Department. The Biden-Harris Department of Justice called parents domestic terrorists. The Biden-Harris Justice Department used FBI SWAT teams to arrest pro-life advocates. The Biden-Harris DOJ targeted traditional Catholics. The Biden-Harris DOJ pressured social media companies to censor Americans. And the Biden-Harris Justice Department launched not one, but two investigations into President Trump, spending over $35 million to try to bring down their political opponent. To further this effort, they sought the phone records of over a dozen Republican members of Congress. Even the Democrats said this was wrong. They got bank records for scores of White House officials. They even paid at least one confidential human source $20,000 for information on President Trump. And of course, while doing all this, they couldn't tell us who planted the pipe bombs, who leaked the Dobbs opinion, and who put cocaine in the White House. But thank goodness, the American people saw through it all. Americans were tired of being targeted for their beliefs, tired of the lawfare, tired of the rampant crime throughout this country, and that's why they overwhelmingly elected President Trump. And what a difference a year makes. What a difference a year makes. Under Attorney General Bondi, the DOJ has returned to its core missions: upholding the rule of law, going after the bad guys, and keeping Americans safe. The Trump Justice Department has restored the rule of law. Murders are down nationwide by 20 percent. In DC, violent crime is down by 28 percent. The federal surge in DC resulted in 8,000 arrests, the seizure of 800 illegal guns, and the recovery of 16 missing kids. The Trump Justice Department apprehended a suspect in the pipe bomb investigation. And they've arrested six of the FBI's top 10 most wanted fugitives in just one year. Of course, they arrested narco-terrorist Nicolas Maduro and they seized a record number of drugs flowing into this country. Trump Justice Department put an end to targeting Americans for their beliefs. Attorney General Bondi rescinded Attorney General Garland's anti-parent memorandum. The Department of Justice ended the practices of using the FACE Act to target pro-life Americans. They've refused to tolerate attacks on places of worship. And investigations of traditional Catholics that we saw in the previous administration, on her first day, Attorney General Bondi disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force that was pressuring social media companies to censor Americans. And the Trump Justice Department has ended lawfare. Under Attorney General Bondi, along with Director Patel, they've worked to expose the political nature of Arctic Frost and the Jack Smith investigation. They've turned over hundreds of pages of documents to Congress, and that's why we know, for example, that Mr. Smith paid at least $20,000 to some confidential human source. That's why we know that Jack Smith knew it was unconstitutional to seek the toll records from members. But since the litigation risk was low, and because members would never find out about the subpoena until years later, they charged ahead and violated the Constitution. The Trump Justice Department has changed DOJ policy to require prosecutors to tell judges if NDOs relate to members of the separate and equal branch of government, the Congress. And to top it all off, the Trump Justice Department opened an investigation into the conspiracy behind the Russia collusion hoax. The Justice Department has put common sense ahead of politics. They sued to keep boys out of girls' sports. They secured deals with universities to stop race-based admissions and anti-Semitic practices. And after discovering rampant fraud in Minnesota, the Justice Department under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi has established a new National Fraud Division. In fact, I met with Colin McDonald, who will head that division, last week. I think he's going to do a great job. There's a lot of work to be done in that area, but I want to thank the Attorney General for her great work in the first year on the job, and I want to thank you for being here. And with that, I would yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Attorney General Bondi. You've got the best lawyer's job in America because your mission is justice and your clients are the American people. But to promote justice for the people, you've got to listen to the victims, like the women seated behind you today. Those are just some of the hundreds of survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's global sex trafficking ring who are demanding that the truth be told and are demanding accountability for the abusers who trafficked and raped them. You still haven't met with these survivors. So with their permission, let me introduce to you the survivors and late survivors' family members who are present today. There's Theresa Helm. There's Jess Michaels, Laura Bloom McGee, Danny Benskey, Liz Stein, Marina Laserta, Skye and Amanda Roberts, who are the family of the late Virginia Giuffre, Charlene Richard, and Lisa Phillips. Now, you're not showing a lot of interest in the victims, Madam Attorney General. Whether it's Epstein's human trafficking ring or the homicidal government violence against citizens in Minneapolis, as Attorney General, you're siding with the perpetrators and you're ignoring the victims. That will be your legacy unless you act quickly to change course. You're running a massive Epstein cover-up right out of the Department of Justice. You've been ordered by subpoena and by Congress to turn over six million documents, photographs, and videos in the Epstein files, but you've turned over only three million. You say you're not turning over the other three million because they're somehow duplicative, but we know that there are actual memos of victim statements in there. And you also took down the Department of Justice's prosecution memo from 2019. So it's clearly not all duplicative, but even if it were, why not release it? Just release all the duplicative stuff. In the half you did produce, you redacted the names of abusers, enablers, accomplices, and co-conspirators, apparently to spare them embarrassment and disgrace, which is the exact opposite of what the law ordered you to do. Even worse, you shockingly failed to redact many of the victims' names, which is what you were ordered to do by Congress. Some of the victims had come forward publicly, but many had not. Many had kept their torment private, even from family and friends. But you published their names, their identities, their images on thousands of pages for the world to see. So you ignored the law, and even with over 100,000 employees at your disposal, you acted with some mixture of staggering incompetence, cold indifference, and jaded cruelty towards more than 1,000 victims raped, abused, and trafficked. This performance screams cover-up. Convicted sex trafficker and groomer Ghislaine Maxwell opened the gates of hell to Virginia Giuffre and hundreds of other victims, as Virginia recorded in her remarkable book, "Nobody's Girl." But when Maxwell was subpoenaed to come testify before Congress, you and Todd Blanche quickly moved her from a higher security prison to a minimum security camp in Texas, where she's enjoyed five-star treatment, including catered meals, private gym time, and access to a therapy puppy. All because Todd Blanche, who's utterly failed to investigate the monstrous crimes of Epstein and Maxwell's co-conspirators, spent nine hours with Maxwell and satisfied himself that she would have nothing untoward to say about Donald Trump, which is your only real interest in the matter based on the institutional performance. But abandoning victims and coddling perpetrators is what you do best. When the FBI opened a criminal investigation into the brutal killing in Minneapolis of Renee Good, a poet and 37-year-old mother of three, by Trump's masked paramilitary ICE agents, you shut it down. You claim you're investigating the cold-blooded murder of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the VA, but how can we trust the administration when the President and Kristi Noem call Pretti a domestic terrorist and Stephen Miller called him a would-be assassin? Not only do you refuse to share evidence with the state and local investigators and prosecutors in Minnesota, you have blocked their access to the crime scene and the evidence. How are you seeking justice for Marimar Martinez, the Montessori school teacher in Chicago who was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent who bragged about it on text? Or the family of Keith Porter, a father of two shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent in LA? Or the family of Silverio Viejas Gonzalez, shot and killed in Illinois minutes after he dropped his kids off at school? There's no sign of any movement at the Department of Justice. You even launched a criminal investigation into Renee Good's grieving widow. How sick is that? But it's even worse. You've turned the people's Department of Justice into Trump's instrument of revenge. Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time. He tells you to go after James Comey, Letitia James, Lisa Cook, and Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve Board, and members of Congress like Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, and Maggie Goodlander, to name a few, and you snap to it. You replace real prosecutors with counterfeit stooges who robotically do the President's bidding. Nothing in American history comes close to this complete corruption of the justice function and contamination of federal law enforcement. The good news is many serious lawyers at DOJ, including some of your own original appointees, have refused your lawless orders. Danielle Sassoon, your original pick for acting US Attorney Manhattan, resigned rather than follow your corrupt order to quash an indictment against Mayor Eric Adams as a political favor from Donald Trump. A Federalist Society member who clerked for Justice Scalia, US Attorney Sassoon refused to participate in this blatantly corrupt scheme. Her top assistant, Hagen Scotten, an Iraqi war vet and two-time Bronze Star recipient who clerked for Chief Justice Roberts and then Judge Kavanaugh, promptly resigned too, writing to your office, quote, "I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me." You and the President nominated Eric Siebert, a 15-year career prosecutor, to be your US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. But after five months of investigating Letitia James and James Comey, he found no evidence to justify criminal charges. So you forced him out. You replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, Trump's personal lawyer from the Mar-a-Lago documents case, who had zero prosecutorial experience and no qualifications. And then you were humiliated when a federal judge found that this corrupt appointment was blatantly unlawful and threw out Halligan's indictments entirely. And grand juries of American citizens have repeatedly rejected your vendettas and baseless indictments brought by the hacks left at DOJ now. With two different grand juries in Virginia voting down indictments against Letitia James in a single week. And just yesterday, another grand jury shut down your vendetta factory by rejecting indictments against the six members of Congress who had spoken out to remind all service members that they have a duty to refuse illegal orders. You tried to get a grand jury to indict six members of Congress who were veterans of our armed forces on charges of seditious conspiracy simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. I hope you will heed the wisdom and the constitutional patriotism of those grand jurors and not try again by doubling down on that humiliation. As your best lawyers are sacked for having participated in the January 6 case or just flee for the exits now, your new lawyers keep lying in court. In dozens of cases, they've been excoriated for lying to federal judges. Chief Judge Boasberg right here in DC suggested your Department of Justice perpetrated a fraud on the court. Other judges found your statements to be, quote, "inexplicably misleading, patently incredible, totally inconsistent, and so disingenuous that the court is left with little confidence that the government can be trusted to tell the truth about anything." Now, as ranking member, I asked the chairman to add a few extra rounds of questions today because we each have five hours of questions, not five minutes. But we're stuck with five minutes. That's clearly insufficient to give voice to America's victims and survivors and to demand answers about all the corruption and cover-ups that we see at DOJ right now. We've got just one round, so we ask you politely but firmly, Madam Attorney General: Please do not waste one second of our precious time by evading questions, by changing the subject, or engaging in personal attacks against members of Congress. We saw your performance in the Senate and we're not going to accept that. This isn't a game. In the Senate, you brought something with you called a burn book, a binder of smears to attack members personally for doing the people's work of oversight. Please set the burn book aside and answer our questions. And when you hear us reclaim our time, that means it's time for you to stop speaking. We only have five minutes, so when we reclaim our time, that means you stop. And if you don't, we will ask the chair to stop the clock and let you go on his time. The quality of justice in America depends on the character of our government. Please do your job and bring the Department of Justice back from the brink. The survivors seated behind you and the American people watching everywhere deserve a Department of Justice worthy of its name. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witness. The Honorable Pamela J. Bondi has served as the Attorney General of the United States since February 5, 2025. She previously served in the Office of the White House Counsel, two terms as the Florida Attorney General, and spent more than 18 years as a prosecutor. We welcome our witness and thank her for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?

I do.

Let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, you can be seated. And please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. Madam Attorney General, you may begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for hosting me here today. I'm grateful for the opportunity to answer your questions, highlight the work of our department, and discuss the most important topic of all: keeping the American people safe. A little over a year ago, I was sworn into office as the 87th Attorney General of the United States. I came into office with a goal of refocusing the Department of Justice on its core mission after years of bloated bureaucracy and political weaponization. The Department of Justice's core mission is to fight violent crime, protect the American people, and defend the rule of law above all else. While our work is never done, we have made tremendous progress to make America safe again. In 2025, we saw the lowest murder rate in 125 years. That's nothing short of historic. If you compare 25 to 24, here's what you'll find: The murder rate is down 21 percent, robbery down 23 percent, carjacking down 43 percent, gun assault down 22 percent. Aggravated assault, burglary, could go on and on. Crime is declining. This did not happen by accident. The numbers tell an important yet straightforward story. President Trump has given us the resources, the support, and the leadership to protect the American people. President Trump's policies have saved lives. I cannot think of a policy outcome more important than protecting the lives of American citizens, can you? This trend has been especially clear in Washington, DC, and in Memphis. These are two iconic American cities that spent years in the grip of horrific violent crime. The Department of Justice surged law enforcement resources, and the results came quickly. Crime plummeted in both cities. And I want to make one point loud and clear: We achieved those results by working with Democratic mayors. Public safety does not have a party registration. When your constituents call 911, they don't ask for political views of the responding officer. They ask for help. I have federal agents in each and every one of your districts. They're here to help, and I am here to help. Many cities and states have worked with us and taken advantage of our federal support. Some have not. Meanwhile, a few elected officials have declared that they are, quote, "at war" with the federal government and encouraged widespread obstruction of law enforcement. This has resulted in avoidable clashes on our streets, as you've all seen. We've seen rioters storming a Christian church. Citizens and law enforcement officers have both been endangered by reckless rhetoric. We have made dozens of arrests in and around Minneapolis so far, and many of them could have been avoided by simple compliance with federal law. Of course, our efforts reach beyond our urban centers. We are striking crucial blows against terrorist organizations such as MS-13, TDA, the Sinaloa Cartel, and Antifa. And as we sit here, I think you've seen the news this morning. The news is reporting that cartel drones are being shot down by our military. That's what we all should care about right now: protecting America. As we seek to dismantle these drug trafficking networks that poison Americans, in 2025, our DEA agents seized more than 47 million fentanyl pills. And more than 9,800 total kilos of fentanyl. That represents 369 million potentially deadly doses that can kill Americans. Meanwhile, our attorneys are fighting for President Trump's agenda in courtrooms across this country. This administration has been sued 627 times. We fought through a nonstop flood of bad-faith temporary restraining orders from liberal activist judges across this country. America has never seen this level of coordinated judicial opposition towards a presidential administration. It is not only an unlawful attack on the executive branch's authority, but a serious attack on the democratic process. In spite of this unprecedented judicial activism, we've attained 24 favorable rulings at the US Supreme Court. Their emergency docket and even more to come. We've done so while ending the weaponization of the prior administration by dropping FACE Act prosecutions, exposing the Arctic Frost scandal via congressional disclosure—thank you, Chairman—and restoring one tier of justice in this country. To address the Epstein files: More than 500 attorneys and reviewers spent thousands of hours painstakingly reviewing millions of pages to comply with Congress's law. We've released more than three million pages, including 180,000 images, all to the public, while doing our very best in the timeframe allotted by the legislation to protect victims. And if you brought us a victim's name that was inadvertently released, we immediately redacted it. All members of Congress, as you know, are invited to visit DOJ to see for yourselves. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the Epstein survivors who are here today. I'm a career prosecutor, and despite what the ranking member said, I have spent my entire career fighting for victims. And I will continue to do so. I am deeply sorry for what any victim, any victim has been through, especially as a result of that monster. If you have any information to share with law enforcement about anyone who has hurt you or abused you, the FBI is waiting to hear from you. I want you to know that any accusations of criminal wrongdoing will be taken seriously and investigated. The Department of Justice is committed to holding criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law. In 2025, the FBI arrested over 1,700 child predators, a 10 percent increase from 2024. We also located 2,700 victims of child exploitation and shut down 3.8 million dark web pedophile accounts. 3.8 million. So please, if you have information to share that needs to be investigated, contact the FBI. Today, I look forward to discussing further our shared obligation to protect the American people, uphold the rule of law, and keep this nation safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Attorney General. We now proceed under the five-minute rule. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam General, thank you for your extensive remarks, particularly on your continued investigation of those responsible over the years in the Epstein debacle. Obviously, you have an amazingly full docket between civil rights, between criminal, between so-called white-collar crime. And doing so, as the chairman said, at a time in which both you and the President are under attack and our ICE agents and FBI and others are under attack when they try to enforce law. I personally want to apologize for those who would embolden, support, or even stand with those lawbreakers that sit on this and other daises here in Congress. My job generally is to talk about patents and trademarks as the chairman of that subcommittee. I'll forgo that today because one of my other jobs is the creation and maintenance of Article III judges, and I work with the Chief Justice on that, and we're trying to expand the court. But currently, there are only 677 district court judges. They have very full dockets as well. But you create a tremendous amount of judges... ...particularly immigration judges. You do so in order to save the court that adjudicate as is requirement each of those people who claim a right to be here in the United States. And that has been going on under Republican and Democratic administrations for years. What's unique about the Trump administration this time is that you and President Trump have managed to reduce the backlog of people seeking that for the first time in decades. You are getting ahead of that tremendous backlog that caused, for better or worse, the release of millions of people with little pieces of paper saying come back later when we call you and often to no avail when you call. So I want to congratulate you on that because it's an accomplishment you might not take credit for and the other side would never give you credit for. But I hope you can continue to do that and do more. And I say so for a reason because much of this hearing will be about Minneapolis and other places in which the backlog of criminal aliens, including in my home state of California, people who have hurt other people, people who have victimized their community is extensive. And although the overall number through adjudication may be going on because of places like my home state California, you're unable to apprehend people that my sheriffs want apprehended. They desperately want to cooperate and they're prohibited by law. It is this committee's opinion on this side of the aisle that in fact you should be given the ability to demand that participation and that the release of a known criminal not be considered to be acceptable just because a state or city has declared itself a sanctuary. I want you to opine on just one thing that I think has been misunderstood. As I said earlier, you create and maintain those judges that adjudicate these cases. You also support so many that in fact have to make decisions as judges. Knowing that this limitation of so few Article III judges are there, please educate those who seem to miss the point that Article I judges, including bankruptcy judges, including immigration judges, including lots of people with the title appropriately judge, do in fact issue documents that look like, act like, and are normally accepted as warrants, as subpoenas, as demands for state officials to stand aside and allow the production of either an individual or documents because I think people are missing the point that these ICE retainers and detainers and so on, they act like they're nothing when in fact in the ordinary course, Madam General, you do in fact have Article I judges constantly putting those out and they are respected normally.

Thank you, Congressman, for talking about all the great judges. And if I could add one thing to that, we are always recruiting and looking for judges. So please reach out to our office for these judges who are handling all these very important matters. We've even added some JAG officers as immigration judges. And so we're continuing to do that, but we're always seeking qualified lawyers as well to be part of this. And thank you for highlighting that, Congressman.

Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Washington's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Attorney General Bondi, right here. We are joined in this room by some of the thousands of survivors from Jeffrey Epstein's horrific sex trafficking ring. They have shown such incredible courage in speaking out, in demanding accountability to bring the predators and pedophiles to justice. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required your Department of Justice to disclose the perpetrators connected with Epstein's criminal activities and to redact the information of survivors to protect their identities. Let me show you what actually happened. First, in violation of the law, your department has shown a pattern of redacting the names of powerful predators. Here behind me is one example of an email from Epstein to a man whose name was redacted. The email reads, quote, "Where are you? Are you okay? I loved the torture video." Only after members of Congress demanded that we see the unredacted files did the world learn the name of this individual, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the chairman and CEO of a company that had financial ties to President Trump's business and personal ties to Trump's advisor Steve Bannon. Second, the survivors were not similarly protected, also in violation of the law. Here is another email titled Epstein Victim List. We have blurred the names of the survivors for their protection, but your Department of Justice initially released this list of 32 survivors' names with only one name redacted, along with numerous files that disclosed not only the names, the emails, and the addresses of survivors, but also nude photographs and even the identities of Jane Does who had been protected for decades until your department released their names. Survivors are now telling us that their families are finding out for the first time that they were trafficked by Epstein. In their words, quote, "This release does not provide closure. It feels like a deliberate attempt to intimidate survivors, punish those who came forward, and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein's crimes to continue for decades." To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice. Please note for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand. Attorney General Bondi, you apologized to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their information?

Congresswoman, you sat before Merrick Garland sat in this chair twice. Attorney General Bondi, I'm going to finish my answer. No, I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you a specific question.

The Attorney General can respond to your question. The Attorney General can respond to your question, which is will you turn to the survivors? This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice has done. Members get to ask the questions, the witness get to answer in the way they want to answer. The Attorney General can respond. That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman. Because she doesn't like the answer. So it is my time. Mr. Chairman, I have asked a question. Why didn't she ask Merrick Garland this twice when he sat in my chair and when I will continue to answer. I'm reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady is reclaiming her time. I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics. The time belongs to the gentlelady. The gentlelady has 17 seconds. Thank you. You're not going to answer this question, so let me just say Chairman, I'll direct it to what a massive cover-up. No, I'm answering a question. Mr. Chairman, will you restore her time? The witness is interrupting. I'm not going to get in the gutter with this woman. Stop the time. She's doing theatrics. Let me have my time. Gentlelady, the gentlelady from Washington controls the time. The gentlelady has 17 seconds. You can proceed with your final 17 seconds. Thank you. What a massive cover-up this has been and continues to be. Donald Trump made the release of the Epstein files the center of his political campaign because he thought it would benefit him. Then you got into office, Attorney General, claimed to have a client list only to then say that there was no list. Your deputy Todd Blanche met alone with Ghislaine Maxwell and transferred her to a minimum security prison. And now you continue the cover-up and I wish that you would turn around to the survivors who are standing right behind you and on a human level apologize for what you have done.

Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady's time has expired. The gentlelady you have no time to yield back. We appreciate the thought. And I would argue the central issue in the last presidential election was securing the border. The gentleman from Arizona who knows something about securing the border is up for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Attorney General Bondi, for being here today. In 2022, Lafarge, which is a French cement company, pled guilty in U.S. federal court to participating in a criminal conspiracy with ISIS. That conspiracy contributed to the deaths of U.S. service members fighting in Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve. As part of the plea agreement, Lafarge was required to pay more than $775 million into DOJ's asset forfeiture fund. In February 2025, my colleagues and I sent you a letter urging the department to review the petitions for remission submitted by the families of those fallen service members, including several of my constituents. The previous administration ignored these victims and our requests and left their petitions unresolved. My question for you on this particular issue is if you're willing to work to ensure those families that their petitions will be reviewed and brought to a resolution.

Congressman, we are aware of that and we're committed to doing everything we can to support the victims and work with you. Thank you for that question.

Yeah, appreciate your answer. And now let's go to something that is also pressing that I've been working on for years, and this is the FISA Section 702 and Arctic Frost. In January 2025, you testified before the U.S. Senate and agreed with Senator Lee that, quote, "Anytime an American citizen's private communications are intercepted or stored, whether through incidental collection or otherwise, those communications should not be searched without some showing of probable cause," close quote. You still hold that view today, I assume.

