🏛️ Massie Breaks With Bondi: GOP Lawmaker Says He’s Lost Confidence in Attorney General After Epstein Files Clash

Combative House Judiciary hearing over redactions, prosecutorial decisions, and the Epstein Files Transparency Act intensifies scrutiny of DOJ leadership

A public rift between Attorney General Pam Bondi and Rep. Thomas Massie burst into view this weekend, underscoring mounting tensions inside the Republican Party over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Massie, a Kentucky Republican known for his independent streak, said Sunday he no longer has confidence in Bondi following a combative House Judiciary Committee hearing in which lawmakers pressed her over redactions and prosecutorial decisions tied to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

“I don’t think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi,” Massie said during an appearance on ABC’s This Week. “She wasn’t confident enough to engage in anything but name-calling in a hearing. And so no, I don’t have confidence in her.”

The exchange signals an unusual intraparty fissure, as Republicans clash publicly over transparency, accountability, and the legal boundaries of executive authority.

The Epstein Files Transparency Fight

At the center of the dispute is the Epstein Files Transparency Act — legislation co-led by Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that mandates broader disclosure of Justice Department records tied to Epstein’s investigations and prosecutorial decisions.

Bondi recently submitted a legally required report to Congress outlining redactions made in the department’s release of millions of documents. In her letter, she cited “deliberative-process privilege,” a common-law doctrine that allows the federal government to withhold materials revealing internal policy discussions.

Massie argues that justification conflicts with the transparency law's statutory requirements.

“The bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute,” Massie said, contending that lawmakers need visibility into how certain charging decisions were made.

The debate has revived long-running questions surrounding Epstein’s 2008 plea deal in Florida and subsequent investigative decisions, including scrutiny of individuals whose names appeared in FBI materials.

Leslie Wexner and Charging Decisions

One flashpoint involves billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner, a former Epstein associate whose name appears in investigative records. Wexner has long maintained that he severed ties with Epstein decades ago after discovering financial misconduct.

A legal representative for Wexner previously stated that he was treated as a source of information in 2019 and was “not a target in any respect.”

Massie has questioned why prosecutorial decisions unfolded as they did and has called for full transparency regarding internal deliberations.

Bondi, during the hearing, declined to provide detailed answers on specific charging rationales, instead defending the department’s adherence to legal standards and privacy protections.

Tone and Trust

The hearing itself grew heated. Bondi traded sharp words with lawmakers, dismissing certain criticisms as politically motivated. At one point, she declined to respond to calls from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to address victims present in the hearing room, saying she would not engage in “theatrics.”

For Massie, the tone of the exchange compounded substantive concerns.

“These survivors would love to have a meeting,” he said. “It’s not about Bill Clinton, and it’s not about Donald Trump. This Epstein Files Transparency Act was about getting these survivors justice.”

The Attorney General has maintained that the Justice Department must balance transparency with legal safeguards, victim privacy, and prosecutorial integrity.

Political and Institutional Stakes

The dispute comes at a moment when trust in federal law enforcement remains fragile. Both parties have accused prior administrations of politicizing the Justice Department. Now, disagreements over the Epstein files risk reopening those wounds.

For President Donald Trump, Bondi’s stewardship of the DOJ carries symbolic and strategic weight. For Massie, the issue appears framed less as partisan combat and more as legislative oversight.

The confrontation illustrates a broader dynamic: as Congress pushes for transparency into past investigations, executive branch officials assert legal privilege and institutional discretion.

Whether Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files ultimately strengthens or weakens public confidence in the department may depend less on rhetoric and more on documentation — what is released, what remains redacted, and why.

For now, one of the Attorney General’s most pointed critics is a member of her own party.

And in Washington, intraparty dissent often signals deeper institutional unease.

======

-- By James A. Wright

© 2026 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.