Yes.

And during the most recent FISA reauthorization, I offered an amendment to establish a clear warrant requirement for searches of Americans' data while preserving every publicly cited operational exception, including emergencies, defensive queries, cybersecurity threats. And my intent was to ensure the Department of Justice could continue to keep Americans safe while also ending warrantless searches of U.S. persons' data. Are there any additional circumstances or exceptions that you believe must be included to ensure DOJ can continue to operate effectively while still protecting American citizens' data and privacy?

Yeah, Congressman, we are committed to working with Congress to uncover weaponization and other misconduct by Jack Smith, by others, Arctic Frost, everything that happened under the past administration. And we are committed to working with you on that and we are working with Chairman Jordan, with the House Intel, with all of our my fellow cabinet members on resolving that issue.

Well, thank you, and I'm glad you brought up Arctic Frost because Section 702 was used in the Arctic Frost investigation. It was. And information derived was used by Special Counsel Jack Smith. And my question has always been and no one's been able to answer this is what was the legal predicate for using a foreign intelligence authority in the Arctic Frost investigation? Have you been able to ascertain any legal predicate?

Congressman, what I can tell you today is that has been referred to my office. I can't discuss anything regarding that because it is very active and ongoing.

And you probably can't answer this one either, but I really want to know if Section 702 queries related to that matter involved members of Congress, which we know at some level it did, congressional staff, which we know at some level it did. We've heard that journalists or other U.S. persons not suspected of acting as foreign agents were also caught up in that. Can you answer that question and say whether queries did cover all those groups I just identified?

It is a very active pending investigation within my office. However, I believe many members of Congress have stated that their phones were part of Arctic Frost. We are well aware of that and we are taking this very seriously and this is a very active investigation. And I would keep going and say if any member of the Democrat Party, if any of them thought that happened to them, we would take that just as serious as we do. And they should be jumping up and down screaming supporting you and what you want to do because this should be a bipartisan issue.

Well, I hope it is a bipartisan issue. And you know, I'll just leave with these last couple of questions which I'm sure fall into this same investigation privilege. But that's this: how many such queries were actually conducted overall, this is outside Arctic Frost, in the prior year by the FBI or other intelligence community? And particularly we really need to know what were the legal standards applied? Did they use probable cause? Did they use reasonable articulable suspicion? Or did they have no individualized suspicion and just were gathering up information and that's beyond the investigation with regard to Arctic Frost. I don't expect you to have that information today, but if you can help get that information so we can understand the extensive nature of this continued misuse of 702, it would be very particularly helpful.

And it was extensive. Yes, Congressman. Thank you.

Time of the gentleman has expired. I have a UC, Mr. Chairman. And that is the gentlelady from Texas.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record El Paso Airspace Reopened After FAA Quickly Rescinds 10-Day Flights Restriction. This was published by the Texas Tribune on February 11, 2026, and it says it was because of an impasse with the DOD over the use of unmanned military aircraft and not triggered by Mexican cartel drones.

Without objection.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I didn't hear back about the second round of questions. I assume that's not happening. I just want to be able to assure the members, certainly on my side if not both sides, that every member will get five minutes with the witness. Will there be five minutes for each?

Yeah, you'll get five minutes. Yeah, with the witness. Okay, very good. Yeah. Okay. And are you up next? Gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's horrific abuse who are in the room with us today. I want to thank all of you for your bravery in speaking out. And I want to say that you and the other survivors of these heinous crimes deserve better from this Department of Justice. In particular, it is shocking that the department did not redact the names of Epstein's victims, but it did redact the names of their abusers. I don't know whether this was done out of incompetence or whether it was deliberate and malicious, but either way, it is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling, the DOJ has failed to bring any of these perpetrators to justice. Instead, it has engaged in a relentless pursuit of Donald Trump's perceived enemies. I want to focus on just one example, the Attorney General of my home state of New York, Tish James. This DOJ has been hell-bent on securing an indictment against Ms. James for something, anything, simply because she held Donald Trump's companies accountable for years of financial fraud. And indeed, the department manufactured an investigation against her for alleged, quote, "mortgage fraud." But the U.S. Attorney leading the investigation, Eric Siebert, a Trump appointee, refused to bring charges against Ms. James because there was simply no evidence. Unfortunately, a prosecutor who refuses to do Trump's bidding has no place in this DOJ, so Mr. Siebert was forced out. Trump could not contain his fury. Fury that he expressed to you in a social media post addressed to you by name. I'm sure you've seen it. Quote, "I fired him and there is a great case," he wrote to you about Mr. Siebert. Then we move down, "We can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now." And obviously, you followed that order. Lindsey Halligan, Trump's former defense lawyer who had never prosecuted a case in her life, was installed to replace Mr. Siebert, and it was clear that part of her mandate was to go after Ms. James. Halligan immediately sought an indictment, which a court dismissed because Halligan was illegally put into the role. But your department was undeterred. And not once, but twice, they tried to indict Attorney General James in separate courts. Both grand juries rejected you and refused to indict her. It is practically unheard of for a grand jury to refuse an indictment. In 2016, it happened in just six cases out of over 150,000 offenses. And you had it happen twice in the same week in two different courts. That must have been humiliating. And now there are reports that you are continuing to investigate her. The amount of resources that have gone into targeting Attorney General James, months of investigation, multiple failed indictments, is astounding. Since your own prosecutors told you that there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, it's clear that you are going after her simply because she held President Trump accountable and he wants to punish her. And she is just one name on a long list of Trump political enemies that DOJ is reportedly targeting. From Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve to James Comey, numerous Democratic members of Congress, John Brennan, Jack Smith, Democratic officials in Minnesota, Chris Krebs, Miles Taylor, and more. And those are just the ones we know about. In contrast to these politically motivated investigations grasping at something they can charge their enemies with, we now have concrete evidence of disgusting criminality revealed in the Epstein files. So I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?

First, you showed a I find it How many have you indicted? Excuse me, I'm going to answer the question. I answer my question. No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are ridiculous.

Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people, but I'm going to answer the question. How many of you indicted? Again, the time belongs to Reclaiming my time. The time belongs to Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Again, you can reclaim your time. I think it's very interesting. Reclaiming my time. I think it's very interesting. Reclaiming my time. When he talks about they indicted, the President said they indicted him twice. Mr. Chairman, please restore the clock and restore his time. He sure did indict. Oh, okay, here we go with these theatrics.

Committee will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from New York. We will give you a few more seconds. We will do that. But when you ask a question, the witness gets to answer. You may not like the answer, but she gets to answer. My question was how many of Epstein's They don't like the answer, Chairman, because it's honest. Reclaiming my time. So he asked a four-minute question. Reclaiming my time. Restore 45 seconds, Mr. Nadler, please, Mr. Chairman.

I mean, you can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started. You don't tell me anything. Yeah, oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. You're not even a lawyer. Not even a lawyer. Committee will be in order. Time and I should get back at least 45 seconds. We will give you a few more seconds. I said that already. Another 45 seconds. Okay, I'll I'm timing right now, Mr. Nadler. Go ahead.

All right. Reclaiming my time. The answer to my question, how many of Epstein's co-conspirators has she indicted, is zero. You have been the Attorney General for a whole year, and your DOJ fired the lead prosecutor of this case, sat on evidence this entire time, and claimed falsely last July that there were no more leads. It took an act of Congress for you to finally release part of the Epstein files, and when you did, you included personal information about the victims while protecting the names of abusers. None of the perpetrators have been brought to justice, but enormous resources have been dedicated to targeting Donald Trump's political enemies. And it's clear that under your leadership, the Department of Justice no longer works for the American people. It works for Donald Trump. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. May I answer? I think our next our next questioner, Madam Attorney General, is going to give you time to respond to all kinds of things. So we will turn to the gentleman from Texas for five minutes. Miss Bondi, you go right ahead. I'm over here. The time is yours.

Thank you. First, he brought up the President saying they indicted me twice. They sure did. They tried to impeach him twice. And you, Mr. Nadler, were one of the leads on the impeachment. I was on the other side. I lived that with you. During impeachment, you said the President conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller found no evidence, none, of foreign interference in 2016. Have you apologized to President Trump? Have you apologized to President Trump, all of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald Trump? You all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the President, and I am not going to have it. I'm not going to put up with it. You know, all they want to do, all the American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration released over three million pages of documents, over three million, and Donald Trump signed that law to release all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them, none of them, asked Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over The Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader, as I hear, Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000 and the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans' 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about. We should be talking about making Americans safe. We should be talking about what does the Dow have to do with anything? That's what they just asked. Are you kidding?

Mr. Jordan, am I Mr. Jordan? Committee will be in order. Mr. Jordan, am I going to get an extra 45 seconds added to my time? The committee will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. Miss Bondi, the Attorney General can respond.

Thank you. The Dow has shattered 50,000 for the first time. This is crazy. They said it couldn't be done in four years, yet President Trump has done it in one year. National median rents have fallen to a four-year low thanks to Donald Trump. That's why they want to focus on Epstein and our most transparent president in the nation's history. The murder rate, as I said, has plummeted to 125-year low thanks to Donald Trump. For an unprecendent, unprecedented nine straight months, there were zero illegal border crossings at the southern border. That's what we should be focused on. All the great work that this President has done and will continue to do to keep America safe and to make Americans safe.

Thank you, Attorney General Bondi. I agree with you totally. I think you've done a fine job. I think Democrats, in fact, should be apologizing to the Epstein victims for doing nothing during the four years that they were running the government. We did not hear about this, and it took you and President Trump to finally provide transparency and give answers to the American people, and I want to thank you for that. I want to thank you also for standing up for truth today and for fighting back against the theatrics and the time waste that you will endure over the next hour or two. I want to apologize on behalf of my colleagues on the left. They're not all that bad, but they've got to put on a show. And I'm sorry that you have to go through that. And I would like to yield the last I'd say 40 and 40 is 80 seconds, the clock says 40, but I've got 80 seconds since I was so rudely interrupted, and I'll give all 80 seconds to Chairman Jordan.

And I would just yield to the Attorney General if she has anything to add.

I'm fine to continue. Thank you, Chairman.

Okay. All right. The chair now recognizes the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd note that Mr. Nadler's question has not yet been answered. But I want to start by asking that out of respect for the American public and the Epstein survivors, some of whom of course are here today, that we can have a transparent conversation and get the public the answers they deserve. I want to briefly direct your attention to two documents I'm hoping we will put up on the screen. In the first, an individual emails Jeffrey Epstein asking whether a woman identified as M was pro or civilian. And Epstein responds that she was a civilian, Russian, and fun. In the second email, Epstein writes to Steve Tisch about a Ukrainian girl, noting that she was, quote, "a little freaked out" by the age difference and stating that he would try to convince her not to return to Ukraine. He then instructs Mr. Tisch to call him, adding, "I don't like records of these conversations." So I'd like to ask a straightforward question that really is either a yes or no answer. Do these emails constitute credible evidence, not proof, but credible evidence warranting further investigation into whether Steve Tisch was involved in Epstein's criminal conduct? Do you think yes or no?

I'm not going to play a yes-no game with you, but I will answer the question to the best of my ability. As I said, we will look and investigate any case involving any victim. I'm not familiar there were three million pages, of course, with that email, but of course, we will look into anything. The documents have been released, three million, the redacted versions, we left them open for all of you to come view. I believe you viewed them, if not, will you have some copies?

I'd like to finish, please. I'm not being rude. I only have five minutes. No, yeah, and I only have 30 seconds based on your filibuster. You didn't give a yes-no answer. So let me just go further. Director Patel testified in this committee room that there was no credible information indicating that Epstein trafficked victims to anyone else. In glancing at the documents, that's proof that's not the case. In July, your department issued a memo stating that it had conducted an exhaustive

...of how murders trended in the United States.

Since President Trump has been in office, the murder rate has dropped to a historic 20 percent drop in the national murder rate. Lowest since 1900.

Twenty percent drop in one year. That's incredible, isn't it?

And that's thanks to the incredible men and women of law enforcement, FBI, DEA, ATF, everyone working together to solve violent crime along with our sheriffs, our local law enforcement working as a team throughout this country and our great state and federal prosecutors.

Yep. And how robberies trended? Have they gone even if they've just gone up or down?

Robberies, all violent crime, it's a... all violent crime, violent crime has decreased as well as robberies.

So murders, violent crime, the country is more safe now, it's fair to say, would you agree, than it was a year and a half ago under Joe Biden?

Absolutely. And Director Patel is working tirelessly to catch those, I'm sure you've been seeing, on the most wanted list. He and Deputy Director Bongino from day one said, "We're going to get the most wanted list," and that's what's been happening, working hand in hand with all of our agencies.

Yep. And I want to thank you for that. Thank you for the work you've been doing to refocus the DOJ again on doing your core job. We're very happy with it and I'll yield the remainder of my time to the chairman.

Thank you.

I appreciate the gentleman. I would just say earlier one of the Democrats said today, they said, "Who are you? Who you are?" And I think you're the Attorney General who I think on the first day disbanded the FIF, first day on the job, rescinded the memo that required the spying on parents that Mr. Garland had issued and stood up the weaponization working group. I think you did that all on day one. Not to mention you're the first Justice Department that's put in place as we've talked about earlier this Deputy Attorney General for combating fraud. So we appreciate that and of course all the things that Mr. Gill pointed out with the crime stats that have went down. So our last questioner today, but not the least, is the gentleman... oh, I'm sorry, we're going to have two more. We've got Mr. Onder and then Mr. Baumgartner. So Mr. Baumgartner, you can... well, let's go that way since you're here, you're ready to go. Mr. Baumgartner and then we'll come back to Mr. Onder.

Day one.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Attorney General Bondi. You know, being a freshman on this committee, you always get a bit surprised, I guess, even this one year into my term here how theatrical days like this can be. But I think you've performed well today and answered the questions well today and that's a credit to you and appreciated by the American people. You know, the Epstein issue is certainly important and is important for the victims. I think both I and the American people have a little bit of trouble taking the Democrats super seriously on this issue when they have been so uncurious about President Clinton's relations with Jeffrey Epstein. And even myself, I had no idea that there was actually a sitting Democrat congresswoman who had taken substantial campaign donations from Mr. Epstein only when that came to light on the floor with a potential resolution and you would think there would be more outrage on those types of things if they were going to be taken credible. But we do know the performance value of what goes on in this committee. I want to talk about the big things that Department of Justice is doing. And when I look at the dramatic decrease in crime in this country in the last year since the Trump administration has come, you see the board behind me, "Violent crime plummets across major U.S. cities." And I guess so my first question would be, when it comes to the big stuff, how are you guys getting this stuff so right? What is it... what contributes from your perspective to this dramatic decrease in crime in major U.S. cities under the Trump administration?

When I first took office, I met with all of our agencies. And the one thing that stuck with me that one of the heads of the department said to me, one of the law enforcement department heads, "President Trump has taken the handcuffs off us so we can keep the people of America safe." And that's what he's done. He has given our law enforcement officers the tools that they need and the backing that they need, the support that they need to combat violent crime and all crime throughout this country. And you know, I'd be remiss, we've talked about the FBI, we've talked about DEA a bit, but can I please brag about ATF? Rob Cicada and Dan Driscoll, of course, who has been our acting head of ATF, have done a remarkable job stopping guns from flowing into Mexico, not harassing gun owners. 26,965 violent crime cases have been initiated, including more than 4,300 firearms trafficking cases. More than 1,200 of those are tied to gun trafficking in Mexico. I talk to them almost daily and they're working so hard.

Well, thank you, Attorney General. And again, you know, I look back at this last year and we've had this historic tax cut. Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, the National Cancer Foundation ran full-page ads thanking Congress and the administration for doing more for cancer research than has ever been done before. I was just meeting with Habitat for Humanity out in the hallway and they came and thanked us for doing more than's ever been done for Habitat and Humanity. So there's been so many accomplishments, but I really think this crime is the biggest deal of all. But I do have some concerns on this issue and those also are respect how we keep people safe with sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. And I remind everyone, and I'm as sure you know, Madam Attorney General, that when we had the terrible terrorist attacks of 9/11, the number one recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was to reduce barriers between all levels of law enforcement. They specifically pointed to things like fusion centers, joint terrorism task force, and getting local law enforcement and federal law enforcement to work together and communicate on a regular basis. And I would just like your perspective because we have a more complex global threat than anytime since World War II. We still have Islamic terrorism, we have spies from China, Iran, Russia, all these things. And what does sanctuary cities and states do for communication law enforcement and how does it make us less safe?

Well, they're prevent... sanctuary cities and states are attempting to prevent communication among all the law enforcement agencies. And of course that's keeping all of America less safe, especially when the violent criminals are fleeing to those jurisdictions because they believe they're protected. But with all of our joint task forces, I see it every day, Congressman, how well, despite, despite what these liberals are trying to do, Donald Trump's administration is working tirelessly, tirelessly to protect all of Americans and all of our agencies working hand in hand to keep America safe.

Well, you guys are getting the big stuff right. You look at that decrease in crime across the country, you ought to take a victory lap. Well done.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Attorney General Bondi for being here on this long day. And I want to thank you most of all for your leadership in your whole career defending victims. And now I want to take a moment to talk about you protecting victims from a different kind of child abuse, that medicalized child abuse that goes under the banner of gender-affirming care that far too many of my Democrat colleagues enthusiastically support and unapologetically support. Shortly after returning to office, President Trump signed an executive order directing HHS to review the clinical evidence and determine whether sex-rejecting interventions caused more harm than good. HHS reached the same conclusion that the UK and Finland and Sweden reached, that the risks are serious and that imposing this so-called care on minors was not appropriate. This executive order also directed you as Attorney General to, quote, "work to draft, propose, and promote legislation to enact a private right of action for children and the parents of children whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals practicing chemical and surgical mutilation, which should include a lengthy statute of limitations." Last September you transmitted that bill to Congress. It has been my honor to introduce that bill as the Chloe Cole Act. We named the bill after Chloe Cole who sat where you're sitting just a few years ago on her 19th birthday during a hearing chaired by now Speaker Mike Johnson. I'd like to play a clip of her testimony that day to remind us of her story.

[Video plays.] ...onto puberty blockers and then testosterone. The resulting menopause-like hot flashes made focusing on school impossible. I still get joint pains and weird pops in my back, but they were far worse when I was on the blockers. A month later, when I was 13, I had my first testosterone injection. This caused permanent changes to my body. My voice will forever be deeper, my jawline sharper, my nose longer, my bone structure permanently masculinized, my Adam's apple more prominent, my fertility unknown. I look in the mirror sometimes and I feel like a monster. I had a double mastectomy at 15. They tested my amputated breast for cancer and I was cancer-free, of course. I was perfectly healthy. There was nothing wrong with my still developing body or my breasts other than that as an insecure teenage girl, I felt awkward about it. After my breasts were taken away from me, the tissue was incinerated. Before I was able to legally drive, I had a huge part of my future womanhood taken from me. I will never be able to breastfeed. I struggle to look at myself in the mirror at times. I still struggle to this day with sexual dysfunction and I have massive scars across my chest and the skin grafts that they used that they took of my nipples are weeping fluid today and they were grafted into a more masculine positioning, they said.

Chloe testified that day that what she needed was mental health therapy, but she never received it. And she was not suicidal until after they did these horrible things to her. She pleaded with Congress to act so that future children would not suffer what she did. Last week was a major turning point in this for these medical malpractice claims when a detransitioner was the first to successfully hold doctors liable with a $2 million settlement for what they did to that poor girl. Just days later, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons announced that they would no longer do transgender surgeries on minors and the AMA followed suit. This proves that if the bill your DOJ drafted were passed into law, these barbaric practices would end immediately because all victims would be able to hold those who harm them accountable. Could you share with us a little bit about your work in advocating for victims like Chloe and what a private right of action would mean for victims like her and their families?

Yes, and first, Congressman, thank you for championing this bill. And also to Chloe, what a brave young woman to come before this body at age 19 and talk about what happened to her. It's not about just giving relief to children who have been harmed, it allows victims whose healthy body parts have been damaged to seek relief and obtain relief. And thanks to you, and we are proud to work hand in hand with you on this issue. And I think it's pretty sad none of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle even brought that up, but I hope they support this to protect all children throughout this country.

Well, General Bondi, thank you so much to you, to your department, to President Trump. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back.

I've just got some UC requests for the end, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Go right ahead.

Thank you kindly. Record low crime during the Biden-Harris administration. Crime down in every category in 2024 under Biden, FBI report says. Trump takes credit for violent crime drop where rates were already falling. From NPR, Trump administration targets ATF with plans to cut jobs and ease gun restrictions. And then a few oldies but goodies I've introduced these before about the claim that we didn't have anything to say about Epstein before the Trump administration. Raskin joins call for Attorney General to reopen Epstein case and publicly release Acosta misconduct investigation documents, March 1, 2019. Oversight Committee plans hearing with Acosta on plea deal with Epstein, July 10, 2019. And finally, 68 House members call for resignation of Labor Secretary Acosta, July 10, 2019.

Without objection. Attorney General Bondi, thank you for your service to the country and thank you for being here for a long day. We appreciate your willingness to come and answer our questions and the great job you're doing for our country. And I've got one thing I've got to say. This concludes today's hearing. We thank our witness for appearing before the committee. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]

...review of the Epstein files and concluded that no additional individuals would be charged. So I did go over to the Department of Justice yesterday. I would note that 435 members are in the House and there's four computers. So it would take many months to actually have the time. I only had a few hours. I think the transparency argument is really kind of a sham because it's not really possible to really go in. I did, however, see a U.S. Attorney information for the Southern District of New York indicating that there were additional survivors and probable co-conspirators. Other members of Congress have uncovered likely co-conspirators whose names were blocked out. Now, the Epstein File Transparency Act, which all but one member of this House voted for and the President signed, requires the Department to release everything except that needs to be redacted to protect the victims or an ongoing prosecution, which apparently there is none from the testimony we have received. I am concerned that this act has not been fully complied with. When Director Patel came to the committee, he admitted that up to 1,000 FBI agents had gone through the files and redacted President Trump's name from them. And it's pretty clear that what has been transmitted from the FBI continues to redact President Trump's name even though he is mentioned thousands of times in these files. So I think the credibility of the Department in terms of complying with the act has been damaged. And I think the Department's credibility has been damaged in other ways. I think we all saw the horrible video of American citizens being killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis. And I think how the Department has handled these cases raises a lot of doubt about the Department. State and local police in Minnesota got a court order to get access to the crime scene to be sure evidence would be properly preserved by federal agents. But they took the agents defied the court order and in a departure from general policy, the DOJ is not collaborating with state and local law enforcement on these homicides. So I really think that is a disgraceful approach to the homicides of American citizens and really does nothing to bring credit to your Department. And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.

Gentlelady yields back.

May I answer?

Attorney General can respond.

I find it interesting that she keeps going after President Trump, the greatest president in American history. And if they could maintain their composure, this isn't a circus, this is a hearing. I find it interesting she keeps going after Donald Trump. She doesn't say how much money she took from Reid Hoffman, did you? None. And nor did she post anything on her X account, on her Twitter account, during the Biden years. And yet now all of a sudden [Crosstalk.]

Committee will be in order. [Gavel sounds.] Committee will be in order. There was no question asked. [Crosstalk.]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Committee will be in order. [Gavel sounds.] Committee will be in order. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Gentlelady can state her point of order.

When a witness attacks [Crosstalk.]

Not a valid point of order. You got to state the rule. She hasn't completed her point of order yet. Please let her speak, Mr. Chairman. Let's have some regular order here. Regular order is you got to state the rule and she can't do it. I am trying to make a point of order that the witness [Crosstalk.] And what rule are you referring to?

Without responding to a question has attacked me personally. I think it's pathetic that she can't answer the questions and instead has attacked members of the committee.

That is not even close to a point of order. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

In August of last year, I sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for assistance in seeking compensation for the town of Lac du Flambeau. Town of Lac du Flambeau is in my district and your office replied that it was an ongoing matter and unable to comment on it, which I understand. That was just fine. But I want to set this up just as a reminder. So three years ago, it was at this time of year that four roads were blockaded in the town of Lac du Flambeau and the temperature was 25 below zero. People had to park their cars at a neighbor's place, take the snowmobile across the lake to get their car and then be able to drive into town. There were people 80 and 90 years old that could not were very concerned that they'd be able to get emergency medical services. And the perpetrators of this, the tribe out there, they demanded compensation from the town. I would call it extortion. They ultimately got $600,000 from the town of Lac du Flambeau. The unfortunate part, Mr. Chairman, is that the Biden administration took the side of the perpetrators who closed those roads off and the Biden administration made it clear to the town of Lac du Flambeau that we are not on your side in regards to this. Well, fortunately, there was a federal judge that said no, this is wrong what happened and these roads should be left open, they should continue to be left open. My question to you is are you willing to work with my office and with the town of Lac du Flambeau to further investigate this matter and seek compensation from the tribal government after their extortion of $600,000 from this little town in northern Wisconsin?

Congressman, you do a great job representing your district. And yes, we would more than welcome working with you and we are familiar with that investigation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just add, we're highlighting these miscarriages of justice in the previous administration. This is just another one of those small examples, no different than the Catholic Diocese in Richmond and many others that you have retold so many times. But here's another instance of what they did to a small town and nearly bankrupted them as a result of it. Fortunately, there was a federal judge that saw through it and has fixed it. I want to move on to fraud enforcement. You have established a National Fraud Enforcement Division, is that correct, Madam Attorney General?

Yes, Congressman.

Has this new division begun any investigations and getting after those individuals that have committed the rampant fraud we've seen like in Minnesota?

It's not only rampant in Minnesota, it's rampant throughout this country. Much of it is in California, as you know, and other places. Yes, we are working on it actively. Our Criminal Fraud Division has been working on it. We are expanding that. It was the Vice President's idea to come up with this amazing separate Fraud Division, which we are establishing and going nonstop not only to expose the fraud in Minnesota, but around the country. It's taxpayer dollars that have been stolen from the American people. And we are committed to recovering that money and holding those people accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind everyone here why did this happen in Minneapolis? Why did federal law enforcement have to go to Minneapolis? Because of industrial-scale fraud. It was an Assistant United States Attorney that said this is industrial-scale fraud that's going on in Minnesota at this point. I sent a letter to our governor in Wisconsin, you know, we're right across the border there, my district is only 20 miles from the city of Minneapolis. And I asked him to open the books for a federal audit on food stamps and Medicaid. Don't you think it would be a good idea for every governor to do that at this point?

It protects the citizens and I can't understand why that's not happening. And yes, I do think that's a great idea. It's happening around this country. And when our new division with Colin McDonald is established, it's established when Colin is confirmed, he's amazing, I think you've met with him, Mr. Chairman. When that is established, we're going to work on both sides of the aisle. That's what we want to do to stop fraud in every city, in every state in this country. We will continue to fight for the American people.

So you would encourage every governor across the United States after what we have seen in Minnesota, what we almost certainly know is happening in other states, you mentioned California, every governor should avail themselves of federal resources to make sure that this industrial-scale fraud is rooted out to protect the taxpayers of the United States, is that correct?

Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to thank you for holding this hearing and holding it in a proper fashion as you have. Secondly, I'd like to thank all of the victims of the Epstein case who've come here to attend this hearing for doing it and for being brave and trying to move this justice forward. I apologize I can't do it with the Attorney General not recognizing you. That's embarrassing. I am from Memphis, General Bondi. And Memphis does have the task force there. The Memphis Safe Task Force has been operating in Memphis for several months. And we do have a Democratic mayor, Paul Young. And he's not against the task force, but he is against ICE being in Memphis and he's not in favor of the National Guard being in Memphis. And I concur with him on those positions. I think the DEA being there, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI, who have been in Memphis in other ways, having more people there is good for Memphis. Crime has gone down in Memphis. But it went down 25 percent before the task force got there under the direction of Mayor Young and Director Davis, Chief Davis. It's gone down about 15 percent more since then. And that's good. But I would like to comment that Mexico City's homicide rate has gone down 40 percent during the same time when Memphis has only gone down 25 percent. And that's not necessarily because of the task force, although the mayor says he thinks it's helped. So I thank you for that. You would agree, I presume, that violent crime in communities across our country is critically important and that's why the task force is there. Is that not true?

Yes. And if I can just add to that, I think the surge, the FBI, our FBI under the leadership of Director Patel came in and did a surge in Memphis prior yes, prior right, prior to the task force. And thank you for saying that about Mayor Young. He's been great to work with and thank you.

He's a good guy. He's a very good guy. One problem I've got with where we are in priorities here. A recent Department of Justice National Institute of Justice report based on arrest records in Texas and in California found that undocumented immigrants were less than half as likely as U.S.-born Americans to be arrested for homicide. And this pattern holds for assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, theft and arson. Half as likely to be arrested for drug offenses. So I ask you and I've written to you about this, there are TV ads that run that say to local law enforcement specifically says are you tired of being having your hands handcuffed because you can't do the things you wanted to do when you joined and if you want to do something different, join ICE and you'll get a $50,000 bonus and we'll pay your pay off your debts, student debts, and we'll help you with pensions, etc., etc., etc. So they're encouraging local law enforcement to leave local law enforcement and go to work for ICE. We need people working in the front lines in local law enforcement to protect our citizens from the worst of the worst. The worst of the worst are not the immigrants. The worst of the worst records show are native-born Americans and they are committing crimes that hurt our citizens and our cities. And you're working against it. And thank you for that. But by trying to get our local law enforcement where we have a undercount of officers in Memphis to leave Memphis and go to work for ICE to deport people is a wrong priority. Why are we trying to get people, policemen who are working on the front lines, to leave the front lines, take the $50,000 and go to work for ICE instead of working to fight the worst of the worst?

Congressman, I have not yet seen that commercial, that ad. I would argue that we need strong people in both local law enforcement, state law enforcement and all of our federal agencies working together. I've seen some of the worst of the worst violent criminals, violent criminals who were in this country illegally. We both know that. And in Memphis, working hand in hand, I want to stick with Memphis and your mayor and what you discussed because there have been nearly 6,000 arrests as of February 8th, and I think you agree with this, in your district, in your district, and almost 600 gang members. What we found in Memphis, a lot of the gangs are local gangs. But 600 gang members were taken off the street.

Let me reclaim my time because I've only 40 seconds. I'm going to agree with you. I thank you for that.

And 148 missing children were recovered by all of us working together and nearly 1,000 illegal guns were seized as a result of us working together.

I would like to reclaim my time. And I don't disagree with some of the things you said, but there are questions about those children, but it's a different thing. The fact is ICE is running rampant and you are not investigating them. When they killed Mr. Pretti and Ms. Good, that was an execution and you did not investigate it. And you tried to investigate her, Ms. Good's widow, and you tried to investigate Mr. Pretti. They were executed like Kristi Noem executed her dog. And that was wrong. And you should investigate those people and you should investigate anybody that uses a weapon in federal official or not for civil rights violations. I yield back the balance.

Gentleman yields back his time. Madam Attorney General, anytime you need a break, just let us know. If not, we'll just we'll just keep going. The chair is now recognized for five minutes. Madam Attorney General, you're not allowed to exercise your constitutional rights in a way that tramples on someone else's, are you?

No.

No, you can't do that. I mean, you have a right to petition the government under the First Amendment. That doesn't mean you can come into this this room and start screaming at Mr. Raskin or me or anybody else and disrupt a congressional hearing. You have a right to protest on the street, but that doesn't give you a right to go into the Capitol and disrupt Congress. Something these guys talk about every every day. You can't do that. So when Don Lemon said that he was exercising his First Amendment free press rights, freedom of the press rights, that's not really accurate because he was trampling on other individuals' rights. Is that is that true?

Chairman, we will always protect our churches and the freedom of religion. And yes, that's accurate.

First right mentioned under the First Amendment, freedom of religion. Freedom to practice your faith the way you think the good Lord wants you to, right?

That's right, under the federal government.

And isn't it true that Mr. Lemon met at a shopping center with the rioters who entered City's Church in St. Paul, met with them prior to marching to the church?

He did meet. And and this is a pending case right now, so I will only stick to what is in the four corners of the unsealed indictment, if I could, Chairman. There's a lot a lot more that will come out. But under the four corners of the indictment, yes, he did. They had an operation called Operation Pull Up. They said they were gearing for a resistance. They met in a parking lot and they caravanned to a church on a Sunday morning when people were worshipping together.

And Mr. Lemon said that he livestreamed before entering the church with the rioters. Didn't he say we're going to head to the operation? Didn't he say this on he said this on camera, is that right?

Yes, Chairman, and more.

That he was in Minnesota and that as you said, they were gearing up for an operation. So you again, you can't do that. That's why this is I think so important that this guy be held accountable and I think why you guys have have charged him and indicted him. Moving to a second subject here. Will John Brennan be indicted? Mr. Brennan lied to the committee, which you're not supposed to do, last Congress when we deposed him. He definitely 18 USC 1001, we're all familiar with it. He lied to the committee and the committee, the Congress, and I think the country would like to know if in fact he's going to be indicted for lying to and here's why it's so important, and I'll give you a chance to respond. Here's why it's so important. It wasn't just that he lied to us, it's what he lied to us about. He lied to us about when all this weaponization against the President of the United States started. He lied to us about the dossier and specifically what what role the dossier played in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Because we know back when President Trump was first elected, first term, this is when it all started, which led to the Mueller and to the impeachment and to the Jack Smith and all the stuff that's happened in the last decade. But it began here and he lied to Congress about the role he played. And I just want to read a couple of things he said during that deposition before I give you a chance to to respond. Mr. Brennan, when asked a question, said the CIA was not involved at all with the dossier. He said it was their purview, FBI's purview and not ours. He also said the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Well, that's interesting because declassified information that was declassified this past summer by the CIA says something entirely different. It says Brennan, I want to put this one up if we have it. It says Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing stating that quote, this is released by the CIA Director Ratcliffe, my bottom line is that what I believe that that information warrants inclusion in the report. He was further asked by an CIA official, the same officer said when he approached the director and asked and that the director refused to remove it after being explained this wasn't good with the dossier's many flaws, he said yes, but doesn't it ring true? So this is John Brennan using that document to change Intelligence Community Assessment, which I think led to all the stuff we have seen over the last decade. And I think this committee and the country would like to know if Mr. Brennan is going to be indicted.

What I can confirm is that we have received a referral from you, Chairman Jordan, to investigate John Brennan. His attorneys have made some public statements. But the Department is still bound, of course, by our long-standing policy of not discussing matters. What I will say today, I can't confirm nor deny whether there is a pending investigation, but what I will say is no one is above the law. Weaponization has ended.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman from New York is recognized for a point of order.

If we want to know whether Mr. Brennan will be indicted, you should just ask the President.

Not a point of order, but appreciate you trying to make one. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bondi, it's been reported that there were at one point 1,000 personnel assigned to the task of identifying and scrubbing Donald Trump's name from the Epstein files. Were those reports accurate?

I believe his name has appeared countless times in the documents that have been released.

Okay, but there are how many people were assigned [Crosstalk.]

If I could finish, I'm going to read you the stat.

I just simply asked whether or not it was true that it was 1,000 folks who were assigned that task. Were those reports accurate?

There are more than 500 attorneys and reviewers. I cannot give you an exact number.

Okay, and I wanted to ask you about that also because this is a different question that you're getting to now. There were 500 DOJ lawyers and and others assigned the task of redacting the appropriate information, including identities of the Epstein victim survivors from the Epstein files prior to their release. 500, is that correct?

If I could have finished my answer, there were more than 500 attorneys and reviewers who assisted with the [Crosstalk.]

That answers my question. And they don't want an answer. That answers my question, ma'am. And I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on. General Bondi, would you agree [Crosstalk.]

Committee will be in order. Time belongs to the gentleman from Georgia.

General Bondi, would you agree that your eight years of service as the state of Florida's Attorney General, the third largest state in the nation, served as an excellent preparation for your current role as Attorney General for the United States of America?

Not only that, I was a career prosecutor for 18 years. And for 18 years prior to being [Crosstalk.]

He asks a question and doesn't want an answer. This is theatrics. Well, no, for 18 years you prosecuted serious felony cases, including drug cases, correct?

Oh, I prosecuted homicides, I prosecuted capital cases, I prosecuted domestic violence cases. I prosecuted multiple cases and that's why I feel for all of these victims. And did you ask Merrick Garland this when he was sitting before you, sir?

And you also prosecuted sexual assault cases and child sex trafficking cases, correct?

I answered that question earlier. I prosecuted multiple cases when I was a prosecutor. If I could answer the question.

Well, the bottom line, you're an experienced and seasoned prosecutor, correct?

Mr. Chairman, will you remind her of the rules? The time belongs to the member of the committee. I think I've said that a few times.

You are a seasoned and experienced prosecutor, correct?

I think we've established that.

Yes or no? Does he want an answer or not? When I answer, I give a yes or no answer. I think he wants a same ma'am. Yes or no answer.

I can't simply I'll live with what you have already said. Let me ask you let me ask you this question. I'd love to explain my experience.

Clearly you have. In the prosecution of sexual assault cases, you are acutely aware of how important it is to protect the identity of victims of sexual assault, correct?

I have addressed this multiple times. I think others were cutting me off when I was trying to [Crosstalk.]

Well, I just simply asked are you aware of the fact that it's vitally important to protect the identity of sexual assault victims as you prosecute their the people they accuse of assaulting them. Isn't that correct?

Excuse me, as we have said multiple times, protection of the identity of all victims are protected under law. Do you want me to answer or do you want to interrupt?

Well, because you're not answering the question. You you do a Jekyll and Hyde kind of routine around here. And I just want you to answer my questions.

What does Jekyll and Hyde mean? Can you explain that?

Well, it means you're nice to the Republicans and you turn like Hyde on on Democrats. But let me ask you this, ma'am. We have the Epstein victim survivors here today. Representative Jayapal asked a simple question if you would be so kind and honorable as to turn around and face them and apologize to them for outing them. I mean, how much how many lives have been derailed because your department was either sloppy and incompetent or willfully trying to intimidate and punish these ladies for coming forward? Which was it?

Your time is up. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for five minutes.

Attorney General Bondi, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent the past several months attacking the administration for doing exactly what the American people wanted when they overwhelmingly elected President Trump. Securing our border and enforcing our immigration laws. I find it a bit ironic because this is the same party who just a few years ago were openly supporting strong immigration enforcement after witnessing criminal illegal aliens wreak havoc on the American communities. I have a short video I just wanted to play.

[Video plays.]

So Attorney General Bondi, what's the Trump administration DOJ doing to end the open border policies of the prior administration that saw dangerous drugs and criminal aliens flood our communities?

Congressman, President Trump has worked tirelessly, as you know, to close our borders, which is what the Democrats had asked for in that video. President Trump closed our borders on day one. He is protecting Americans. He is protecting our kids from the influx of drugs that were flowing into this country from Mexico. The fentanyl precursors that were coming from China. These precursors were taken from China into Mexico. And in Mexico, they were mixed and freely taken right into our country along with gang members, MS-13, TDA, freely coming into our cities around our country thanks to Joe Biden's open border policies. That has stopped under Donald Trump. It will no longer happen under this administration. And he is doing everything to keep Americans safe. And let me let me continue. When he was elected overwhelmingly by the American people, the majority of the American people wanted Donald Trump. One of the main reasons was border security and keeping Americans safe. And that's exactly what he did. And that's why today the other side sits here, they yell, they cut me off, they they want to yell, they want to ask a question and don't want answers because they want to distract from all the great things that this President and this administration working hand in hand, and that includes Secretary Noem, who has closed our borders, and Tom Homan, who has closed our borders to keep Americans safe. And they're trying to distract from that and they are not going to do it because the American people are smarter than that and they see through their theatrics.

Thank you. Just quickly, yesterday Senator... ...Grassley reached out to my office to tell me that I was one of the 20 members that was now disclosed were under surveillance from Jack Smith. This brings up the question of non-disclosure orders and whether or not they should apply to members of Congress. But with my phone records being surveyed as well as looks like 19 other members of Congress, I'm just wondering how DOJ views that.

The gentleman's time has expired, but the gentlelady can respond.

As I stated earlier, Congressman, anyone's records who were illegally obtained, Democrat or Republican, we will fight vigorously to stop that. Anything with Arctic Frost, I can't discuss right now.

And isn't it true, Madam Attorney General, the DOJ's changed their policy? You can't do that now. The DOJ's not going to go do that and ask the judge for an NDO.

Absolutely.

Yeah, good. That in and of itself tells you why this, how wrong it was. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.

Thank you. Madam Attorney General, you acknowledged earlier to Mr. Johnson that President Trump was mentioned in the released countless times, as you said, in the Epstein files. I just wanted to play a video though for you that I think speaks to the frustration that many of these victims have.

[Video plays.]

I understand why the victims are frustrated. And the Attorney General acknowledged what Mr. Patel would not acknowledge, that it was way more than 1,000 times. But I wanted to move, Madam Attorney General, to weaponization of government. And yesterday it was reported that six members of Congress had indictments sought against them and they were not returned by a grand jury. My colleagues have spoken about their frustration of being in subpoenas and having cell phone records combed through. Well, in 2017 and 2018, Adam Schiff and I had our cell phone records and email records combed through, not by you, but a different Department of Justice under the President. It was in retaliation for our role in the Russia interference campaign. An Inspector General report would find this improper and that the predicate for it was absurd. In 2020, after sitting on two committees that were a part of the President's first impeachment, an FBI agent leaked my cooperation in a national security case where my campaign was targeted. The President's FBI senior leadership authorized two statements to the press that said I was never suspected of wrongdoing and only helped the investigation. But that didn't stop the death threats or my GOP colleagues from referring me to an ethics investigation where Kevin McCarthy's chairman on the Ethics Committee would find the same thing as the FBI. Our current FBI director would then write a book called Government Gangsters and identify a long list of enemies. About a quarter of them have been either investigated or indicted. He listed me at the very top along with Adam Schiff. And during that same testimony, refused to recuse himself when asked if he would recuse if any case came across his desk involving me or people on that list. Since that testimony, his department has put me under investigation with Senator Schiff for the nonsense mortgage fraud cases that we've seen. I get it. This is what the President does. I've priced it in. We have a bingo card at home that my kids have made of what will come next. I expected that the President would come after his enemies. But what I want to talk to you next is serious, and I did not expect this would happen. And I'd like your help on it. The President has inspired death threats against me and many sitting up here with me. In June 2025, an individual left 11 voicemails at my district office. On the voicemails they said, 'Get the message to him. I'm going to hunt him down, that motherfucker, and toss his ass over the Golden Gate Bridge by my fucking self.' Donald Trump's Department of Justice in the Northern District of California declined to prosecute. On May 14, 2025, on Twitter, responding to something I posted, an individual said, 'No it wasn't Eric, and now I'm going to kill you.' The Department of Justice from the Southern District of Texas declined to prosecute. May through December of 2025, we received messages at my office that said, 'I hope somebody shoots you and your children and your wife in the head. Pew pew, motherfucker, pew pew. I would stay indoors as much as possible.' And my children, unfortunately, have to do that. The Department of Justice has not charged this individual, incited that he's a prolific caller and has health conditions. Although what we have found in our own investigation and his voicemails is that he has said he will employ others to do this. The President can come after me. It's fine. I'm in the arena. So are these folks. But we never expected that the Department of Justice would not seek to prosecute and investigate those who are making threats against us. And that would include those on that side of the aisle. And I help, I'm just asking for your help to protect life because life is at risk with the environment we're in right now.

Congressman, I completely agree with you. I know about several of those personally involving you. I believe one has been charged publicly, and there's something I would be happy to talk to you about off-camera, but I can assure you that they are very serious. They are being looked into, and I can give you more details on those. None of you should be threatened, ever. None of your children should be threatened. None of your families should be threatened. And I will work with, you can come into my office any day, I will work with all of you on both sides of the aisle if you are ever threatened. And I would, I'll gladly talk to you after this hearing about your cases. But I can tell you some of them are very active.

Appreciate that. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, and we're sorry for what the gentleman and his family have had to go through. We appreciate what the Attorney General said. And I think some of the things that the gentleman from California related, we can all relate to, and it's unfortunate, it's wrong, as the Attorney General said, and we appreciate the help we get from the Justice Department. With that, we will now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew.

Thank you, Chairman. I don't know where to begin. Thank you for being here, General. You might see me when I'm right in front of you. I just, I have to mention this first. You know, I used this word before and my friends on the other side of the aisle got mad at me, but hypocrisy. Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. But for years on the other side of the aisle, we heard nothing. Crickets. Not a word. Nothing was said when they were in control. Nothing was mentioned basically until last summer, and the ranking member points out that he did do something last year. Yeah, he did a letter complaining about the plea deal for Maxwell. But it wasn't a big deal. Then we get a new administration and all of a sudden it's a big deal and they feign concern, they're upset, they're investigating. They had all these years and all this time. And in fact, Stacey Plaskett, we all know that name, when they had a congressional hearing, Democratic member, were taking texts from Epstein on questions to ask to go after Trump. So Epstein was using her, Democratic colleague, as a tool to go after President Trump. Just everybody keep that in mind. And then we talk about ICE and how horrible it is and, and there are concerns, everybody wants everything to go right, nobody ever wants to see somebody die. And they complain about it. But at the same time, hypocrisy, they encourage constituents to go after the ICE agents, to challenge them, to hurt them, to attack them. And that doesn't make sense, that's hypocrisy. And then we hear about the concern of, you know, going after Democrats, that the legal system, that judiciary and Department of Justice is going after Democrats. But they really, literally rework the legal system under Alvin Bragg and Letitia James to go after Republicans and those sympathetic to Republicans. So, I mean, be careful when you accuse others that you're not guilty yourself. Be careful of what you say because you got a history and it's easy to go over it. You know, I just want to talk about where we were and where we are now. We had over 10 million illegal crossings in the past between 2020 and 2024. Over 10 million. It's probably a much bigger number, I'm being conservative. We were told the people weren't dangerous, but they were, General. They were dangerous, many of them. More than 300 individuals on the terror watchlist during that time. Violent criminals came across and as we saw consequences where mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, children were raped, murdered, hurt, abused, beaten, trafficked, all from the drugs. My God, the drugs they brought into our babies in this country. 73,000 illegals with criminal histories. 20,000 with convictions of assault, robbery, and sex offenses. 13,000 convicted murderers, assault offenders. It was madness, it was insanity, it's bizarre, it's perverse. What in God's name were you doing? So we finally are cleaning this up now. We're finally trying to make it right and safe for our people. So my questions are this: General, do you believe in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities will save American lives?

Yes, and given the cases that you just discussed, that's proof of it. Every single day President Trump is committed to that. This entire cabinet is committed to that and making and keeping Americans safe.

Thank you. Will you agree that, and thank you for doing that, will you agree that allowing individuals with known criminal histories to enter and remain in the United States, we knew this back then, they knew it, would you agree that creates serious risk to our public safety? I know the answers, but let's just say them clearly.

Yes.

Would you agree that when dangerous individuals are released instead of detained, and they were released over and over and over again, and these are the real issues, this is really what America cares about, they want their children and their families to be safe, do you think if you release them instead of detaining them that crimes will happen because of that?

Absolutely. And it did.

And it did. Thank you. Will you agree that cooperation between, and this is a biggie, and I'm going to ask you to elaborate on this, this is a big deal, this is why some of the problems we're seeing in some of the places like Minnesota are happening, that cooperation between federal and local enforcement, which we always used to have, helps remove violent offenders from our communities, that we should be a team?

Yes.

And can you elaborate on that a little bit? In other words, when the local enforcement is forced by the politicians, not their fault, not to do their job and not cooperate, why does it create the situations that we see where we have the need for crowd control? By the way, they're not peaceful. Those are not peaceful protesters. We know what a peaceful protester is. When you spit on law enforcement, when you push them, when you hit them, when you beat their car, if you can answer the question, thank you.

The gentleman's time's expired. You may answer the question.

Thank you. Yes, I spent four days myself in Minnesota, in Minneapolis. What I will say about some of these sanctuary cities, some of these Democratic cities, law enforcement, they quietly want to work with us. I've spoken to law enforcement in multiple cities who want to work with us. And yes, we're going to do everything we can to keep our citizens safe, whether or not these Democrat-controlled sanctuary cities do or don't.

And damn it, that's what really matters. I yield back.

The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Chair, I have a UC.

Miss Crockett from Texas is recognized for a UC.

Thank you so much. 'Donald Trump's approval rating implodes on his strongest issue.' This is from Newsweek today. It says 40 percent of people approve of Trump's handling of immigration and border security while 60 percent disapprove.

Thank you. You don't need to read the article to us.

That is a net drop of negative 20.

Without objection, admitted. Now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu.

Thank you, Attorney General Bondi, for being here today. I'm going to show you two photos of former Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. Under the law Congress passed, you are allowed to redact photos to protect the victims of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. You redacted the photos of this victim's face because you were following the congressional law, is that correct?

I'm sorry, that we redacted the victim's face?

Because you were following the congressional law, correct?

Yes.

Okay. You have now established that we, please put the photos back up, that we are looking at a sex trafficking victim under the federal Victims Trafficking Protection Act. Not only is Jeffrey Epstein guilty, but anyone who patronizes Epstein's sex operation is also guilty of a crime. That's why I find it absolutely despicable that you sought to protect Epstein's clients like former Prince Andrew. Last July, you closed the case on Epstein's abusers. The July 2025 memo from your Department of Justice stated, quote, 'We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.' These two photos, please put the photos back up, these two photos staring you in the face are evidence of a crime and more than enough evidence to predicate an investigation against former Prince Andrew. So I ask you, Attorney General Pam Bondi, why did you shut down this investigation last July and why have you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew?

I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland these questions when he was Attorney General and sat before you.

I agree with you. I'm reclaiming my time. I agree with you. I agree with you. During the Biden administration, I called for people to look into Epstein files. Merrick Garland dropped the ball, as did Attorney General Bill Barr, as did Alex Acosta, a whole string of failures. But you are in charge, you have the power to change things, to hold these men accountable, and you're doing the opposite, you're protecting them. So I want to move on to another man, Donald Trump...

Can I answer your question?

...who is all over the Epstein files.

Can I answer your question about protecting these men?

You answered the question. You're saying no. I love this. I want to discuss another man, Donald Trump, who is all over the Epstein files.

I did not.

Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know whether there were any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein.

This is so ridiculous and that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the most transparent presidency. He's the one who asked that those files be released.

I'm reclaiming my time. I got your answer. You said there's no evidence.

President Trump asked for it.

Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock. I'm reclaiming my time.

He signed the legislation.

Stop the clock.

This is nothing.

Time belongs to the gentleman from California.

Okay. I'm going to put up another document from a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operations Center because I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein files.

Don't you ever accuse me of a crime.

I believe you just lied under oath and this is all on videotape. You said there's no evidence of a crime. I'm showing you here is a witness statement who called into the FBI's Threat Operations Center. He drove Donald Trump around in a limo. He overheard Donald Trump said to Jeffrey on a cell phone, he was so angry he was going to stop the limo and hurt Donald Trump. And he met a girl who said she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. She later had her head blown off and officers at the scene said that could not have been suicide. No one, no one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness. You need to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell, so should the men who patronized his operation. And as we sit here today, there are over 1,000 sex trafficking victims and you have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you. If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

May I respond?

I don't know how you respond, no one can hear you.

I did not ask a question.

He's talking about a crime in California.

You're allowed to.

He does not want to talk about crime in his state.

I did not ask a question.

She can respond, Attorney General.

I did not ask a question.

Committee will be in order. The gentleman has yielded back his time. I think our next witness will be more than happy to let the Attorney General, Madam Attorney General, would you like, gentleman from Alabama's recognized for five minutes.

Yeah, you have a few minutes to respond.

Thank you, Congressman. This, this is what Congressman Lieu didn't want to talk about. He didn't want to talk about all the crime that is happening in his state. California refuses to honor detainees because of its dangerous sanctuary city policies. The refusal means California has released 4,561 criminal illegal aliens, criminal illegal aliens, onto its streets. The crimes of these aliens include 31 homicides, 661 assaults, 574 burglaries, 184 robberies, 1,489 dangerous drug offenses, 379 weapons offenses, and 234 sexual predator offenses. That's why they are deflecting. That's why they're trying to talk about the Epstein files. That's currently happening in his home state.

Attorney General, thank you for being here and I wanted to make sure you had time to respond. I'm going to change gears a little bit and in October when you were testifying before the Senate, I know you and my friend Senator Katie Britt discussed concerns of infiltration of the illegal Chinese vapes into our country. As a father of three, obviously, I'm worried a little bit about this and I believe that many parents in the country share similar concerns. Can you provide an update on DOJ's work in this space over the past few months?

Yes, and thank you for bringing that up. We're talking about the vapes. And this should be an issue where both sides of the aisle can work together on. Parents need to understand, children need to understand, that so many of these are being manufactured in China, sent to our country, and have the potential to be laced with lethal drugs. We've seen an overdose. We need to get on the front end of this before we have another crisis and children are dying. I've partnered with Secretary Kennedy, of course, at HHS on this matter. But thank you for bringing it up. You know, they're selling these things as flavored vapes illegally in many stores around the country. Secretary Kennedy and I actually did a, we went and did something on this and it was sadly the day that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And so it didn't get a lot of attention, nor should it have after that happened. But yes, we're continuing to work on that and thank you for bringing it up. That's happening in all of our states and I would ask everyone here, I know Congresswoman Ross was just nodding, it's happening in every state. And not only are they laced with THC, many of these vapes, but they could be laced with fentanyl. We have had a child, I wish I could think of the state it was in, but we have already had someone overdose and we got to, we have to get together on this and we have to get on the front end of this and I would love to work across the aisle on this to protect our kids. How many school kids do you see now vaping? And it's not only, I believe a vape is 20 cigarettes, but you know, that's, that's one vape is 20 cigarettes, I believe it is, but also what they could be laced with because so many of them, the majority of them, are manufactured in China.

Sure, and if you need additional resources, please let us know as you're going through the process. And I don't want to change gears one more time on you. Under the Biden administration, there was a lot of confused, or a lot of confusion created when parts of the DOJ began treating software developers like financial institutions, even when they did not hold or control anyone's money, they were simply building the technology. That uncertainty certainly made it harder for Americans to build and innovate here at home. Earlier this year, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memo titled 'Ending Regulations by Prosecution.' A clear break from the Biden administration's approach and I think it's important that that's a good step in the right direction. But can you talk a bit about how the DOJ is now putting that memo into practice, especially when it comes to making sure that people are just writing the software and don't control the users' funds and aren't, we don't want them treated as an unlicensed money or they're not money transmitters, so.

Yes, and we're doing everything we can to protect the American people on that and I would refer everyone to Deputy Attorney General Blanche's memo and we're working as hard as we can on that.

Good, because we want to lead the way in the space on that, so we appreciate the help. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back 10 seconds.

Gentleman yields back. We'll recognize the gentleman from Arizona for a unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of UCs. 'Bombshell new docs show Trump called police about Epstein in 2006.' Without objection. 'Kamala Harris defends Biden administration decision not to release Epstein files.' Without objection. 'Why weren't they released during the Biden administration?' Without objection. 'House Democrat Stacey Plaskett exchanged texts with Epstein during 2019 congressional hearing.' Without objection. 'New York judge allows Epstein victims' claims against Plaskett to proceed.' Without objection. 'Hakeem Jeffries solicited funding from Epstein in 2013 after financier was convicted child sex offender.' Without objection. 'Jeffrey Epstein was invited to Dem fundraising dinner and to get to know Hakeem Jeffries by firm working with Brooklyn's Barack.' Without objection. 'An email from Leslie Groff to Jeffrey Epstein concerning Hakeem Jeffries fundraising.' Without objection. 'Epstein file says Biden was replaced in 2019?' Without objection. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized, Mr. Correa.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Miss AG Bondi. I agree with you, our top priority should be protecting Americans. In my past life in the California State Legislature, I did a lot of work on solving sex crimes, passing legislation to update our codes. And I found that the biggest challenge to solving sex crimes is reporting them. Victims have to have the guts to stand up to report those sex crimes. But it's not easy. The most unreported sex crime there is, or crime there is, is sex crimes. It's painful, humiliating, and a lot of time the victims don't think anything's going to come out of their reporting these crimes. Then we have adults who as children were molested, boys and girls, who will live in silence for the rest of their life. I believe the Epstein files are just one of many sex rings, sex crimes, taking place in our society today. I hear 1,200 Epstein victims, some additional victims as young as nine to 10 years old. The challenge I have today, what bothers me today about these hearings, Madam AG, is what's the message we're sending out there on Main Street? Shouldn't ask a question I don't know an answer to, but I'm going to ask the victims behind you right now. First, can you please stand up? And then can you please raise your hand if you think after everything you've heard today, you feel that our AG, the feds, have your back? Do we have your back? Raise your hand if you're confident that we got your back. And that's the issue, Madam AG. We've got to make sure that victims stand up and report the crimes. Otherwise, we're going to be taking step backwards. Today, AI, cyber, social media, the new realm for people to be hurt, attacked sexually. These are the areas I'd welcome the opportunity to work with you on. It's not your problem, it's not my problem, it's our problem. But to have redacted, redacted files that are not showing us the names of these predators is wrong. These are very powerful people. This was a very expensive business. And we don't know who they are. I'd imagine they're very prominent Republicans, very prominent Democrats. And we are covering up for them. We got to know what's going on out there, Madam AG. It looks like you want to say something, I'm going to give the opportunity to address my statement.

I look forward to working with you on any crimes involving child sex predators, children, and also cybercrimes. That is a tremendous problem now throughout our country. AI, you are correct, AI is causing great problems online regarding, we're working on that though. AI is an incredible tool, but it also can be fraught with peril with victims of crime. I've experienced that with someone I know who we've been trying to help. I look forward though to working with you on that and also cybercrimes. Can I, please go ahead. And as I said before, to any victims, we ask them to come forward to our office and we want to work with them. I have never not worked with a victim and I believe I've actually spoken to several of the victims sitting behind me.

Madam, if I can reclaim my time, I only have half a minute. If I can reclaim my time, I just think we start out by making sure those redactions are unredacted, those Epstein files, to make sure that the public, according to the law, following the law, that those names in those files are made public. We have to make sure we tell those predators there is no place for them to hide and if they commit the crime, they're going to fry for it. It starts with showing us the names of the perpetrators in the Epstein files.

May I respond to that? Sure. Okay. So if any man's name was redacted that should not have been, we will of course unredact it. If a victim's name was unredacted, please bring it to us and we will redact it. We were given 30 days to review and redact and unredact millions of pages of documents. Our error rate is very low, but there are, the victims are right behind you, we got to convince them that we're doing a good job of protecting the victims. We will do everything we can.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm out of time.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Madam Attorney General. I wanted to return to a point that the Chairman raised at the beginning of this hearing, which is these jurisdictions that refuse to honor detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, often called sanctuary jurisdictions. Now, I know that you are not involved directly in immigration operations per se, but you do deal with the legal issues surrounding these jurisdictions. So, let's say we have someone who's here illegally who has committed a crime that like the thousands of people you mentioned in California, murderers, sexual predators, drug traffickers. If that individual is in detention in a jurisdiction that has a sanctuary policy where they do not honor ICE detainers versus in any other jurisdiction where they do, how does the nature of apprehending that person, how does the nature of ICE's involvement in that operation differ in those two circumstances?

Well, I believe you've seen that in Minnesota, where people were not cooperating with us. I believe there a lot of local law enforcement did want to cooperate. But we are doing everything in our power to arrest and deport illegal criminal aliens and that is not going to stop under Donald Trump's administration. You know, why sanctuary cities are so dangerous, what we've seen in Minneapolis. Where do all the criminals go, the criminal gangs, TDA, MS-13? Where are they going to go? They're going to go to a sanctuary jurisdiction because they believe they're protected and that's not fair to the citizens of those cities.

Yeah, and this is a point that there at least used to be a lot of consensus on. The idea that, you know, it's better to do a handoff to the immigration authorities in a custodial setting rather than releasing them where they have to be apprehended in the community. This is Alejandro Mayorkas when he was before this committee, not exactly a paragon of border security, but he said, "I do not consider it in the service of public safety to release an individual into the community when that individual can be released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for prompt removal." Now, his words are one thing, his actions are another. But when you have jurisdictions across the country, including my state of California, doing systematically precisely the thing that even Alejandro Mayorkas said threatens public safety, I mean, what does that say to you?

It's a danger to the citizens of your community and thank you for fighting to protect them.

Absolutely. And you know, we're having this conversation right now in relation to Homeland Security funding. And I believe there are some common sense reforms that have been proposed that folks on both sides would agree make sense. But those reforms have to go hand in hand with reforming this reckless practice of refusing to cooperate, refusing to honor detainers, and declaring oneself to be a sanctuary. So I'm hoping that we can find bipartisan support for what has long been a bipartisan principle. I want to go to a second topic, which is the school board memo, which I know that you have rescinded. And it was initially promulgated by Attorney General Garland when he came into office with President Biden, essentially opening an investigation into parents who were showing up at school board meetings and expressing their views on COVID policies, masks, various other issues, and using the full apparatus of federal law enforcement counterterrorism to go after these parents. Now, he said this was because there was an increase of threats, but when even his own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, was before this committee, he said there was no evidence of an increase in threats. Yet nevertheless, when I asked him if he regretted the memo, Attorney General Garland said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the memo. Now, I take it you disagree with that having now rescinded it?

Absolutely. That was one of the main focuses of President Trump in this administration. We will protect parents at school boards. We will protect children in schools. We will protect parents' rights for their children's education in our school system in this country. We will protect Christians. We will protect everyone who wants to freely protest. If Christians want to protest in front of an abortion clinic without being arrested, they will do so.

Thank you very much. And finally, I thank you for your efforts to step up the detection and rooting out of fraud. My home state is California. Any idea if there might be any fraud going on in California?

Well, we are establishing, as you have heard, a fraud unit and I'm sorry you're having to deal with that in your state, but the cavalry's coming. And we have Colin McDonald who is hopefully will be confirmed soon. We're working on Minneapolis. I don't know if you were sitting here when I said that, but California was was right up there. I'm sorry to say for both sides of the aisle that California is right up there with fraud. It's out of control. But we are coming to your rescue. Donald Trump is coming to the rescue.

Well, thank you very much. And unfortunately, I think you'll find that what's happening in California pales in comparison to what's been going on in Minnesota. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Maryland's recognized.

Actually, I think the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.

Gentlelady from Pennsylvania's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, I'm here. On September 25, President Trump signed a memorandum known as NSPM-7 purporting to address domestic terrorism. But Americans across the political spectrum were immediately alarmed by the memo's blurring of the line between unlawful conduct and constitutionally protected speech and activity, as well as its call to investigate, prosecute, and dismantle groups that the President and Stephen Miller described without evidence as, quote, "an organized campaign of radical left terrorism." Now, counterterrorism experts were further alarmed by the administration's singular focus on left-wing extremism, combined with the sudden deletion from the DOJ website of decades of research and law enforcement analysis, which had concluded that right-wing extremism possesses poses the greatest terrorism threat to Americans. The President's memo broadly and vaguely links violent conduct to ideologies and it targeted specifically anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-capitalist beliefs, as well as, quote, "hostility to so-called traditional American views on family, religion, and morality," end quote. President Trump has repeatedly and openly, however falsely, tried to brand his political opponents with these sentiments listed in his memo. But as you know, as a lawyer, holding beliefs that the White House disagrees with is not a crime. And the statute defining domestic terrorism requires criminal acts, not just thoughts and ideas. That's why legal experts, nonprofit leaders, religious freedom and civil rights advocates immediately raised the alarm that the new presidential directive was a politically motivated attack on civil society designed to silence those who disagree with the administration. So, Ms. Bondi, Section 3 of that memo directed you, as Attorney General, to submit to the President and Stephen Miller a list of groups or entities whose members are engaged in acts that meet the definition of domestic terrorism. And then on December 4, you directed the FBI to work with a variety of law enforcement entities to compile a list of groups and entities engaged in such acts by January 3, 2026, and to update that report every 30 days thereafter. So, can we assume that you or persons under your direction at the Department of Justice have prepared that list of groups or entities who are designated as domestic terrorist organizations? And I just remind you that's a yes or no question. Did you prepare the list?

Well, I'm not going to answer it yes or no. But what what I will say is I know Antifa is part of that. I will I will talk to you about that.

I'm reclaiming my time. I asked whether you prepared a list.

And on February 5, 2025, an Antifa member was arrested in Minneapolis federal court for cyberstalking.

I'm reclaiming my time. Did you have a list?

They ask a question and don't want an answer. This is the answer is yes.

Time belongs to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Gentlelady can proceed.

Okay. So, will you commit to providing this committee with any list of organizations that you have recommended be designated as domestic terrorist organizations?

We will comply with the law in all matters.

Will you commit to provide this committee with your list of entities that you recommend be designated as domestic terrorist organizations?

I'm not going to commit to anything to you because you won't let me answer questions.

Okay. Well, then we do understand that your current position is that you have a secret list of people or groups that you are accusing of domestic terrorism, but you won't share it with Congress. And I'd remind you that when the U.S. government designates an entity as a foreign terrorist organization, it must report that to Congress and to the entity because the government can make a mistake and the entity has the opportunity to contest it. So your position seems to be that if you falsely designate an American or an American organization as a terrorist group, there's nothing they can do about it. I think we get it. You don't want to answer the question. [Crosstalk.] No, you don't get anything regarding public safety. Thank you. Nothing. Thank you for the insult. It's clear you didn't come to Congress prepared to answer questions that the American people have every right to have answered. But if you were to prepared to answer truthfully, here's what we expect the facts to show. The administration is keeping lists of Americans who the White House says are engaged in domestic terrorism. Those lists could include Americans who have not committed any acts of terrorism, but simply disagree with this administration, people like Renee Good and Alex Preddy. And your list may include clergy, elected officials, and members of Indivisible groups across the country. And those lists likely don't include Proud Boys or Oath Keepers who were actually convicted. Americans have never tolerated political demagogues who use the government to punish people on an enemy's list. It brought down McCarthy, it brought down Nixon, and it will bring down this administration as well. I yield back.

And you're right. That's why we're so glad they rescinded the memorandum targeting parents. Goodness sake, as the gentleman from California just pointed out in his five minutes. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes.

May I respond very briefly to her statement?

I think we can do that probably on one of our members' time.

Okay. Thank you. I don't want that to get away. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Behind me, I have three documents from the DOJ production that are emblematic of the massive failure of the DOJ to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. To my right is an email that was sent by the victims' lawyers to the DOJ. It was a list of names not to redact. Or sorry, a list of names not to release. What did the DOJ do with this email? They released this email in the document production. Literally the worst thing you could do to the survivors, you did. And they're getting phone calls. A lot of these people didn't want to be known. And we know you touched the document because you redacted one name and you redacted the lawyer's name, but you left the survivor's name there. The next document I want to show you in that was in the title, the victims' survivors' names, all right? The title of this one is child sex trafficking. Co-conspirators. Fully redacted. And by the way, going to unredact them here. Les Wexner is in this. Now, your assistant deputy, your deputy Attorney General said, "Oh, well, he appears hundreds of times in the files." But he doesn't appear in this file until I forced you to release it, where he's listed as a co-conspirator, not to tax evasion, but to child sex trafficking. Not to prostitution, not to money laundering, child sex trafficking. And then finally, what we have here, the third exhibit that I have, is emblematic of the FD-302 release. These are the documents that we need that you're holding onto and over-redacting because they have the names of the men who are implicated. How do we know? Because the survivors gave testimony to the FBI and it's in there. And what happens when you go to the portal at the DOJ to look at what's behind this redaction? Another redaction. So we can't even see them. And then there's some of these files you've pulled down from the website that we will never see because we can't search the redactions. So I have several questions for you. Who's responsible? Are you able to track who in your organization made this massive failure and released the victims' names? Are you able to track who it was that obscured Les Wexner's name as a co-conspirator in an FBI document? Do you have that kind of accountability?

I believe Wexner's name was listed more than 4,000 times about I had.

Yeah, I already told you that. This is where he's listed as a co-conspirator.

Can I finish my answer? Come on. Let me finish my answer. We corrected that within 40 minutes. He was already you're acting like everybody's trying to cover up Wexner's name. He was listed.

Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time.

I'm going to answer this question.

Mr. Chairman, this isn't how this works.

He was he was.

Can I have my time back?

The gentlelady can give her answer. The time belongs to the gentleman from Kentucky.

All right. I'm reclaiming my time. So, I'm going to put the language of the bill up on the screen.

Chairman, may I give my answer on that? This is a political joke and I need to give my answer on that. Within 40 minutes. You asked me a question. Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.

Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.

Red-handed? There was one redaction out of over 4,700 and we invited you in. We this guy has Trump Derangement Syndrome. He needs to you're a failed politician. You need to.

[Crosstalk.] Chairman, please restore his time and remind the witness of the rules here.

[Video plays.] Himself. There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals.

Is that your position as well?

My position is any victim who comes forward, of course, we would love to hear from them. 1-800-CALL-FBI. Did you ask Merrick Garland that the last four years? Did you talk about Epstein at all the last four years?

I'm reclaiming my time. I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland because this is bigger than Watergate. This this goes over four administrations. You don't have to go back to Biden. Let's go back to Obama. Let's go back to George Bush. This cover-up spans decades and you are responsible for this portion of it. And I want to know, at what point, at what point did the FBI and the DOJ decide that Les Wexner was not a co-conspirator? Because our Epstein Files Transparency Act requires you, please put it back on the screen, please, to release the internal decision about whether to prosecute him or not and it's not in the files and it's not in the files for any of these other men.

Time of the gentleman has expired. May she answer?

And he's a hypocrite because he voted against the ban that we were talking about on deepfake AI porn. Only two people voted against it and you were one of them. Hypocrite.

The gentleman's time has expired.

She didn't answer the question. Mr. Chairman, could she answer the question?

Chairman, I was wondering the gentlelady's allowed the Attorney General's allowed to respond the way she wants to respond to any member's questions, Republican, Democrat.

All right. I have a unanimous consent request.

Gentleman's recognized for a UC.

All right. This is an example. I'm I'm submitting these 302 forms that are entirely redacted. Even when you go to look at them. Without objection. I'm submitting a witness statement that implicates Les Wexner. Without objection. I'm submitting an article from the New York Times that the DOJ released nude photos and identifiable pictures of the victims. Without objection. I'm submitting a letter from AG Bondi to Kash Patel imploring him to quit keeping the files when you found out that they were keeping files from you because they're still redacting files that you.

Without objection. Chairman, are we going to are we going to recess for votes?

Yes, we are. I'm submitting for unanimous consent a document of 17 individuals who've resigned because of the Epstein files. Without objection.

Just want to check on what time what time how much time we have left in votes, but one thing I've learned here of late that they'll wait on us. How much time do we have? Oh, they just called it. Okay. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying I appreciate what you said, Attorney General Bondi, and you've said it to me personally, that you take the personal security of every member of Congress seriously and that people can contact you about that. And in these times, that's a very serious matter. So I thank you for that. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution is the domestic emoluments clause. And it says that the President is limited to his salary in office and cannot receive any other money from the federal government while he's in office. It cannot be increased by $1. This President is the first President in U.S. history who has repeatedly sued the federal government, sued the federal government for $230 million for the judicial search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, which was perfectly lawful and was never struck down. But now he's suing the IRS for $10 billion. He's suing the IRS for $10 billion, which I think is around 80 percent of its annual budget, because his tax returns were leaked and they were illegally leaked by a private contractor who actually is in prison now, Charles Littlejohn. But he wants $10 billion. Now, I want to ask you the question of whether you think it would violate the domestic emoluments clause for you to settle that $10 billion case or any of the other claims that the President has made against the government. He himself has remarked, "It's interesting because I'm the one that makes the deal, right?" And he says, "I kind of have to work it out with myself." Do you think it would violate the domestic emoluments clause for the President to work out a deal from people who are his subordinates under his unitary executive theory to get money in one of these cases?

I'm not going to discuss pending litigation.

Okay. So theoretically, you're saying because his privacy rights were violated in that tax case, and they were, I'm with the President on that. I mean, his Mar-a-Lago thing is ridiculous, but there's no doubt that his tax returns, despite the fact that he'd promised to release them, despite the fact that every other President released the tax returns, he suffered embarrassment when it showed that he hadn't paid taxes for several years and he had a right for that not to happen. Now, I want to turn back to the Epstein survivors. Because President Trump may have been a little bit embarrassed by the release of those tax returns. How much do you think the claims of these survivors are worth? As the good Congressman from Kentucky just pointed out, there were lots of survivors who had decided for reasons of their own never to release their names. That determination was represented to people in Congress and we built it into our federal law that their names could not be released. And yet you published their names, their phone numbers, their addresses, personally identifying information. If Donald Trump can get $10 billion theoretically from the Department of Justice, how much should these people get for a far worse violation of their privacy rights and a far greater danger established to them in their lives?

Do you even know who Chase Mulligan is? You're so obsessed with you don't, do you? I just mentioned him.

I'm going to teach you the rules again. You're the Attorney General of the United States. We have rules here. You're the Attorney General of the United States. I know the rules. You're so obsessed with him. You're obsessed with Donald Trump. You have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Mr. Chairman, I'd like my time restored. I'd like my time restored. Chase Mulligan will be sentenced next week in your district. In your district and you don't even know about it. About keeping children safe from online predators. Stop the clock. Stop the clock.

Time belongs to the gentleman. Time belongs to the gentleman from Maryland. Gentleman can proceed.

Yeah, and I just I want the whole country to look at this. Because this is the Attorney General of the United States whose job is law enforcement. We've never had a witness who has misunderstood our rules and been unable to conform his or her conduct to our rules before. We have only five minutes and so we use our time to ask you specific questions. How long are you giving me to answer? Excuse me, I'm not yielding to you right now. I'd like that second restored too. So, Ms. Bondi, the way it works is we ask you a question and you answer it. And if you go off on a wild goose chase, another tangent, you start reading statistics or you start talking about stuff going on in our district, and by the way, I invite you to my district. Come to my district. But that's not what we're here to do today. Okay? So, and you do that, then we are allowed to say we reclaim our time. At that point, you have to be quiet. You have no choice. You have to be quiet. So, I hope you understand the rule at this point. Now, here's what I want to ask you. You're in law enforcement. We've seen all kinds of evidence of crimes. And when we go over to the Department of Justice for the four computers for every member of Congress, we see more evidence of crimes. Will you create a joint task force of the Department of Justice and governors and state attorneys general and district attorneys across the country to investigate the crimes that have taken place against these victims and more than a thousand like them? The DOJ is not doing its job. Will you create a task force with state and local law enforcement to make that happen?

Gentlelady can respond if she wants to.

Thank you, Chairman. He called Chase Mulligan a wild goose chase and didn't even know who he was. He is a defendant in your own district who preyed on girls aged 13 to 15. Mr. Chairman. Well, you know what? If he were part of the Epstein investigation, you wouldn't do anything about it. In online chat rooms and committed sextortion. Yet he didn't even know in your tiny little district who he was. The time. Mr. Chairman, she's embarrassing you. Time is about to be expired. This is your committee and she is embarrassing you. Shame on you.

The time of the gentleman has expired. I would remind the committee that last Congress, Secretary Mayorkas was here numerous times and he wouldn't answer our questions even when we sent them to him ahead of time in writing. So, that's what we've had to deal with. I think the Attorney General is doing just fine. We have votes shortly. I will go to the gentleman from Virginia and then we will take a break to head to the floor.

I thank the Chairman. Attorney General Bondi, thank you for being here and I wanted to thank you for your work at DOJ in restoring the rule of law, encouraging transparency surrounding Jack Smith's partisan investigations into President Trump, declassifying information about the Russia collusion hoax, cracking down on sanctuary jurisdictions and establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division. Let me first go to securing the border and immigration enforcement. Our new governor has recently rescinded 287(g) cooperation between the state and ICE. Can you talk about have you evaluated the public safety impact, how that would affect safety in Virginia to withdraw that support and what that would do to activity, criminal activity involving illegal immigrants in Virginia?

Yes, it would be detrimental. And as you know, Congressman, we one of the top members of MS-13 in the entire country was living in Virginia. In a suburb. Among all of us, living not even probably half an hour away from where we are now. And the cooperation previously with the governor, with the members of the state of Virginia, helped catch him and take him off our streets. An illegal MS-13, one of the heads for the entire country, was living in Virginia. And it's a shame that that's happening now. And thank you for bringing it talking about it because we're going to keep America safe. And when people feel like they can flee to these cities and states and be safe, they can't. Because Donald Trump is going to protect Americans. We're going to protect the citizens there, whether or not the governors, the mayors are going to do it or not. But President Trump is. We're going to keep Americans safe from violent gang members like he's been doing this last year.

We appreciate that. We appreciate your your work to make that happen in Virginia and keep Virginia safe. I want to move on to the fraud enforcement division that you've established. My understanding is that this initiative is intended to centralize, coordinate enforcement of fraud laws related to government programs. You've talked about Minnesota, you've talked about California. Would this affect Virginia as well? Because we have fraud in Virginia as well.

Absolutely, and we look forward to working with you.

Would this affect things like long-term care accountability, senior living facilities engaged in Medicaid fraud, including systemic overbilling practices and the misappropriation of taxpayer-funded benefits?

That is exactly what it's set up to do.

Okay. I know that whether it was related to fraud specifically or another subject that under the Biden administration, there was a sitting member of the Virginia General Assembly under investigation. Is that investigation still ongoing? Can you speak to that?

I can't discuss that.

Okay. I'm going to move on to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Last year, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law, which included the Hearing Protection Act, part of it that was sponsored by myself and Congressman Clyde. It reduced the National Firearms Tax, $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to zero. And while the tax has been eliminated, the NFA's registration and paperwork requirements were made in effect. And your DOJ has said that that would even though the tax was reduced to zero, that the registration requirement is still somehow necessary. Even though with regard to Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act, when that mandate was when that tax penalty was reduced to zero, you decided that the mandate was no longer necessary. How are you how are you justifying the existence of this registry?

Congressman, that's pending litigation right now.

It is, it is. And I would hope you would reconsider you would reconsider that. I yield back.

Gentleman yield? Gentleman yield? I yield to the Chairman. I think that Attorney General Bondi, why did Jack Smith have to pay some secret source $20,000 of taxpayer money? Do you know the answer to that?

I can't discuss anything on that matter, but that's a good question, Chairman Jordan.

Well, it's a good question because he subpoenaed just about every Republican in this town, got half the Congress's phone numbers if you were a Republican. But he has to pay some secret source a bunch of taxpayer money. We'd like to know the committee would like to know how many other sources he's paid, was it more than $20,000, why he had to do those things. We'd like to know when you can if you could get that information to the committee. I think when you think about the guy who was trying to put the President of the United States in prison, ridiculous as that whole thing was, we kind of like to know the answer to that if you could. And with that, we're going to stand in recess. We will go as quickly as we can and vote. We have two quick votes on the floor and we will be back. There is actually some lunch if you all need it. We have for our members and since you're back here, you can have some. We we normally have plenty. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, before this before you gavel out, can I ask for unanimous consent to enter into a record the article entitled "Inside Trump's DOJ" dated October 16, 2020?

Without objection, we stand in recess. [Gavel sounds.] The committee will come to order and the gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Bondi, six days ago, you posted online, quote, "If you come for law enforcement, the Trump administration will come for you," end quote. I want to show you just a brief video that's about 30 seconds and ask you a couple questions about it.

[Video plays.]

Attorney General Bondi, that man works for you now, right?

Who was that, Congressman?

The man in that video, the one who was in the police-worn bodycam footage, the one allegedly yelling "kill 'em" at police officers on January 6. His name is Jared Wise.

He does work for us. He works for you at the Department of Justice. He does.

This is an individual whom a federal grand jury indicted for two felonies and four misdemeanors related to his participation in the attack on January 6. One of those charges was forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with police with the intent to commit another felony. This is who you choose as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America to hire at the Department of Justice, someone on video yelling "kill 'em" at police officers, right?

I believe he was pardoned by President Trump.

Oh, he was pardoned. You're right. You're right. Pardoned by President Trump for his offense. Pardoned for yelling "kill 'em" at police officers. And yet you expect hardworking police officers across the country to believe that you take law enforcement seriously. You could imagine the reaction of so many folks across the country hearing the chief law enforcement officer of the United States refuse to even condemn what that individual whom you've now hired did. But in any event, let's talk a little bit about some of the other divisions within the Department of Justice and what's happened over the last year. You're familiar with the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ's Criminal Division. I think it's referred to as PIN, is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Do you know which presidential administration under which the PIN was first created?

I can tell you what administration that the weaponization was ended under.

I'll reclaim my time. This wasn't a trick question, Madam Attorney General.

You don't get to reclaim your time.

Madam Attorney General, I'll reclaim my time. Mr. Chairman, will you explain to the witness that he does reclaim his time?

Because I don't answer a question to your satisfaction?

Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, the time belongs to the gentleman from Colorado.

The president under which PIN was created was Gerald Ford. It was created after Watergate. I'm not asking a question, Madam Attorney General. The administration under which it was created was Gerald Ford. When you first started as the Attorney General of the United States, there were 35 people working in that office. There are now two people working in that office because you have gutted it. How many people work for the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team in the Criminal Division today?

Can I answer the question about PIN?

I've asked you a question. How many people work for the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team? You won't answer how many people work for the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. You won't answer?

I'll answer PIN.

You... I think... you know what? I'll say to the Chairman, you know what the answer is, and I think I understand why the Attorney General does not want to answer the question. Because you eliminated the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team last year. So I understand why you don't want to tell the American people who works there. No one works there anymore, Madam Attorney General. In any event, I...

Yeah, I understand why you don't want to talk about Mohammad Salman in your district who murdered people.

In any event, I would... Mr. Chairman, will you stop the clock so his time is not wasted by the witness?

I've been very generous with allowing extra time when we have these little disputes.

I understand. You got the time, Mr. Neguse. I might as well ask the Chairman these questions because what is profound, the questions I've asked, Mr. Chairman, are not trick questions. They're not gotcha questions. They're actually basic questions about how the Department of Justice functions and the unwillingness of this Attorney General to answer them in good faith when a member of Congress asks how many people work at the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and the Attorney General refuses to answer it. It is not a coincidence. It's because she eliminated the team. Why? Because her boss, the President of the United States, is making money hand over fist, $1.4 billion over the course of the last year through cryptocurrency holdings. I think what is happening at the Department of Justice is a disgrace, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge you to gain control of this hearing. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Yeah, I would ask the gentleman, does he agree with the standing up of the Deputy Attorney General for dealing with fraud? That's something that's happened in this administration for the first time. You talked about PIN, that happened with this Justice Department. We're talking about this committee.

Mr. Chairman, had you answered the question in... had the Attorney General answered the question in that way, perhaps this hearing would have some modicum of resembling something that has typically been fairly conventional, an oversight hearing of the Department of Justice.

The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.

Attorney General Bondi, I want to express my gratitude to the President, you, and your team for your continued efforts against extreme anti-energy policies taken by states and cities that serve only to increase costs on the American people. This is an issue of great concern for Congress as well as the consumers. At the behest of networks of non-governmental organizations and anti-growth activists, Democratic-controlled states and cities are enacting laws and pursuing coordinated lawsuits that would impose retroactive liability on energy producers for past global emissions based on speculative future climate change harms. The proponents of these plans call them climate superfund laws, but in reality, that is simply window dressing for taxes and fees imposed on consumers and businesses that don't even have a presence in these states or communities. But if you look at the billions of dollars they hope to gain from these efforts, the real goal here is to increase their already mismanaged state budgets by imposing fees on consumers and businesses in energy-producing states such as the state of Wyoming. I would describe this as the tobacco litigation on steroids. Vermont has enacted such a law and another has recently gone into effect in New York. Similar laws are under consideration in a number of other states. Clearly, this problem is spreading. Would you agree that Congress has not authorized states to impose retroactive liability against energy producers and lawful carbon emissions?

Yes.

And would you also agree that protecting consumers is a core part of the DOJ's mission?

Absolutely.

Would you further agree that combating state policies that seek to hide and shift the true cost of programs like these onto consumers fits within your mission?

Yes.

So Attorney General Bondi, fossil fuels are the foundation of the U.S. economy and the recent winter storms underscored that gas, coal, and oil remain essential to grid reliability and heating our homes. Can you confirm that the DOJ is fully committed to using all available legal tools to stop these state and local level attacks on domestic energy production?

Congresswoman, we are committed to that and so is the entire administration. We talk about that.

Thank you. The President's April 2025 executive order directed the DOJ to identify and act against state laws that burden U.S. energy production. What concrete actions has the DOJ and the administration more broadly taken to carry out this directive?

Well, we filed four lawsuits. We are filing multiple lawsuits. Many things are pending within this office to carry that out.

Okay. States continue to invent new causes of action to pursue state climate lawfare as is evidenced by Michigan's recent novel claim related to antitrust violations. The city of Boulder, Colorado has also filed such a lawsuit despite refusing my challenge that they actually forgo the use of fossil fuels if they disagree with them so much. Does the Department of Justice agree that these novel approaches require a federal response and will the Department pursue such an approach?

Yes, Congresswoman, and we'd be happy to talk to you more about that.

Wonderful. Thank you. Multiple climate lawsuits are now advancing toward trial even in states that rely on those energy forms to provide heat and electricity for their citizens. In fact, in any community, they all rely upon fossil fuels in some fashion. Is the Department actively considering intervention to protect federal supremacy over interstate emissions and energy policy?

Yes, we'd be happy to discuss that with you.

Thank you. And clearly, this is an area in which Congress has a role to play. To that end, I'm working with my colleagues in both the House and Senate to craft legislation tackling both these state laws and the lawsuits that could destroy energy affordability for consumers. To that end, are there any authorities or tools that DOJ and the administration don't currently have at their disposal that would be helpful in that effort that Congress could adopt?

Well, we work with multiple agencies throughout the administration, but I'd be happy to talk to you about that more.

Wonderful. Thank you. I appreciate your effort in this regard.

And may I have 20 seconds of your time before to address something?

Please.

Thank you. Your colleague, Senator Neguse, Neguse, didn't want to talk about crypto because he said I was a disgrace talking about crypto because he didn't want to talk about the tremendous crime in his jurisdiction. He voted no on preventing violence against women by illegal aliens. Yet on June 1, 2025, Mohammad Salman attacked members of the group Run for Their Lives in Boulder, Colorado, where an 82-year-old woman sustained burns on over half of her body and eventually died from her injuries.

I believe that she was a Holocaust survivor.

She was.

Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentlelady yields back and the gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Bondi, as the Florida Attorney General, attorneys from your office handled the appeal of my son Jordan Davis's murder, which was denied. As a result of the efforts of those attorneys under your watch, the court actually upheld the life sentence for a man who used prejudice as his defense for murdering my son and injuring his friends for life. Attorneys from your office, under your management, worked hard to remove a dangerous man from the community who terrorized innocent people like my son and his friends. The compassion and respect that my family received throughout that ordeal were critical in helping us keep faith in the rule of law and justice. Based on my experiences, I've seen how strong victim services, sustained investigations, and well-supported prosecutors can make a meaningful difference in the lives of families who are grieving and suffering. Ms. Bondi, just yes or no, would you agree that government officials should be respectful and supportive of victims' families as they mourn?

First, Congresswoman, thank you for talking about that and I am so very sorry for what happened to your family. Thank you. And yes, I agree with that with all victims, including the ones sitting behind us today. I absolutely do. And also thank you for voting yes on the Laken Riley Act. Thank you for that. Thank you.

Okay. So your answer is why the recent treatment of families in Minnesota raises really serious concerns for me. Because shortly after Mr. Alex Preddy was murdered, administration officials referred to him as an assassin and called Mr. Preddy the definition of domestic terrorism. They also lied about Mr. Preddy holding a gun and threatening officers. After Ms. Renee Good was murdered by ICE officials in Minneapolis, administration officials also accused her of being a domestic terrorist and investigated her wife in a clear act of retaliation. The statement Mr. Preddy's mother made after the murder resonated with me more than you'll ever imagine. She said that, and I'm quoting, "The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting," end quote. And I assure you, I know how it feels to hear lies that are told to justify the taking of someone's son. They were used by my son's murderer as a defense and those lies still affect me today. He was called a thug and he was called a gangbanger. And the attorneys from your office actually defended my son's name, his memory, and defended his honor. I'm certain that Mr. Preddy's mother watched videos of her son Alex, an ICU nurse at the VA hospital, using his phone to record federal agents. She also watched him getting pepper-sprayed, kicked, hit in the head, and surrounded by at least seven agents before having his gun removed from his waistband, which he legally carried. And she watched seconds later as two of those agents shot her son Alex at least 10 times. The administration was quick to spew an incorrect narrative and call him so many things that they wanted us to ignore the truth that we actually saw with our own eyes. Ms. Bondi, will you denounce the statements that were made to tarnish the names of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and will you protect their names like those attorneys back in Florida under your watch protected my son's name?

What I will say is we are looking at everything to shed light on what happened that day and it is an ongoing and active investigation, both of those cases, and I assure you they will be investigated.

Investigating we understand that, but will you do everything in your power as you have done for my case, as you are asked to do, as you've sworn an oath to do? It is your responsibility to make sure that you are following the rule of law. Those families in Minnesota, they deserve the same respect. They deserve a full investigation which you have not even begun to do yet. So what are you saying is that they don't deserve any respect for a full investigation into their murders? That is incompetence on your behalf. The American people do deserve better. Non-commitment to defending the rule of law is what we see from you.

I told you we were investigating and I heard you say earlier...

...earlier when you told us that you will fight for them as well. And based on the information before us, these families have not received the same commitment to investigate what happened to their loved ones, nor have they received the respect that I would expect from the nation's top law enforcement officer. Investigations have been slow-walked, they've been canceled, and the special agent assigned to Renee Good's investigation resigned following pressure from your officials to reclassify Ms. Good's case. For families seeking answers and accountability, the withdrawal of investigative resources is simply unacceptable.

The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney General, I get the sense that we've lost a little perspective here. The most fundamental responsibility of government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. Now, you cited some crime figures in your opening statement, and I wonder if you could repeat them because I think it's one of the most extraordinary achievements of the Department of Justice in our history, and I don't think some of my colleagues heard you clearly.

Thank you, Congressman. And would you mind if I addressed something that Congresswoman McBath wouldn't let me address first? The reason that she wants to continue to talk about Minnesota, which we will all day long, is she doesn't want to talk about her own jurisdiction in Atlanta.

Go right ahead.

Because she doesn't want to talk about Christopher Walter, who traveled across state lines to try to meet and—nothing's funny about this—to meet and molest a 14-year-old girl in Georgia. That's why they're watching the clock, the American people should know, for the second it runs out, because they don't want to address anything in their jurisdiction. They're elected to represent people in their jurisdiction. We prosecuted illegal aliens who ran a large-scale meth operation in the Atlanta metro area.

You understand we don't prosecute, right, Ms. Bondi?

Madam Attorney General, I'm the—

I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. So yes, the statistics I spoke of earlier, Congressman, under the leadership of the FBI, historic work has been done. A drop 20 percent in the nationwide murder rate in 2025. Least murders in our country since 1900, and that is to the work because of the credit of Donald Trump.

And it's not just homicides, is it? It's also other violent crimes, robbery. Could you go through that list real quick?

Yes, Congressman. 100 percent increase in violent crime arrests in 2025 compared to 2024.

And what's that done to the violent crime rate in the country?

It's plummeting. 1,800 gangs—

Wait a second, wait a second. Do you mean to honestly tell us, and you're under oath, that if we take violent criminals off the streets, we end up with less crime?

I certainly hope so, Congressman, and that's our goal, and that's President Trump's goal.

That's an extraordinary concept, and I'm afraid it may be lost on some of our Democrat colleagues. I look at these numbers and they're absolutely staggering. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because of specific policies that you've implemented this year. And you mentioned a few of them. Would you continue?

Over 6,000 child victims located, 22 percent increase. Over 1,700 child predators arrested, 10 percent increase. Over 300 human traffickers arrested. Let me jump to DEA right now, that was just FBI. Under Terry Cole's leadership, and I talk to these people almost daily, our directors, and the amazing work that they're doing in all of your jurisdictions on the left and the right, working together to take drugs off our streets.

Right. And I assume that our Democrat colleagues, some of whom represent some of our most crime-plagued cities and communities, have thanked you for this extraordinary accomplishment.

Thank you, Congressman. We've seized more than 9,800 kilos of fentanyl and 47 million fentanyl pills. That affects every single person in this room. Doesn't matter what political party you are. Everyone in this room knows someone who's died from fentanyl. A parent, a child, a sister, a brother, a friend, a neighbor, a relative. Everyone here knows someone who has been impacted by that. That is the common ground that I wish we could find to work together in this country to take these drugs off the streets. And someone nodded with vapes.

Well, in your opening statement, you said that this historic success in protecting the lives and property of Americans has occurred when local governments have cooperated with you. Let me ask you, what are the greatest impediments you're facing in bringing down crime across the country?

Well, when local governments, of course, do not cooperate with us. And that's where criminals flee, in jurisdictions where they know they will be protected by local governments. And this is all about working together, and we have shown that in what we did in DC, what we're doing in Memphis, working together with Democrat mayors in these cities, right here in DC.

And very quickly, could you tell us about the Safe Cities program and give us your read on what cities that avail themselves of this program can expect?

Yes. So so far, of course, we've been working in Washington, DC, right here to do everything we can, working hand in hand with the mayor, with Metro PD, to keep everyone safe in DC, and it's been a tremendous effort. And now we're in Memphis, working with the mayor in Memphis, as we talked about earlier, doing everything we can. These are iconic cities in our country, and we want to help every city in this country who wants and asks for President Trump's help to make America safe again.

Gentleman— [Crosstalk.] Let the record show that Democrat was applauding the Attorney General's answer there. The—unanimous consent?

Yes, please.

All right. The gentlelady is recognized.

Mr. Chair, I have a few unanimous consent requests I would like to submit into the record. This New York Times article titled "Alex Spready's Friends and Family Denounce Sickening Lies About His Life." I also would like to submit this Daily Mail exclusive interview with Vice President J.D. Vance titled "J.D. Vance Refuses to Apologize to Alex Spready's Family After Spready Assassin Claim." One more, my last submission request is a New York Times article titled "FBI Agent Who Tried to Investigate ICE Officer in Shooting Resigns." Thank you.

Without objection. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Bondi, I think you and pretty much everybody else here and throughout the country believes that convicted sex offenders don't deserve special treatment or privileges in prison. And yet Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator, received perk after perk in prison. In July, she had a two-day interview with your deputy and President Trump's former defense attorney, Todd Blanche. Just days after that, Maxwell was transferred from a federal correctional institution in Florida to a minimum security camp in Texas, which she, as a sex offender, would normally be ineligible for. At this new facility, as the ranking member talked about, and by the way, it's nicknamed "Club Fed," we've heard reports that she's been afforded special privileges: puppy time, private workouts, personal mail, secretarial services. Attorney General Bondi, does a convicted sex offender like Ghislaine Maxwell deserve special treatment and privileges in prison? Yes or no?

Let me be crystal clear on this. No. And let me—

Thank you. Perfect.

No, let me keep going.

Well, I have more questions.

I did not know she was transferred and—

I asked you yes or no, and I'm reclaiming my right—

Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock and remind the witness of the rules. One rule she needs to understand here.

And I'm glad that we're agreeing. So when we're agreeing, we can move on to some other things. But I want you to know that every time she does get these perks, and it's been publicly reported, that her—the folks she's abused, the survivors who are sitting here, they see themselves as being denied justice. They feel re-traumatized. And I'm glad that we agree on that. But she should not be in that prison. And she needs to be moved back to a maximum security prison as soon as possible. But what she has told another committee here is that she won't cooperate with them unless she gets clemency from Donald Trump. It's just crazy to consider that she can be wielding this kind of influence within the administration. But that begs the question: who ordered her to be transferred to the minimum security prison that she was ineligible for? Who signed off on the special privileges? Was it Mr. Blanche? Was it one of your other subordinates? So please, can you tell us who sent her there since you don't agree she should be there?

I said I do not agree she should receive special treatment. She was transferred, I learned after the fact, to the same level facility, and that is a question for the Bureau of Prisons. I was not involved in that at all. The same level facility, I don't know why. But you know, instead of talking about Ghislaine Maxwell, who hopefully will die in prison, hopefully will die in prison, you should be talking about Irena Zarutska.

I have a couple of other questions. Who died on a subway— Right, and I—

But you don't talk about that.

I have been talking about it and actually helping with these issues. But we're going to move back to you.

I bet we are.

Yes, of course, because you're here to testify. That's what the whole point of this endeavor is. So of course we're moving back to you. It is all about you. So as we've heard, she took the Fifth in response to every single question in that committee hearing. And her lawyer dangled the offer of clemency. Should Donald Trump pardon or commute her sentence? Should she be released from prison? Yes or no?

You said you hope she dies there, so I'm hoping the answer's no. I already answered that question.

Good. I'm very glad. I really like this bipartisan agreement about what should happen.

Well, when it agrees with you. But you don't want to talk about Irena Zarutska.

I—you don't want to talk about—murdered by a violent criminal in your jurisdiction. I talk about her all the time, but I am not here to testify before Congress. You are. That is your job today. That's what you're getting paid for.

You are obsessed with attacks.

So I want you to know that your your own DOJ employee, he's recently been demoted and had some other problems, advises on pardons. Do you think he will be advising Mr. Trump on any kind of clemency or pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell?

I am not going to speculate, and you couldn't even identify properly. That's why you don't want to talk about Irena Zarutska. You couldn't properly identify her relative.

I absolutely—I absolutely—it's embarrassing. —have been, and her family, by the way, appreciates all of the condolences, all of the help, everything that our law enforcement in North Carolina has been doing to help her family. Her family feels well-treated. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from California is recognized.

I'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article by former Attorney General William P. Barr entitled "Why Pam Bondi Didn't Publish All the Epstein Files in 30 Days. The Answer is Simple: It Was Not Possible," from the Wall Street Journal.

Well said. Without objection. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam—I'm sorry.

May I respond 20 seconds to something that Congresswoman Ross said? Go right ahead. Thank you. She also opposed a sex offender registry as head of North Carolina ACLU. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Attorney General. And I'd like to pick up where you left off a moment ago because we convene here today as a committee for the stated purpose of conducting oversight of the Department of Justice. And so it's critical for us to focus first on the mission of the department and assess your success in discharging it. So the mission of the department is to enforce federal law, defend the rule of law, and protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud, and exploitation, to promote public safety. And what we have heard today unequivocally is that President Trump's Department of Justice under your leadership, Attorney General Bondi, is doing exactly that. Just a moment ago, you shared with us some incredible statistics: that the United States under your leadership has achieved the lowest murder rate in 125 years. That in the first year of this administration, murder is down 21 percent, robbery is down 23 percent, carjacking down 43 percent, and gun assault down 22 percent. That is what public safety looks like. Under your leadership and that of President Trump, you've located more than 6,000 child victims of trafficking and exploitation, arrested 1,700 child predators, and apprehended more than 300 human traffickers. Significant increases. And those aren't just statistics, those are precious lives that your department and the men and women of federal law enforcement have saved. Madam Attorney General, you've mentioned a couple of specific criminal trends during this hearing that I'd like to discuss with you further because one of our important roles in Congress is making sure that our laws and our law enforcement stay ahead of predators as technology evolves. I lead legislation in the House, along with bipartisan co-sponsors on this committee, to make sextortion a clearly defined criminal offense. We actually passed that out of the House of Representatives. We have a bill to promote Operation Renewed Hope to help rescue more child victims, and the Defiance Act to provide legal recourse to victims of deepfake AI intimate images. I would love to hear your perspective and what you are seeing related to these technology-based criminal trends: sextortion and AI deepfakes. What are you seeing at the Department of Justice, and why do you believe that efforts to combat these types of crimes are important?

Sextortion, and thank you for supporting that, Congresswoman. I think that was a bipartisan effort, actually. I think many of you on both sides of the aisle supported that. Thank you for that. You know, as a career prosecutor, it's horrible seeing that and seeing that young women and and often young boys have been exploited with sextortion. And I see, thank you, both sides of the aisle nodding on that. It's horrific. The suicide rates go up. And that's why we have to do everything in our power to protect not only young girls, adult women, boys, and men from sextortion, because it is happening and we're doing everything in our power, thanks to your legislation, all of you, to stop that.

I'd like to hear a little bit more about some of the Department of Justice programs, like Project Safe Childhood and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, partnerships that bring together federal, state, and local law enforcement. Sometimes the work between those those law enforcement groups together really creates some incredibly powerful outcomes and some great success stories. I know you, as Florida's Attorney General, had a tremendous amount of leadership in our state trying to make sure we were taking care of children, also the elderly, protecting them from fraud, ending drug trafficking. Tell us a little bit about some of those departments within DOJ.

Yeah, when you talked about Project Safe Neighborhoods, we've done a lot of that in Florida when I was state AG and actually back when I was a state prosecutor prior to being Attorney General. That is so important. I feel like what we've been doing in DC too, with the Take Back DC and Make DC Safe Again, is similar to that. Going into the neighborhoods, working with the community, seeing law enforcement officers out there playing basketball with kids who live in the neighborhood. It's pretty remarkable what we've seen firsthand. Citizens in Memphis saying that they appreciate they can walk outdoors now and they feel safe. People coming up thanking law enforcement and working hand in hand with them. We will continue all of these programs and working jointly with both sides of the aisle to to keep our families safe.

Thank you for that, Madam Attorney General. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.

Thank you. I'd like to introduce for the record a letter a letter to Director Gabbard from Mr. Warner and Mr. Himes, and a letter response from her to them about who invited her to Atlanta, and a copy of the search warrant. And I'd also like to just make clear for the record, the reason people in Memphis weren't going out was because the ice was on the was on the ground and we were afraid we'd fall. But other than that, we go out all the time.

Gentleman, without objection. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General Bondi, according to your department, a child is sexually abused in the United States every nine minutes. And the vast majority of survivors never get justice. And that's one of the reasons why I think the Epstein case has resonated so deeply with so many Americans. And the other reason, I think, is because it has revealed a two-tiered system of justice, and the powerful are protected and the survivors rarely get any accountability. And the Epstein files contain evidence of a multi-decade international criminal conspiracy involving some of the wealthiest and the most powerful people in the world. There's evidence of financial crimes, political corruption, sex trafficking, and of course, horrible sexual abuse. And I want to remind everybody, this isn't a game. These are real people, people who have suffered, who are sitting here with us today, and they deserve answers and they deserve accountability. And I'm here to try to get some for them. Now, I've seen some of the unredacted Epstein files, and obviously, as you know, President Trump's name is all over them. But so are the names of other senior Trump officials: Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce; John Phelan, the Secretary of the Navy; and Stephen Feinberg, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. These men were appointed by President Trump to senior positions in his administration. All of them have clear and confirmed ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney General Bondi, yes or no, has the Justice Department asked Secretary Lutnick about his ties to Epstein?

Excuse me. Secretary Lutnick has addressed those ties himself.

I'm asking you, has the Justice Department specifically asked Secretary Lutnick about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein?

He has addressed those ties himself.

Has the DOJ asked Secretary Phelan about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein?

I don't know whether he has addressed those or not.

Has the Deputy Secretary Secretary Feinberg talked to the Department of Justice about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein? Yes or no, has the Department of Justice talked to Secretary Deputy Secretary Feinberg about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, which are clearly spelled out in the files? It's a very simple question. It's not a trick question. I'm just asking you.

Yeah, I'm stunned that you want to continue talking about Epstein instead of—

Oh my gosh. Okay, I'm reclaiming my time. I'm asking you, not a trick question, a simple question. Stunned. Okay, so what is clear is we have evidence. Do you know who Chris Maylen is? We have evidence that three senior officials within the Trump administration have ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

What does ties mean?

And what I can conclude from what you are saying is that you have not talked to them.

What does ties mean? Can you define—

So I think Americans would be shocked to learn that you are not interested in talking with these officials who have ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

What does ties mean? Can you define—

Across the world, prominent men who have been exposed in the files have resigned their jobs in disgrace. And that's a good first start.

Disgrace is not saying the word Chris Maylen. And that same standard—

And that same standard should apply here. And Americans want accountability. Who is Chris Maylen? Was the president aware—please stop talking. It is not your time to ask questions. It is not your time. I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair. Who was he?

One second. Time belongs to the gentlelady from Vermont.

Was the president aware of Secretary Lutnick's ties to Epstein when he chose him to lead the Department of Commerce?

Was he aware? Chris Maylen was a border patrol agent.

Okay, so I'm going to conclude that the president in fact did know about his ties because he was the next-door neighbor. Shame on you.

Oh, for goodness' sake. This is pathetic.

This is pathetic, Mr. Chair. The committee will be in order. I am not asking trick questions here. You got your time. The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game, Secretary.

I'm Attorney General.

My apologies, I couldn't tell. By 2008, we knew that Epstein was a convicted sexual abuser. And we now know that Lutnick went to Epstein's island in 2012. How was that not a deal-breaker for the president? And why aren't you asking questions of the Commerce Secretary about what he saw when he was at the island, which he lied about ever going to? Why are you not asking these questions? And I see that my time is almost expired, so I will say this. Do the right thing, Attorney General. Meet with the survivors. They have been asking for a year. Meet with the survivors, do the right thing. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for five minutes.

May I have 20 seconds of his time?

That'll be up to the gentleman, but—

Absolutely, Madam.

Thank you. Thank you. I was curious if you, Congresswoman, asked Bill Clinton that. Didn't hear didn't see one tweet, not one. I didn't see one tweet when Joe Biden was in office about Bill Clinton. Didn't ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein, not once when he was Attorney General. Weak sauce. Weak sauce. And also, I want the record to reflect that, you know, with this anti-Semitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning— Oh, do you want to go there, Attorney General? Do you want to go there?

Are you serious? Time belongs to the gentleman from South Carolina. [Gavel sounds.]

Talking about anti-Semitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust. Really?

The committee will be in order. I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time.

Talk to Jared Wise about anti-Semitism. The ranking member knows that— I'm going to—can I get like 30 seconds back, you know? Yeah, I've been—I think the whole committee knows I've been very generous making sure everyone gets their five minutes in the— Thank you. Attorney General, I'm going to talk about sanctuary cities for a second, which limit the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. They're kind of a new thing that Democrat jurisdictions are doing. They're in violation of federal law. During President Trump's first term, he rightly targeted sanctuary jurisdictions to try to force them to cooperate with federal immigration law. Federal immigration law, mind you, that was voted on in 1996 most recently in a bipartisan Congress, signed by a Democrat president. But they are in violation of that law. These states and jurisdictions feel entitled to certain grants, of course, you all are combating that. Do sanctuary policies limit the federal government's ability to accurately estimate how many criminal illegals are in the country?

Yes.

Thank you. This means that the number of illegals could be higher, probably higher. Does this hurt the federal government's ability to carry out immigration laws designed by Congress?

Yes, Congressman.

In your opinion, do you believe that the Biden-Harris administration and Democrat pro-sanctuary policies make our community safer and for the American taxpayer? Do they make do sanctuary policies make our community safer?

No, Congressman.

I want to do a brief video to highlight sanctuary cities. [Video plays.] So what's strange to me, if you look at this board behind me, in New York, there are 7,000 criminal illegal aliens since January 20th of last year that have been released into the public because New York is not honoring detainers requested by ICE. California similarly has released 4,500 criminal illegal aliens. There are 33,000 under detainer in California alone. And of the of the people released, I just think it's remarkable that those released in New York: 29 homicides, 2,500 assaults, almost 200 burglaries. These are people that are released into our community by these states that refuse to cooperate. Last August, Michael Jordan Castellano Fonseca, a criminal illegal alien with ties to Tren de Aragua, shot two people in front of five children in the sanctuary state of Colorado. DHS lodged a detainer on him, he's awaiting trial, but the question is whether Colorado's sanctuary policies will prevent him from being removed from the country. Yes or no, do you think that sanctuary jurisdictions, if they cooperated with ICE, those illegals in custody could be transferred to ICE properly instead of being held in taxpayer-funded jails and then released into our community?

Yes, Congressman.

Wouldn't it be more efficient and safer then if Democrats simply cooperated with the federal government, these sanctuary jurisdictions cooperated with the federal government and honored ICE detainers? And why? Why do you think?

Of course, because so many criminals are running to sanctuary jurisdictions. Many of your colleagues across the aisle who we've seen speaking today about Epstein don't want to talk about the illegal criminals in their own jurisdiction for that reason. And yes, we need to do everything we can to work together to make America safer, and they're not doing that.

This is not a partisan issue. People want to feel safe in their communities. Nobody wants a criminal illegal alien released into the street. I think the the thing that maybe the American people don't quite understand is that when you do not honor a detainer, as we've seen, an illegal is released into the public and now it's up to ICE to maybe apprehend them rather than behind the courtroom passing them off from one law enforcement to the next. Is that true?

Absolutely.

What do you think the what do you think the Department of Justice is doing right now to combat sanctuary policies in our country?

We're doing everything in our power, obviously, to combat that. Donald Trump is doing everything he can because we are going to make America safe. We are going to get illegal criminal aliens out of this country. We're going to get the gangs out: TDA, MS-13, all of the gangs in this country. We're going to get the drug dealers out and the drugs, and that's what we've been fighting to do. And I wish we could do it on a bipartisan basis, but they just can't do it.

And the decrease in numbers speak for themselves. Thank you for your work.

Gentleman's time— Mr. Chairman, we have some UCs if that's okay. That is okay.

Thank you. UC on the National Institute of Justice's study on undocumented immigrants having an offender rate lower than U.S.-born citizens. I'd like to enter this into the record from 2024.

Without objection.

And I have several myself, Mr. Chairman. The Guardian, January 26, 2026, "Why is Trump Granting Clemency to Convicted Fraudsters?" Without objection. January 20, 2026, NBC, "Trump's Pardons Forgive Financial Crimes." ...crimes that came with hundreds of millions of dollars in punishment.

Without objection.

Washington Post, December 19, 2025, Trump's pardons wipe out payments to defrauded victims.

Without objection.

And finally, May 30, 2024, Trump found guilty by Manhattan jury on 34 felony counts of fraud.

Without objection. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. Attorney General Bondi, glad you finally made it here after hiding for four months from this committee.

Whoa, I thought you were hiding, Chairman.

I understand why you're hiding from us. You're one of the worst attorneys general in our history and an instrument of Donald Trump's lawless authoritarian agenda, and I'm glad the American people are seeing who you are, how you act, and the lack of good values. You weaponized the Department of Justice to target immigrants, working families, and anyone that Trump deems an enemy of the state, all to protect real powerful criminals, including in your administration. My Democratic colleagues have focused on your cover-up of the Epstein files and your passion for protecting pedophiles and child traffickers. That alone is grounds for impeachment, but there's so much more to your corrupt tenure as Attorney General. You directed prosecutors to investigate elected officials in welcoming jurisdictions, and you got thrown out of court when you sued Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois. You directed prosecutors to prioritize low-level immigration cases while gutting enforcement against corporate criminals and public corruption. You revived Draconian law of 1798...

You're talking about public corruption, Bondi?

Whoa.

...which should be repealed to illegally send people to a torture prison in El Salvador. You fired over 100 immigration judges, including the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in Chicago, without cause, and installed unqualified military judges whom you instructed to deny asylum in violation of the law. You prosecute the President's enemies like Jim Comey and Tish James while giving impunity to federal agents who are murdering and brutalizing and terrorizing constituents, including in Chicagoland, in my neighborhood. I saw it last year firsthand. You and Kash Patel covered up the murder of Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in my district by ICE agents. You tried to investigate Renee Good instead of the ICE agent who murdered her, and you tried to cover up the murder of Alex Preti by CBP agents. You bring fake charges against protesters like the Broadview Six and Marimar Martinez, whom your administration labeled a domestic terrorist. This is the Montessori teacher who lives in my district, while protecting thugs who terrorize us and DHS authority. That's what you do. Protect and enable the criminals who are plundering our society and destroying what's left of democracy and the rule of law. Epstein accomplices, masked DHS thugs, corporate criminals, Tom Homan and Eric Adams, insurrectionists, the list goes on. And you talk about fighting crime, but you protect any criminal who helps you and Trump turn our country into an authoritarian gangster state. And after all this, nobody supports you. I'm talking about, I'm not talking about Democrats, I'm talking about conservative judges who are condemning the rampant lawlessness at DOJ under your leadership. Your prosecutors are quitting in droves over being forced to prosecute low-level immigration cases, including in Chicagoland. Your MAGA base despises you because you're covering up the Epstein file. How ironic. And even your own boss has repeatedly complained to your staff about you, calling you weak and ineffective. Weak and ineffective. That's what Donald Trump thinks of you already. You will not win, however. Chicagoland rejects you. The American people reject you. Our communities have demonstrated our strength and resilience in the face of cruelty and cowardice. Democrats must impeach and remove lawless officials like you and Kristi Noem and impose accountability for every criminal action. But you can spare yourself more humiliation. Resign now and submit yourself to accountability by the American people. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record this Wall Street Journal article dated January 12, 2026, and titled, Trump has complained about Pam Bondi repeatedly to aides. Thank you, and I yield back.

Without objection. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

I thank the Chairman.

May I have 20 seconds, please?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

It's here to the opposition research.

Thank you. That's absolutely right that they're not running for, he's not running for office again because, well, I don't know why you're not running for office again, but after the filing deadline, after the filing deadline, you publicly announced you would not run when your Chief of Staff, Patty Garcia, announced and took your seat.

That's a state matter, that isn't a federal matter. You should investigate crimes.

I believe Democrats are hiding...

I believe Democrats are hiding...

...under the law.

...under the law.

You should investigate...

You should investigate...

...violations of the law.

...violations of the law.

Time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. Time belongs to the gentleman from Texas.

And a little flexibility on the time. I appreciate the Chairman. Madam Attorney General, am I correct that under your leadership, the Department of Justice has prosecuted cases of non-citizen voting? So it's false as some of my Democratic colleagues have claimed that it doesn't happen.

Yes.

I ask that today because we're voting on the SAVE America Act today to enact common sense policies to ensure only American citizens vote in American elections and enact federal voter ID laws. But it's true, for example, that in just this month, a federal grand jury in New York indicted two men with illegally voting in federal elections and making false statements. Muhammad Muzammil and Muhammad Shakeel were non-citizens at the time they registered to vote. This happens, it happens regularly and you're prosecuting those crimes, correct?

Yes.

But does that prosecution of those criminals overturn their previously cast votes?

That's all pending.

But it does not overturn votes that they've cast, right? So passing the SAVE America Act would help deal with that problem.

Yes, Congressman.

Second question. As Attorney General, you're in charge of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, correct?

Yes, Congressman.

The Biden-Mayorkas regime caused the immigration court case backlog to explode, correct?

Explode.

Does that sound about right that in September of 2020, four months before President Biden took office, there was a backlog of 1.5 million cases, but by the time President Biden left office, the backlog reached nearly 4.2 million cases?

It sounds about right, but I don't have the exact numbers.

It would be accurate to say that most individuals who file for asylum have a meritless or fraudulent claim?

Most, but I don't have the numbers.

So does it sound correct that of the asylum cases adjudicated in FY 2023 under the Biden regime, that only 14 percent resulted in an asylum grant and only 12 percent in fiscal year 2024? Does that sound correct?

It sounds correct. I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers.

Could you get that information to us to verify that data?

Yes, absolutely. I'll get all that information to you.

Under the Trump administration, immigration judges complete an average of 65,000 cases per month, the highest average completion rate in at least a decade. Does that sound correct?

That sounds correct.

Ms. Bondi, how many new cases under EOIR were received in fiscal year 2025? Have you all had, and of those, what percentage have been granted asylum? Do you know?

I can try to get you those numbers. I thought I had those.

That'd be great. Because my question is whether President Trump's decision to pause asylum in the wake of the shooting of a National Guardsman by an Afghani here in Washington, D.C., in the nation's capital, helped to stop the backlog in your office. Does that sound correct?

Yes, Congressman.

My point being that the leadership of this administration is ending the backlog, reducing the backlog, making sure that we don't have fraudulent asylum claims clogging it, and keeping Americans safe. Is that correct?

Yes, Congressman.

So a couple other quick questions on another important topic that has been raised by both colleagues on both sides of the aisle with respect to the Epstein case. A few questions. One, Jeffrey Epstein was charged in July 2019 for sex trafficking under the Trump administration in his first term. Is that correct?

Yes, Congressman.

And that Ghislaine Maxwell was charged in 2020, also under the Trump administration, correct?

Yes, Congressman.

So it is safe to say that the administration led on that issue and that there was silence in the previous administration. Is that correct?

Yes, Congressman. Almost complete silence from everyone who's been trying to still talk about Epstein. They didn't say a word under the Biden administration. Nothing.

And I want to make one other point and then another question, though that is important. I want to make one observation, and that is that we've heard the information today, which is troubling, that Jane Does, that victims' information was made public and was unredacted in the files that were released on Friday. So my question is, some of us had argued when we were dealing with the discharge petition in Congress that when Congress inserted itself into the process, that we needed to be very careful to ensure that we were protecting victims. So a question that is both, I just want to make that clear that some of us were fighting for that here and we didn't get a chance to amend it or change it. So that was concerning. But a question a little more pointed, I have to say, is why, though, were the victims' names released that shouldn't have been? That there were names in the files that these Jane Does, that their names shouldn't have been made public when there were some accusers whose names were redacted. That's question one. And question two was that Ghislaine Maxwell was put in jail for trafficking minors, rightly so, and you properly said here at this table, you hope she dies in jail. Well, I want to know, will anyone besides her or Epstein, which I congratulate President Trump's previous administration and this Department of Justice for continuing all of that, but that they were indicted, but will anyone else be indicted and prosecuted under this given the information that's in front of us? So two questions.

Thank you for letting me answer that. They didn't want to hear my answer on the other side. Yes, given the tight timeframe of 30 days, and I believe we got everything released within a little over 60 days, and I'm talking as fast as I can, my time is up. We did the best we could immediately. If everyone's been coming to view the documents, if someone's name should not have been redacted, we're releasing it. If someone's name was redacted, we said right away, was not redacted and should have been, meaning a victim, we went back and redacted it. We're doing everything we can based on the tight timeframe and over 3 million pages that we released that Donald Trump signed for pure transparency. Second, what was your second question?

About whether another individual will be indicted and prosecuted.

Oh, absolutely. Thank you for asking that. And they never wanted to hear the answer to that. We have pending investigations in our office.

Time of the gentleman has expired. Unanimous consent request from the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.

Thank you. I have several UCs as receipts. I'd like to have unanimous consent to introduce the National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 dated September 25, 2025.

Without objection.

The Bondi Department of Justice memo dated December 4, 2025.

Without objection.

An article from Newsweek entitled, DOJ deletes study alleging rise in far-right terrorism, dated September 18, 2025.

Without objection.

Notice article from October 3, 2025, Trump's directive on organized political violence could lead to increased surveillance of his critics.

Without objection.

Washington Post article, September 25, 2025, Trump targets domestic terrorists but only mentions the radical left.

Without objection.

Idaho Capital Sun, October 18, 2025, Rest easy Idahoans, the No-King demonstrators are American patriots.

Without objection.

Attacks on freedom of speech, what nonprofits need to know, published by the National Council of Nonprofits, the largest network of nonprofits in America.

Without objection.

The Freedom From Religious Foundation warns that Bondi memo weaponizes federal law enforcement against non-Christians and dissenting viewpoints.

Without objection.

A Ken Klippenstein blog from January 28, 2026, ICE's secret watchlists of Americans.

Without objection.

And an Intercept article from February 2, 2026, Trump calls his enemies terrorists. Does that mean he can kill them?

Without objection. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Attorney General Bondi.

Good afternoon.

Right, good afternoon. It's been a long day. I wrote this this morning. We've known each other a long time, and I'll always be appreciative for your assistance when you were Attorney General in Florida after the shooting at my high school at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in my hometown of Parkland when we passed a bipartisan bill, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School Safety Act, which was the largest policy response to a school shooting in American history. Your department also prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law a constituent of mine and former felon that had plans to kill me when he was picked up by law enforcement after he was target practicing in his backyard with two rifles, a scope, a silencer, 3,000 rounds of ammunition, and an anti-Semitic manifesto. My name was the only name on their target list, and my kids found out about this from their friends at school. So thank you. However... The most transparent administration in American history. Before Trump, we didn't know the word transparent, apparently. It's been 12 months since you gave Republican influencers part one of the Epstein files. You said the list was on your desk. Then a memo came out and said that there was no list. Phase two of the binder never happened. The President of the United States says the Epstein thing is a hoax. He blasts his own base for wanting the release of the files. He blamed Barack Obama. Republicans voted against the release of the files in the Rules Committee. Then they refused to even return to the Rules Committee until they could be protected from future votes on the release. Speaker Johnson sends Congress home a day early before a break. They sent the Deputy Attorney General to meet with Maxwell. She says something favorable about the President. Miraculously, she gets transferred to a minimum security facility. No one can explain why. Miraculously, the leaks to the Wall Street Journal stop. We come back from break. We have the Massie discharge petition. Republicans drop a rule, a non-binding resolution trying to kill the Massie discharge petition. The White House says passing the Massie discharge petition is a hostile act, trying to stop the necessary 218 signatures. According to Republican members that signed it, the White House brought them into the Situation Room, you know, the place where the President goes for time of war, promising things like appropriations or maybe even to primary them. People in the room say you were there. It didn't work. We get the 218 signatures. We eventually pass the Massie petition. You guys didn't release the files. You were forced by Congress, every member of the House except one and the entire Senate. The reason the President signed it is because it was a veto-proof majority. We can't agree on anything, and yet the entire House but one member and the whole Senate forced the administration to release the files. Kash Patel under oath said to Senator Kennedy, the FBI is not in possession of any credible evidence that Epstein trafficked girls to anyone but himself. We know now that's not true. According to documents, Epstein had a worldwide sex trafficking ring. Girls from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Paris, modeling agencies sending him girls. He even had a relationship with a summer camp where he groomed girls at a picnic table. Ghislaine Maxwell says 29 Epstein associates cut secret DOJ deals. Turns out there is a list. Six names readily available if you unredact them. Co-conspirators named, but we got them when you unredact them. Maxwell recently tells a House Oversight Committee that she wants clemency to release more names. Kash Patel under oath said Trump's name appears less than 100 times in the files. We now know that's not true. Trump's name appears more times in the Epstein files than God's name appears in the book about God. Okay, by the way, this is the Trump Bible, move over King James. Trump's name also appears more times in the Epstein file than Harry Potter's name appears in the seven books about Harry Potter. Lutnick says that in 2008 he went to Epstein's home, says he had a massage table in the living room, that Epstein said he got one every day, that it was the right type of massage. He and his wife decide to leave and say they'll never be in a room with him again. Howard then says, I'm sure the Epstein stuff is all on video. He was the greatest blackmailer of all time. Well, how would Howard know that? But now the files are public, and in 2012 we find out that he and his family are on Epstein Island after, after, after Epstein pled guilty to state charges. I'm from Florida, I take my family to Disney World, not to Epstein Island. There are documents in the files that dispute the President's claim that he kicked Epstein out of his club. Allegedly the President said Epstein, that he asked Epstein to leave, supported now, that's disputed though by statements from the manager of the club. Now, Madam Attorney General, I have like 25 seconds left. So because I'm curious, and I just, I'd like to see you flip to the Jared Moskowitz section of the binder. I'm interested to see what staff provided on the oppo on me, and because we're in the Olympics, I'm going to give it a grade. I just want to see how, how good it is. So give me your best one.

So first of all, nothing is funny about mocking the Bible and holding up a Trump Bible. That's what you did. You made a joke and I find it offensive. That's all I have to say.

I'm not mocking the Bible.

That's the best one.

No, I want it...

Shame.

I want it from the burn book. I want it from the burn book. Which is the best one? What you got?

Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

Thank you. First of all, I'd like to clear something up that was said earlier and is frequently said and is manifestly not true. And that is the supposed small number of crimes committed by immigrants or illegal immigrants in the country. That has been based on a poorly done study by the Cato Institute, and I believe the Cato Institute itself has even updated that study. The reason that we know that study is not true is that those statistics are not out there. For whatever reason, when somebody is arrested, even for very serious crimes, we do not have on the paperwork whether that person is a legal or illegal immigrant. Okay, if I go to one of my local sheriffs in Wisconsin and ask them how many illegal immigrants in your jail, they will say, I have no idea. We don't keep track of that. When I tour the federal prison right outside of my district and I ask them, in this federal prison, how many of your inmates are illegal aliens, they will tell me, we have no idea. We don't keep track of that. So whenever you hear a Democrat or anybody or a pundit say that, oh, there's so few illegals committing crime, it is based on nothing because those statistics are not available anywhere. What I would offer in the next round of appropriation bills, if one of my Democratic colleagues wants to help me out, perhaps in appropriations we can get funds to add to all the paperwork whenever anybody is convicted of a crime as to whether or not they are a citizen or non-citizen, and then we will have the statistics. But otherwise, whenever you hear somebody say on MSNBC or wherever, oh, so few crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, they don't know what they're talking about because nobody has those numbers. Okay, there's the first thing. Now, the next thing I want to point out, we have had what I think is an unprecedented situation in Minnesota in which they are not assisting ICE in dealing with crimes that are going on up there. In other words, ICE is left to its own devices. When I talk to my local sheriffs, they tell me that whenever a federal agency is engaged in work in Wisconsin, they always make themselves available in case that federal agency needs assistance. This could be something like ICE under DEI, it could be DEA, Drug Enforcement, it could be ATF, it could be FBI, it could be Secret Service, it could be the U.S. Marshal. Nobody that I have been able to find, any sheriff in the state of Wisconsin is aware of any circumstances in which they did not make themselves available to federal law enforcement, either if they need somebody extra to do surveillance, to just park a marked car outside the area, to assist in apprehension of a criminal, if they need a distance assistance with an additional SWAT team, if they need to transport somebody, local law enforcement is always there. Now, you are not in charge of ICE, but you're in charge of several other agencies. Have you ever heard of anything like what's going on in Minnesota where the governor or the local mayor refuses to give assistance to federal law enforcement?

I have in Portland and some other cities where they weren't cooperating. But as I said, I spent about four days, I did spend four days in in Minnesota, and I believe many of the local law enforcement wish they could work with us to make their city safe.

Okay, now we'll switch to something else. And first of all, I'd like to thank you for doing this today. You're obviously very bright, obviously very confident, and something that I love, you tolerate fools gladly, so I appreciate that trait. You suffer fools gladly. In hearings like this, we often focus on new initiatives undertaken by the department. Today I'd like to give you an opportunity to discuss actions implemented under the Biden administration's Department of Justice, such as the Foreign Influence Task Force that you have since terminated. And you know, it's always rare to see anything in the government terminated. But could you elaborate on those decisions and highlight the accomplishments of your tenure at Justice?

Thank you for asking that. We are out of time, but may I answer, Chairman? Thank you. The Biden administration weaponized the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and on February 10, President Trump issued an executive order pausing that for a DOJ review. Under Deputy Attorney General Blanche's supervision, a comprehensive review was led, and the department issued new guidelines protecting all Americans and protecting against the weaponization that happened under the Biden administration.

Time of the gentleman has expired. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, I went over to the department yesterday for a couple of hours to review some of the unredacted materials, and I am looking forward to your detailed explanation for why you have withheld almost half of the documents, which is required by the bill. Now, obviously there are 3 million documents, so I didn't get through much, but one thing I didn't see was the client list that you said you had on your desk a year ago. I did, however, find a couple of important documents. An 86-page prosecution memo from the Southern District of New York and a draft indictment from Florida against Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators. For reasons that I cannot understand, nor are permitted by the bill, they were still redacted even for members of Congress. So Ms. Bondi, will you commit right here to immediately providing those two documents in unredacted form to members of Congress?

Not a complicated question. Well, I guess it is for you because you have a law degree and those are privileged. Okay, they're not privileged, but we will discuss that later. I also found an email that I have right here from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell that was unredacted.

And it included notes of statements that Donald Trump made about his prior relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, there is no reason for this to be hidden from the American people. There is no privilege, there is no attorney-client privilege, and I see you're checking with your staff, and I can assure you, staff, this is not under attorney-client privilege because it was sent from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell. Will you commit to publicly providing the unredacted version of this so that the American people can understand the extent of Donald Trump's lies about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?

You're about as good of a lawyer today as you were when you tried to impeach President Trump in 2016. Have you apologized for that in 2019?

So will you, will you unredact this? Will you unredact this?

You were lead counsel on that. Privileged.

I'm asking you, will you unredact this?

Privileged.

Privileged, of course. I look forward to discussing this more. Now, these are obviously improper redactions. And let me stop for a minute. I'm talking. I'm talking. Quiet. Don't yell at me. If they're not privileged...

Mr. Chairman, would you stop the clock? This is on her time, it's not on Mr. Goldman's.

...if they're not privileged, you used your improper redaction. You'll like my answer. If we review them and they're not privileged, we'll be happy to release them after review.

Time belongs to the member. We'll stop the clock. We'll stop the clock. Time belongs to the member. Go ahead.

Even though you used improper redactions to protect Donald Trump and other predators associated with Jeffrey Epstein, you did the exact opposite thing with the survivors and victims of this scheme. So their identification information was really the only thing required to be redacted, and it was not. And it's clear this was not a mistake, this was not by accident, this was not because you only had 30 days when you really used 75, and that doesn't even include all the hours last March that you were redacting it. But I'll tell you why it's clear it wasn't a mistake. There is an email entitled Epstein Victim List. There are 32 names. One is redacted, 31 are not. So someone looked at it and decided to redact something. And I will tell you that that is clearly intentional to intimidate these survivors and victims. Now, in an interview last week...

How will you tell me that's intentional?

...in an interview, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said that any victim that wants to speak with the department has done so, hopefully. Well, thanks to the incredibly brave people sitting here behind you, we can actually ask them if that's true. Now, with the survivors and victims who are here, please stand up one more time. Just by show of hands, how many of you or your loved ones actually have met with the Department of Justice and provided testimony and evidence? None. And of those of you who have not met, which is everyone, how many of you have reached out either individually or through a lawyer or representative to offer to provide testimony and evidence? All of them. And of those of you, all of you, who have reached out, how many of you were denied or ignored by the Department of Justice? All of them. And despite the shameful and despicable efforts by Ms. Bondi and her department to intimidate you, how many of you are still willing to speak to the Department of Justice? All of them. Well, Ms. Bondi, it looks like you have some more witnesses to talk to.

Gentleman's time has expired. And I yield back. We will go to the good gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Knott.

Thank you. May I have a moment, Congressman? Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Here we go. Here's the photograph. This is why he wanted to repeat everything that had been said previously on Epstein. This is his state, New York. You probably don't even know who this is. Wahid Muhammad from Afghanistan. He was convicted of assault. Wow, he represents New York. Wow, yet he doesn't care about the illegal aliens convicted of crimes. Assault and homicide. No longer... ...longer a prosecutor, so he doesn't care about his constituents. Here we go. Arson, El Salvador, Miguel Palacios. Firmin Flores Ramales, Mexico, rape.

Let's talk about the 70 percent of immigrants who are detained without a criminal conviction or arrest.

Stop the clock. Stop the clock. Time belongs to Congressman Knott.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Attorney General, I want to be sure that the American people understand exactly what we're referring to when we talk about sanctuary policies. They are often framed in sort of innocuous terms like, we refuse to take part in immigration law. And when you add up all of the population represented by these cowardly politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions, whether it's a county, city, or state, sanctuary jurisdictions account for roughly 40 percent of the United States. Now, in reality, it's much more than just a passive exercise, is that not correct?

Yes.

It's unbelievably active. And in terms of breaking down these terms, I want to break it down in as clearly a term as I can. What is a federal detainer for the American people? Please describe it.

A federal detainer is when someone is held in federal custody.

Yes. And when a federal detainer is issued to local law enforcement, they are obviously in local or state custody, correct?

Yes.

And federal officers take note of that apprehension and they say, we want to come and apprehend him or her to deport them. Isn't that correct?

Yes.

And in these sanctuary jurisdictions, whether it's California, Illinois, New York, or other places, even in North Carolina, there are sanctuary jurisdictions, that federal detainer often prompts not any cooperation, not any assistance, but a release onto the streets. Isn't that correct?

And Congressman, a federal detainer is federal law that people must abide by, yet these jurisdictions, many of these jurisdictions are not abiding by that.

And we hear a lot of talk from the other side about victims, about victims of violent crime, sex crimes, murders, whatever it may be. But I want to be very clear. Illegal aliens who have been arrested for committing some of the most heinous crimes, they have been released by sanctuary cities, by sanctuary states, rather than being turned over to the federal government for deportation. Isn't that correct?

It is, and it's sad for all Americans that any jurisdiction would do that. These are some of the most violent criminals I think we've all seen.

Yes. And despite their best efforts to obstruct you and the President in making us all safer, I just want to go through a quick list again of the accomplishments that you have been in part responsible for achieving. True or false, the country now has the lowest murder rate in 125 years?

Yes.

True or false, 62 major cities are now reporting rapid decline in murder rates?

Yes.

True or false, robberies are down nearly 20 percent over the last year?

Yes.

True or false, violent crime is down almost 15 percent over the past year?

Yes.

True or false, right here in Washington, D.C., violent crime is down almost 30 percent since President Trump took office?

Yes, and the number may be even better than that, but yes.

Good. True or false, the DEA has seized over 200,000 kilograms of cocaine since President Trump took office?

I believe so, and 78,500 kilos of meth and more than 260,000 kilos of cocaine.

Unbelievable. That's lives saved every day for all of us, for families, for children.

Absolutely.

And then true or false, the Department of Justice under your leadership has a 92 percent success rate at the Supreme Court?

I believe so, or ballpark.

Ballpark. And then true or false, this administration is attacking the waste, fraud, and abuse that we have seen in places like Minnesota that is removing billions of hard-earned tax dollars from this country?

Absolutely, and President Trump is committed to doing that in every city in this country.

And Madam Attorney General, just to be very brief here, I want to be sure that you know that many on this committee made very serious efforts to try to amend the Epstein petition, to give you the resources and the time to protect victims, to go through and to have the necessary runway to thoroughly go through that file. Unfortunately, those requests were met with refusal and we were unable to make the necessary amendments. But thank you for being here today.

Thank you.

The good gentleman yields back. We turn to the good lady from California, Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Attorney General, for being here today. I want to talk with you about an issue on which there is broad bipartisan agreement: the importance of ensuring trust between the American public and those government officials who wield powerful law enforcement responsibilities. So, Attorney General, would you agree that it is important for law enforcement leaders to be honest?

Of course, as well as members of Congress.

Thank you. And would you include yourself as a law enforcement leader?

Of course.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. You know, President Trump has also, well, he has referred to himself as the chief law enforcement officer of this country. So do you believe that President Trump is honest?

He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.

And do you believe that President Trump is honest?

And not only is he keeping this country safe, he is keeping this world safe.

Do you believe he is honest? It's a simple question, which you didn't answer.

Of course I do. He is the Commander-in-Chief.

Okay, thank you. Last June, Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark, and their dog were brutally murdered in their home. And your USA's office in Minnesota investigated this crime and obtained a six-count indictment of the murder suspect, stating that he had intent to kill, injure, harass, and intimidate Minnesota legislators. And I have the copy right here, I read through it. Yet a few weeks ago, President Trump suggested publicly that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was behind these murders, posting on his Truth Social account a video raising this conspiracy theory. And it wasn't true. And you know it wasn't true, or else you would not have brought an indictment against the subject. Do you know what else Trump has said? He has said he has cut gas prices by 1,400 percent. False. That he won the 2020 election. False. That he didn't know Epstein. False. That he sent water to L.A. during the wildfires. False. That Governor Wes Moore of Maryland called him the greatest president of his lifetime. False. So many tales, too many to keep up. But I want to go back to what he said about Tim Walz. Do you agree that President Trump undermined public trust in law enforcement by suggesting that Governor Walz was involved in the Hortman murders?

I am not familiar with that statement.

Well, that is a disappointing response. And it is also why your office and Donald Trump have zero credibility. Because I know, and you know, it was a right-wing extremist who murdered the Hortmans. And you and the President are being dishonest with the American people. Last fall, after the horrific shooting of Charlie Kirk, President Trump was asked if there were extremists on both the left and the right. And his exact words were, "I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right often times are radical because they don't want to see crime. The radicals on the left are the problem, and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy." Do you agree with this statement? You're taking too long, Madam Attorney General. But you know the answer, because your own department has addressed the question. In '24, the DOJ's research arm issued a report on domestic terrorism stating that the far number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violence extremist. The DOJ published the report, and after the President made those comments, the DOJ took the report down. And I sent you a letter asking you a simple question: why did the Justice Department remove the data that shows right-wing extremists have killed more innocent people than left-wing extremists?

Did you refer to immigration enforcement as domestic terrorism?

You should answer my question. You're on my time, but you won't. And what I am asking you to do is put the report back, restore the data. Stop scrubbing important data from your website. Stop taking down reports that you know the American people need to know about. There are violent, dangerous people out here with real threats. And the distrust from your agency comes from the covering up of these threats that could hurt American people and put our lives at risk. Do better. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

May I have one moment?

You may.

Her district includes Culver City, and she's not talking about any crime in her districts. Nothing about helping crime in her district. She's not even worth getting into the details.

Well, thank you, Madam Attorney General, and we are grateful to have you here today. And let me just say that you've shown great perseverance today. And I think you're coming to the last lap here of those of us that are left, but I applaud your strength and I applaud your resolve. Madam Attorney General, as a pastor for over 37 years now, I take serious issue with any attempts by agitators to disrupt church services or activities at houses of worship. And I just want to take a moment to clarify some things. I realize you can't talk about pending cases per se, but I do want to ask some very general questions for clarification. Does the DOJ consider unauthorized entry into a house of worship to be protected activity under the First Amendment when undertaken by a member of the press?

Unauthorized with the intent of disrupting, yes.

Okay. Even if it's a blogger like Don Lemon?

Correct.

How does the DOJ distinguish between newsgathering activity and expressive or protest conduct when a press defense is asserted?

Congressman, I met with the pastor of that church, and what happened there was horrific. Of course, the press is welcome in, I would hope, all houses of worship, whether it's a synagogue, whether it's a church, any house of worship. However, what happened here, it's a pending case again, but within the four corners of the indictment, they were, quote, "gearing up for a resistance." They entered a house of worship, and I think the video speaks for itself. What happened in there, what the video doesn't show, is there were approximately 400 parishioners in there on a Sunday morning. Families, grandparents with canes, children upstairs in a Sunday school who were, their parents were blocked from getting to them once this resistance took place. And they had named it Operation Pull Up. It was heartbreaking for those families. They were terrified. I think they've all said that. And nothing like that should happen in this country, and under my watch, it won't.

Thank you. And just to clarify, accosting members of a congregation and creating a scene marked by intimidation and threat inside a house of worship would not be protected First Amendment activity, correct?

Absolutely not, and a grand jury has indicted individuals over that.

Thank you. One other question, just shifting a little bit. You know, my home state of North Carolina has been making national headlines at times, particularly in the city of Charlotte. We've made pleas at times for our governor to get involved, bring in the National Guard. Our Fraternal Order of Police had pointed out that we were about 270 local cops below what we needed in order to adequately police the city. And yet the governor has declined to offer to partner with the federal government to bring in reinforcements to Charlotte. I want to give you just a few moments, really the balance of my time, to explain the impact that Memphis Safe Task Force has had on crime and safety in Memphis, because I know there was a place we saw that cooperation has tended to breed great results. And I would love to hear a little more about that.

Thank you. And I have numbers for you too. Well, and we're all right here in D.C., we're all living right here in D.C., and I think we've seen the remarkable impact that it has working with members of the Democrat Party on this, with law enforcement, with the mayor, with the police chief, doing everything we can to make D.C. safe. As of February 9, there were nearly 10,000 arrests, this is D.C., 1,000 illegal guns seized since the operation began, with carjackings down 81 percent from this time last year and violent crime down 42 percent. D.C. is safer because of it. We know we had a National Guardsman shot and we had a beautiful young woman killed. I went to her funeral and I keep in touch with the National Guardsman who was shot. He's doing great, he's a miracle. Please continue to pray for him. I know my time is up, but same results I spoke about earlier in Memphis, and we're still working on that with the help of Make Memphis Safe Again.

Well, again, I think it just draws an incredible contrast between what we've seen happening in Minneapolis versus what we've seen happening in D.C., what we saw happening in Memphis, and what I would love to see in some ways if we could ever get our governor to work with us in North Carolina to happen in Charlotte. But with that, I yield back. Thank you.

Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman is recognized.

Thank you. I seek unanimous consent to introduce into the record the research that Representative Kamlager-Dove and I referenced concerning the threat of right-wing domestic terrorism, which the Department of Justice scrubbed from its website in September.

Without objection. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And to be clear, I'm not going to ask any questions of this witness because this witness has revealed that she has no intentions of answering questions. But instead, I'm going to ask some very basic questions really quickly of my colleague, Becca Balint, if she will answer. Is it right or wrong raping children?

Wrong.

Right or wrong killing random citizens?

Definitely wrong.

Right or wrong enriching yourself as the sitting President of the United States?

Definitely wrong.

Okay, thank you, because I probably never would have gotten that with our witness. Our witness who somehow is a lawyer but does not understand how it works with witnesses. I'm not really sure what law school she went to and what all kind of cases she tried, but typically when you come into a space and somebody's a witness, then they sit there and they answer questions instead of asking questions. And then we also have this objection that we use as lawyers called non-responsive when a witness fails to actually answer the question. But nevertheless, let me address the survivors, because that's exactly who they are. They are not victims, they are survivors. Let me say thank you for having more courage and moral clarity in your pinky finger than the entire Department of Justice. We are currently the laughingstock of the world, partially because of the failed leadership within the DOJ as we see kings and queens falling everywhere around the world, but we don't know the basics of right and wrong in this country. Because it's not about partisanship, and that's why I applaud Thomas Massie, because he's the only person on the Republican side that has a backbone and knows how to stand up to corruption. But nevertheless, let me keep going. My Democratic colleagues have been attacked this entire committee hearing. They have been lied on, and frankly, the American people weren't looking for that. They were looking for answers about the corruption that they see coming from this administration. In the written testimony of this witness, she stated that when she took office, she had two main goals. The first was to end the weaponization of justice, and second, to return the department to its core mission. Not only have you lied about both, you've intentionally done the exact opposite. You're spending more taxpayer resources arresting journalists than you are prosecuting pedophiles and creeps. In fact, your boss, the President of the United States, stated that this administration, quote, "took the freedom of speech away." And at your direction, DOJ has arrested Don Lemon and Georgia Fort. And I might add that y'all actually had a judge that rejected y'all for trying to arrest Don Lemon before, just like the grand jury rejected y'all as it relates to Senator Kelly, just like a grand jury rejected y'all as it relates to Senator Slotkin, just like the case against Tish James was dismissed and the case against Mr. Comey was dismissed. I completely don't get how it is that you're sitting at the top of DOJ because you don't seem to be good at your job. You're spending more taxpayer resources arresting these journalists. In fact, we know after Georgia Fort and Don Lemon were arrested, we know that there were homes of journalists that were raided. We know that threatened prosecution against students protesting your actions and forced tech companies to remove apps used to track ICE's activities. But let's circle back to you protecting pedophiles and creeps. Because I want to talk about the President and his possible involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I don't know what the President might have done with Jeffrey Epstein, but unlike this administration, I believe the facts matter. So let's talk about the facts. Fact number one: Donald Trump is one of the most named people in the Epstein files. At least 5,000 files contains more than 38,000 references to Trump, his wife, or Mar-a-Lago. Fact number two: Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell made young girls available to Trump on multiple occasions. For example, according to this file, Ghislaine Maxwell presented a young girl to President Trump who spent more than 20 minutes apparently flirting with her. Here's another example. This shows notes from FBI investigators that describe Jeffrey Epstein transporting a victim to Mar-a-Lago to meet with President Trump, where he bragged to Trump that, quote, "this is a good one." Now, I'm not saying that the President is a pedophile, but there is a lot of evidence in these files that suggest that he's very close friends with a lot of men who are pedophiles. What's crazy about all of this is just that this is a big cover-up. And this administration is engaged in it. In fact, this administration is complicit. But there are numerous others, like how the DOJ is attempting to obstruct justice in the investigation of the rogue agents who have murdered American citizens, or how the DOJ seized voter data from Fulton County in an attempt to steal the 2026 midterm elections, or how federal agents have Tom Homan on tape accepting a bribe and your agency killed the investigation, or how your agency is ready to give the President a $230 million payday, which is unconstitutional. The Constitution is clear: the President shall not receive any payment except his salary while in office. The fact of the matter is that you will be remembered as one of the worst Attorneys General in history. An Attorney General who has prioritized obstruction over justice, corruption over the law, fealty to the President over loyalty to the Constitution. And Mr. Chairman, I will yield.

Gentlelady yields. Gentleman from Kansas, the Attorney General, former Attorney General, Mr. Schmidt, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General Bondi, thanks for being here. Did you have anything you wanted to say before we talk?

I do. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, my friend for many years. I find it interesting that she didn't even want to try, Congresswoman Crockett, to ask any questions because she certainly did not condemn her leader Hakeem Jeffries for taking money from Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein was convicted. And I will be brief to give you your time, Congressman. This is what she didn't want to talk about. Texas, from Cuba, convicted, homicide, arson, weapon offense. Convicted. So what are we talking about? Convict some of these perpetrators that rape these women that are sitting behind you that you refuse to even acknowledge that they are here.

Time belongs to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, could I have a few seconds back to make up for the yelling? Thank you. General, do you have anything further to say?

Texas, convicted of homicide. Cecil Joseph, from Dominican Republic. Texas, convicted for kidnapping, rape. Khalid Khan, from Afghanistan. That's why they want to talk about Epstein and not what's happening in their own states.

Thank you, General. And thank you for being here. And this has been quite a spectacle to observe today. I think it's sad. I ran for Congress because I thought we had serious problems in this country we wanted to try to fix together, and this performance today, not yours, General, but some of my colleagues, has not shored up my confidence that we are up to the task. You and I served together for eight years when you were Attorney General of Florida and I in Kansas. You served professionally. I'm glad to be able to serve with you in these new roles, and I'm glad you're there, both generally and today. Part of the reason I ran for Congress is because in my former role, I saw in the real world, in my state, the consequences of failed U.S. immigration and border security policy. And I'll spare you the lengthy recitation, but let me give you the short version. I sit here and think about a fellow who was running, I believe it was drugs for the cartels, and shot a police officer in Oklahoma, drove across the border into my state, kidnapped an old man, and then invaded a house and shot at cops before we ultimately neutralized him. He's in prison now for, I believe, the rest of his life. I'm thinking about a drunk driver who was in our country illegally, never should have been here, and one night killed a young deputy in Southern Johnson County, Kansas, who was making a traffic stop on another individual. Drunk driver ran into him, never should have been here, shouldn't have happened. Thinking about a guy who was deported repeatedly, came back and ultimately murdered, I believe it was four people in Kansas City, Kansas, and then fled to Missouri and killed a fifth guy. He died in prison. I'm thinking about a guy we prosecuted who wasn't supposed to be in this country, who raped a child in a little rural county up north on the Nebraska border, and we sent him to prison for, I believe, the rest of his life. Thinking about a guy who wasn't supposed to be here at all, who murdered, I think it was his wife or his domestic partner, in an act of domestic violence in Northwest Kansas. I'm thinking about another guy who was here and joined up with some folks who were citizens and committed a crime spree and then thought he might get caught, so he killed one of his accomplices, and we sent him to prison for the rest of his life. And that's just the ones I'm thinking about sitting right here. And you know what's common in all of those? They all committed violations of my state's law. They were caught by my state's law enforcement. They were prosecuted by my state's prosecutors. They are serving time in my state's prisons. And if and when they ever get out, the United States has said they need to be sent out of this country because of what they did. There's a list, you're holding up photos, General, there's a list on the Department of Homeland Security's website. It has about 280, 290 people like that in my state of Kansas. And you know what? We haven't made headlines like Minneapolis. We haven't made headlines like Memphis. We haven't made headlines like Los Angeles. And you know why? Because our cops are professionals and our politicians by law allow them to do their job and to work with federal agents for safe handoffs in order to do everything that's supposed to be done: justice under state law and the justice of deportation on the back end. So I want to do something that's been rare here today, General. I want to ask you about public policy. Donald Trump won't be President forever. I would like to lock in some of these gains we have made in public safety. Should we be exploring the idea, for example, of beefing up 287(g) partnerships or maybe replicating that so that state prosecutors can work more closely with federal prosecutors to get deportation orders as well as state convictions?

Absolutely.

In terms of sanctuary jurisdictions, when a sanctuary jurisdiction says as a matter of politics, "Go pound sand" to the feds, "We won't honor your detainer," so they release those people I'm talking about into their communities, and those people commit another crime of property or violence against citizens, should those citizens have some type of civil redress against the jurisdiction that as a matter of public policy turned those people loose who created the new victims?

Yeah, and Congressman, it's risking the lives of all of the citizens of that jurisdiction.

And you've been sued a lot, or the administration has, by folks who don't like your policies.

Hundreds of times.

You've won many of those.

Yes.

Isn't it the case that the law says under Rule 65 that when you win those and there's a wrongfully entered injunction that there's supposed to be a monetary remedy, so there's a cost?

Yes.

And didn't the President direct you and other agency heads to start seeking bonds in those cases?

Yes.

And should we beef up the law in that area by codifying that requirement going forward?

I would love to discuss that with you.

Thank you, General. Thank you for being here.

Gentleman yields back. Well done. Some of the questions he raised we plan on taking up in a markup in a couple weeks on the whole sanctuary jurisdiction issue. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Texas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Attorney General, for taking the time to speak with us. We certainly really appreciate it. I've got a series of questions for you that we can get through pretty quickly, I think. Can you tell me, is it true that the Biden-Harris DOJ raided President Trump's home?

They did.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ allow Jack Smith to spy on over a dozen Republican members of Congress?

Absolutely.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ seize the phone of a sitting Republican Congressman?

Yes.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ and Jack Smith pay at least $20,000 to confidential human sources to provide information on President Trump?

At least.

At least. Did the Biden-Harris DOJ and FBI fail to apprehend the suspect who placed pipe bombs near the Capitol ahead of January 6?

Yes.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ target parents as domestic terrorists?

Absolutely.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ target pro-life Catholics, going so far as to interview a priest and a choir director?

Yes.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ send in FBI SWAT teams to arrest pro-life advocates with no criminal histories?

Yes.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ use the FACE Act to target pro-life advocates while it allowed anti-life agitators to vandalize, destroy, and firebomb pregnancy resource centers and churches?

Multiple times, I believe.

Multiple times. Did the Biden-Harris DOJ ever determine who leaked the Dobbs decision?

I can't discuss that. No, under Biden-Harris, no.

Got it. Did the Biden-Harris DOJ and FBI target whistleblowers for revealing waste, fraud, and abuse within the department to Congress?

Not to my knowledge.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ refuse to say whether it coordinated with Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Letitia James in their lawfare against President Trump?

They refused.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ slow-walk the criminal investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden?

That's an understatement in my opinion.

Yep. Did the Biden-Harris DOJ determine who brought cocaine into the Biden White House?

They did not.

They did not. Did the Biden-Harris DOJ cover up the extent of the Russia collusion hoax?

Absolutely, in my opinion, yes.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ seek leniency from a federal court for an IRS contractor who leaked sensitive tax information on over 7,600 Americans, including President Trump?

Yes.

Did the Biden-Harris DOJ sue Texas because the state wanted to secure its own southern border?

Yes.

And finally, did the Biden-Harris DOJ attack SpaceX for hiring too many Americans?

I believe they did.

Unbelievable. It is unbelievable, and I appreciate that a lot of this is being cleaned up under your leadership. So thank you for returning the DOJ back to its core focus, which is on the rule of law. And I think that we see the results of that. I've got a few more similar questions for you. How have over the past year since President Trump has been in office...